Demands for a tougher U.S. stance on Iran’s nuclear program are reaching a fever pitch after Defense Reporter Wallace White revealed major developments involving top American and Iranian officials. President Donald Trump, U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and Iran’s regime are now at the center of a deal that’s rattling Washington’s foreign policy hawks.
According to The Daily Caller, the Biden-era ban on uranium enrichment in Iran is on the chopping block. Instead, a new proposal would reportedly permit Iran to enrich civilian-grade uranium under international oversight—a move that critics say is a dangerous gamble with global security.
Sources told the outlet that on Saturday, Witkoff floated a deal to Iranian officials: Iran could enrich uranium up to 3% purity at above-ground sites but with strict International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision. In exchange, Iran would gain relief from some U.S. sanctions—but only if it proves it is following American and IAEA guidelines.
Iran’s nuclear program has been a source of global tension for decades, with the regime repeatedly accused of hiding the extent of its uranium enrichment. According to confidential IAEA reports cited by Reuters, Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched to 60%—dangerously close to weapons-grade—now stands at over 400 kilograms. Experts warn that with such reserves, Tehran could theoretically build a nuclear weapon in as little as three weeks.
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), brokered during the Obama administration, restricted Iran to civilian-level enrichment and allowed for IAEA inspections. Conservatives, however, have long blasted the JCPOA as a toothless deal, pointing to its expiration clauses and Iran’s history of deception as fatal flaws. Many advocates on the right have pushed for a “Libyan model” approach, in which Iran would have to surrender all enrichment capability in exchange for sanctions relief.
But Iran’s leaders have consistently rejected such proposals, viewing their nuclear program as a matter of national pride and security. Recent revelations that Iran had under-reported its enrichment activities at three separate sites in the early 2000s have only intensified suspicions in the West.
Trump administration figures and conservative lawmakers are voicing outrage over the reported concession. They argue that the deal would embolden Iran, undermine America’s allies in the Middle East, and potentially trigger a regional arms race. Former Trump officials have repeatedly insisted that no deal with Iran should allow for any domestic uranium enrichment, warning that such a move would open the door to nuclear weapons development.
On Monday, both the State Department and the White House declined to comment on the specifics of the ongoing negotiations. Instead, they referred all questions to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who reiterated President Trump’s longstanding red line:
President Trump has made it clear that Iran can never obtain a nuclear bomb. Special Envoy Witkoff has sent a detailed and acceptable proposal to the Iranian regime, and it’s in their best interest to accept it. Out of respect for the ongoing deal, the Administration will not comment on details of the proposal to the media.
Opponents of the new approach warn that loosening restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program could backfire. Some national security experts caution that reducing American leverage now may only embolden hardliners in Tehran, making it harder to prevent weaponization in the future.
Proponents of a tougher line against Iran argue that only a zero-enrichment standard—like those followed by many U.S. allies with nuclear power programs—can guarantee global security. They note that most nations with peaceful nuclear energy import their enriched uranium rather than producing it domestically, precisely to prevent the risk of weapons proliferation.
Meanwhile, foreign policy realists and some defense analysts argue that demanding zero enrichment is unrealistic and could push the U.S. into a costly confrontation. Justin Logan of the CATO Institute previously warned that such demands might leave America with only two choices: “If you say our goal is to get zero enrichment in Iran, then you’re either going to let Iran get nuclear weapons or you’re going to go to war with Iran, or both.”
Iranian officials have yet to respond publicly to the reported offer. However, the regime’s public displays of military hardware and nuclear achievements suggest that any agreement will be closely scrutinized at home for signs of capitulation or weakness.
The stakes are high not just for Washington and Tehran, but also for Israel and other U.S. allies confronting Iran’s growing power in the region. Israel has repeatedly threatened to take preemptive action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, should diplomacy fail. Any change in the U.S. position could force a dramatic shift in regional security calculations.
Sanctions relief remains a critical bargaining chip. Iran’s battered economy is desperate for a break from years of economic pressure, but U.S. officials insist that any relief will only come if Iran demonstrates “real commitment” to following international rules.
As negotiations continue, conservative critics warn the administration not to repeat what they see as the mistakes of the past. The coming weeks could determine whether the U.S. can secure meaningful restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program—or whether the world will be forced to confront a new and more dangerous nuclear reality.
