SAEDNEWS: Amid heightened regional tensions following the 101-day closure of the Strait of Hormuz, secret talks between the Trump administration and Iran have reportedly advanced. Discussions center on a 15-year nuclear freeze, uranium dilution, and surprise inspections, though key disputes still cloud the chances of a final deal.
According to Saed News political desk, a report by David E. Sanger in The New York Times suggests that diplomacy between Tehran and Washington is in a contradictory state. On one hand, military strikes and tensions in the Persian Gulf have placed the ceasefire under serious threat. On the other hand, negotiators are reportedly advancing a framework for a nuclear agreement that, compared with the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), would represent a “significant improvement” on paper.
(This interpretation reflects the New York Times report. It remains unclear how much of the reported information reflects actual developments and how much may represent U.S. psychological pressure aimed at gaining leverage in negotiations or prolonging talks while preparing for another possible military confrontation.)
One of the report’s major revelations is the visit by Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law, and Steve Witkoff, the U.S. president’s special envoy, to the highly classified Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. The purpose of the visit was reportedly to examine the equipment and expertise required to dilute Iran’s 11-ton stockpile of enriched uranium.
The visit suggests that U.S. negotiators are seriously planning for the technical management of Iran’s uranium inventory while avoiding its removal from Iranian territory—an issue that has long been one of the most difficult diplomatic obstacles between the two countries.
According to the report, negotiations are centered on four key elements:
1. Fifteen-Year Suspension of Uranium Enrichment
While the United States initially demanded a 20-year halt to enrichment activities, both sides are now expected to settle on a 15-year suspension.
2. Dilution Instead of Removal
Washington has reportedly accepted that Iran’s enriched uranium would be diluted inside the country rather than shipped abroad, allowing Tehran to maintain ownership of the nuclear fuel.
3. Dismantling Nuclear Facilities
The proposal would involve dismantling the nuclear sites at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, despite the damage they have already suffered. One facility may remain operational to symbolically preserve Iran’s claimed “right to enrich uranium.”
4. Surprise Inspections
International inspectors would be granted access “anytime, anywhere” in Iran, a provision that remains one of the most controversial and challenging issues for the Iranian side.
The New York Times reports that Mohsen Rezaei, a military adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader, argued that releasing $25 billion in frozen Iranian assets is not merely an economic transaction but a “test of trust.”
American negotiators, however, insist that these funds should be released in stages and tied to Iran’s compliance with the agreement, particularly regarding the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
According to Saad News’ analysis, the report highlights two important realities.
First, the United States appears to have concluded that its “maximum pressure” strategy aimed at forcing Iran to remove enriched uranium from its territory has failed. Washington is therefore exploring alternative solutions, including on-site dilution.
Second, contrary to the perception that negotiations consist mainly of exchanging messages, the Trump team—particularly Witkoff and Kushner—has reportedly begun involving nuclear experts and laboratory specialists to prepare the practical infrastructure needed to implement an agreement.
The report also underscores the vulnerability of diplomacy to military developments. It notes that Donald Trump personally contacted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in an effort to prevent further strikes against Tehran.
According to the report, Washington fears that Israeli military actions could undermine the diplomatic efforts of Trump’s negotiating team. The situation resembles a complex chess match: Iran is using its military capabilities and leverage over the Strait of Hormuz to gain concessions, while the Trump team is employing a combination of threats and incentives—particularly the release of frozen assets—to persuade Tehran to accept a 15-year agreement.
Ultimately, the outcome may depend on whether economic interests carry greater weight in Iran’s calculations than the revolutionary ideology that has long viewed resistance to the United States as a fundamental principle.
Despite the fragility of the ceasefire, negotiations have progressed far enough to outline potential solutions to some of the most difficult issues surrounding Iran’s nuclear program.
In the days leading up to the latest escalation in the Middle East, Trump administration officials were reportedly negotiating with Tehran on four principal elements of a nuclear agreement that U.S. officials believe could effectively freeze Iran’s nuclear program for approximately 15 years.
According to U.S. officials and diplomats familiar with the talks, discussions have moved far beyond the issue of reopening the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran had effectively closed for 101 days.
The emerging framework remains tentative and depends on whether Iran’s hardline political factions and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps allow Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s chief negotiator, to continue pursuing the negotiations.
Key elements under discussion include:
A long-term suspension of uranium enrichment.
Dilution of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile under international supervision.
Dismantling major nuclear facilities while potentially leaving one symbolic enrichment site operational.
Acceptance of surprise international inspections.
American officials argue that these provisions would represent a stronger arrangement than certain aspects of the 2015 nuclear deal.
However, implementation would require extensive Iranian cooperation, including granting inspectors access to suspected sites and allowing international oversight of uranium stockpiles.
Negotiations remain highly vulnerable to military developments. Recent exchanges of fire between Iran and Israel and claims regarding attacks involving U.S. military assets have further complicated the diplomatic environment.
Nevertheless, the recent visit by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to Oak Ridge National Laboratory indicates that U.S. officials are already considering how to handle Iran’s uranium stockpile if an agreement is ultimately reached.
The talks have progressed more slowly than Trump had hoped. Although administration officials have repeatedly suggested that an agreement was close, regional violence, disagreements over frozen assets, and new demands introduced by Washington have repeatedly delayed progress.
As with the Obama-era negotiations, the Trump proposal appears to be based on the assumption that economic incentives—including the release of frozen assets and expanded oil exports—could outweigh ideological resistance within Iran. Yet many Iranian military and political figures continue to view opposition to the United States as central to the identity of the Islamic Republic.
Whether the current negotiations can survive renewed military confrontations remains uncertain. Some White House officials remain optimistic that the recent violence will prove temporary and that detailed technical negotiations could begin in Switzerland by mid-June.
At the same time, hardliners within the United States argue that previous military pressure has reinforced the belief among elements of the Revolutionary Guard that Iran’s security ultimately depends on maintaining a latent nuclear weapons capability.
For now, the future of the negotiations remains uncertain, balancing between diplomatic opportunity and the risk of renewed conflict.
