The future of Iran's highly enriched uranium stockpile has emerged as one of the most critical and technically challenging issues in ongoing diplomatic efforts between Tehran and Washington. According to Rafael Grossi, while transferring the material outside Iran would be a highly complex undertaking, it remains technically feasible and continues to be one of several options being discussed as part of broader efforts to address concerns surrounding Iran's nuclear programme.
Speaking in an interview with Al Jazeera, Grossi explained that moving Iran's stockpile would present significant logistical and technical challenges because the enriched uranium is currently stored in a gaseous form. Unlike conventional solid materials, uranium hexafluoride gas used in enrichment processes requires specialised containment systems, strict safety protocols, and carefully coordinated transportation procedures.
Despite these difficulties, Grossi emphasised that such an operation should not be viewed as impossible. According to the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the technical obstacles can be overcome if sufficient political agreement and international cooperation are achieved.
Iran is believed to possess approximately 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to around 60 per cent purity, a level significantly higher than that typically required for civilian nuclear power generation. While 60 per cent enrichment remains below weapons-grade levels, international observers have long viewed such stockpiles as a major concern because they substantially reduce the additional enrichment required to reach weapons-grade purity.
Grossi noted that transporting the material would require dealing with highly sensitive and potentially hazardous substances. Because the uranium exists in gaseous form, the process involves specialised equipment and careful handling to prevent contamination and ensure safety throughout the transfer.
However, removing the material from Iran is not the only option under consideration. Grossi explained that negotiators and technical experts have also discussed the possibility of "downblending" the enriched uranium. This process would involve mixing the highly enriched material with lower-enriched uranium or other substances to reduce its concentration and make it less suitable for potential weapons use.
Downblending has been used in previous nuclear agreements as a way to reduce proliferation concerns while allowing countries to retain material for peaceful civilian purposes. Supporters of the approach argue that it could provide a compromise between complete removal and unrestricted retention of enriched uranium stockpiles.
Grossi indicated that both transfer and downblending remain part of broader discussions surrounding Iran's nuclear programme. He stressed that the IAEA is not directly participating in the political negotiations currently taking place between Iran and the United States. Instead, the agency's role is to provide technical expertise, verification capabilities, and practical solutions that could support any agreement reached by the two governments.
According to Grossi, the IAEA has maintained separate lines of communication with both Tehran and Washington. While the agency is not negotiating on behalf of either side, it continues to work with officials to ensure that any future arrangement can be implemented in a technically sound and verifiable manner.
The remarks come as US President Donald Trump continues to press for stricter measures regarding Iran's enriched uranium stockpile. Trump recently renewed calls for Iran to relinquish the material entirely, describing it as "nuclear dust" and arguing that it should either be removed from the country or destroyed under international supervision.
In comments posted on Truth Social, Trump proposed several possible approaches for dealing with the stockpile. He suggested that the enriched uranium could be transferred to the United States for destruction, eliminated inside Iran through a jointly supervised process, or disposed of at another mutually acceptable location.
The President's comments reflect Washington's broader objective of limiting Iran's ability to maintain large quantities of highly enriched uranium while seeking assurances that Tehran's nuclear activities remain exclusively peaceful.
Trump has also linked nuclear diplomacy to a wider vision for regional stability. He has repeatedly spoken about expanding the framework of the Abraham Accords and has suggested that future diplomatic arrangements could eventually include Iran as part of a broader effort to reduce tensions across the Middle East.
However, Iran has consistently rejected demands that would require it to abandon uranium enrichment altogether. Iranian officials argue that enrichment activities are permitted under international law and represent a legitimate component of the country's civilian nuclear programme.
Among those reiterating that position was Mohammad Fathali, who emphasised that Iran views uranium enrichment as a sovereign right protected under international agreements.
Fathali stated that Iran has repeatedly made clear that it will not relinquish what it considers the legal and legitimate rights of the Iranian people. He pointed specifically to provisions contained within the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which recognise the right of member states to pursue peaceful nuclear technology under appropriate safeguards.
According to the Iranian ambassador, Tehran's position remains unchanged despite ongoing diplomatic contacts with Washington. He argued that the right to peaceful nuclear energy is explicitly recognised under the NPT and therefore cannot simply be surrendered as part of political negotiations.
Fathali also indicated that uranium enrichment itself is not currently a subject of direct negotiation in the ongoing talks. His comments suggest that while Iran may be willing to discuss certain aspects of its nuclear programme, it continues to draw a firm distinction between limitations on enrichment levels and the principle of maintaining an enrichment capability.
The differing positions illustrate one of the most difficult challenges facing diplomats attempting to secure a broader agreement between Iran and the United States.
For Washington, reducing or eliminating Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium is seen as a crucial step toward preventing nuclear proliferation and increasing regional security. For Tehran, retaining the right to enrich uranium is viewed as a matter of sovereignty, national pride, and legal entitlement under international law.
As negotiations continue, international mediators and technical experts are exploring various compromise solutions that could address the concerns of both sides. Options such as transferring uranium abroad, storing it under enhanced monitoring arrangements, converting it into forms less suitable for further enrichment, or downblending it to lower purity levels are all being examined.
Whether any of these proposals can bridge the gap between the two governments remains uncertain. However, Grossi's remarks underline a key reality: while the technical challenges associated with managing Iran's enriched uranium stockpile are substantial, they are not insurmountable. The larger obstacle may ultimately be achieving the political agreement necessary to implement whichever solution is chosen.
As diplomatic contacts continue and both sides signal an interest in keeping negotiations alive, the fate of Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is likely to remain one of the central issues determining whether a broader understanding between Tehran and Washington can eventually be reached.
