16JUN

The nuclear core is left for later

3 min read

10:20UTC

Araghchi said nuclear issues would not be addressed in the initial document, deferring them to a 60-day window, while Trump and Washington described the uranium's fate two different ways.

← Back to Iran deal signed, but no paper to show Jump to analysis ↓

ConflictDeveloping

Key takeaway

The deal defers the nuclear question, and the US and Iran still disagree on what happens to the uranium.

Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said "nuclear issues will not be addressed" in the initial memorandum, announced on 14 June 2026, deferring them to a 60-day window in which Iranian state media says Tehran will "negotiate to retain uranium enrichment capabilities." ¹ The memorandum does not settle the nuclear question; it postpones it. Deputy foreign minister Kazem Gharibabadi, one of Iran's lead nuclear negotiators, said the text "does not signify trust in the enemy and was drafted in an atmosphere of continued distrust." ²

Donald Trump's framing pulls against the terms reported a day earlier. On 13 June Washington had dropped its demand to ship Iran's uranium abroad and accepted dilution inside Iran , meeting the red line Araghchi had set the same day . Then Trump told the Wall Street Journal he felt "no urgency" on the material: "At the appropriate time, when all is calm, we will go in and get the Nuclear Dust." ³ Extraction and dilution-in-place are not the same plan, and both cannot be the end-state.

The stockpile underneath both versions is the same 440.9 kg of 60%-enriched uranium the IAEA, the UN nuclear watchdog, logged before the war and has been unable to locate since inspector access stopped on 28 February 2026. ⁴ The agency declared loss of continuity on that material after 97 days without access . At 60% enrichment, two technical steps short of weapons grade, it is the single most dangerous item in the war, which is why the file the memorandum leaves for later is the one that matters most. Araghchi pledged to protect the material as talks advanced , but with no inspectors on the ground that pledge cannot be checked.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Iran has a stockpile of uranium enriched to 60 per cent purity. Weapons-grade uranium sits at around 90 per cent; 60 per cent is two technical steps short of that. Before the war, the IAEA (the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog) logged 440.9 kilograms of this material. Since inspectors lost access on 28 February 2026, nobody knows exactly where it is or how much has changed. The MOU announced on 14 June does not address this stockpile at all. Instead, it opens a 60-day negotiating window for 'nuclear issues'. The problem is that the two sides already disagree about what the answer will be: Iran says it will dilute the uranium inside Iran to make it less dangerous; Trump told the Wall Street Journal the US will eventually 'go in and get the Nuclear Dust'. Diluting 440.9 kg of uranium inside Iran leaves the material in Iranian hands; extracting it removes Iranian control entirely. The 60 days begins with Washington publicly committed to both at once.

Deep Analysis

Root Causes

The nuclear deferral results from a direct contradiction between the two tracks inside the US negotiating position.

The State Department track accepted dilution-in-place to meet Araghchi's red line , which he stated publicly on 13 June: the only acceptable approach is diluting the material inside Iranian territory. That concession was the key to unlocking the MOU structure.

Trump's personal track, expressed to the Wall Street Journal, asserts extraction ('we will go in and get the Nuclear Dust'). These two tracks are not reconcilable: dilution inside Iran means the material stays in Iran; extraction means it leaves. Gharibabadi's 'atmosphere of continued distrust' formulation reflects awareness of this internal US contradiction.

The 60-day deferral is therefore not a diplomatic solution but a postponement of a decision the US negotiating team has not internally resolved. The Phase 2 nuclear round opens with both sides having publicly committed to incompatible outcomes.

What could happen next?

Risk
Without IAEA inspectors on the ground during the 60-day window, Iran can move or modify the HEU stockpile before any verification baseline can be established for Phase 2.
Immediate · Assessed
Consequence
Trump's WSJ 'Nuclear Dust' statement has given Iran's hardliners evidence that the US extraction demand survives inside the administration, weakening Araghchi's argument to domestic critics that dilution-in-place is secured.
Short term · Assessed
Risk
A 60-day deferral without an agreed verification framework creates the same structural flaw as the 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea: time and physical control accrue to the party holding the material.
Medium term · Assessed

Source Landscape

This story draws on mixed-leaning sources from United States

United States

Primary parallel: The 1994 US-North Korea Agreed Framework deferred North Korea's nuclear programme under a freeze-for-oil arrangement, with verification mechanisms that never established a credible inventory of existing materials.

North Korea continued enrichment in secret during the deferral period. The structural parallel: both arrangements defer the hardest verification question to a later phase, during which the party with nuclear material retains physical possession and can move or modify the stockpile.

Counter-parallel: The 2003 Libya disarmament agreement succeeded because Muammar Gaddafi transferred nuclear materials to the United States within weeks of the verbal agreement; physical extraction eliminated the verification gap. The Libya model is what Trump's WSJ statement describes ('we will go in and get the Nuclear Dust'), but it is the opposite of what the reported dilution-in-place concession accepted.

Consensus view: The Arms Control Association's Kelsey Davenport and the Institute for Science and International Security assess that a 60-day nuclear deferral with no inspectors on the ground and no baseline inventory creates a verification gap that makes any subsequent Phase 2 negotiation almost impossible to anchor.

The 440.9 kg of 60%-enriched uranium logged by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) before February 2026 cannot serve as a baseline for a dilution-in-place agreement because its current location and quantity are unverified. The IAEA Board resolution GOV/2026/40 of 10 June added a further legal complication: Iran called it 'dangerous whitewashing'; allowing inspectors back in to verify dilution now carries a political cost Tehran will price into Phase 2.

Counter-view: The Iranian academic Hassan Ahmadian at the University of Tehran argues that deferral is Tehran's strongest card, not a concession. Sixty days allows Iran to negotiate under sanctions-relief pressure, with Hormuz partially reopened, rather than under bombardment. From Tehran's vantage, the MOU secures the ceasefire first and defers the hard nuclear question to a context where Iran's leverage has partially recovered.

Key tension: Whether the US and Iran can agree a verification baseline for dilution-in-place without IAEA inspectors physically present in Iran during the 60-day window, given that Gharibabadi confirmed the text 'was drafted in an atmosphere of continued distrust'.

First Reported In

Update #128 · Trump declares Iran war over

CBS News· 15 Jun 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

Caused by

US drops its uranium ship-out demand

Washington's reported acceptance of dilution-in-place on 14 June directly contradicts Trump's WSJ nuclear extraction framing in the same 24 hours.

Occurred 14 Jun 2026

Read story →

Grossi warns Iran on hidden transfers

Araghchi's 13 June pledge to protect nuclear material as talks advanced is the FM-track commitment now deferred into the 60-day window.

Occurred 13 Jun 2026

Read story →

IAEA loses track of Iran's uranium

The IAEA Board's loss-of-continuity declaration on the 440.9 kg HEU after 97 days without access is the baseline verification failure the 60-day nuclear deferral inherits.

Occurred 4 Jun 2026

Read story →

This Event

The nuclear core is left for later

The deal postpones its hardest term, leaving 440.9 kg of near-weapons-grade uranium unverified and described differently by each leader 60 days before a signature that has not happened.

Led to

Inspectors promised, no date, 240kg lost

The 60-day nuclear deferral in the MOU is the agreement under which Vance's 15 June IAEA-return claim sits, with no date attached.

Occurred 15 Jun 2026

Read story →

Different Perspectives

G7 Leaders (ex-US)

Kananaskis ended without a joint communique for the first time in the body's history; Macron credited G7 pressure with speeding the ceasefire while Trump publicly denied the summit played any role. The split between US and European G7 partners over what the memorandum means for sanctions relief was the direct cause of the text failure.

Protection-and-Indemnity insurers

London-based P&I mutual clubs declined to underwrite Hormuz crossings while the IRGC Strait Authority remained operational, making the passage commercially impassable regardless of the memorandum's terms. Shipping operators said they would wait weeks for on-water conditions to change before routing tankers through.

IRGC Persian Gulf Strait Authority

P&I mutual insurers declined to underwrite Hormuz crossings on 15-16 June while the IRGC's Strait Authority remained in operation, reducing actual transits to two vessels against a pre-war daily rate of 94. The corps' revenue-generating toll mechanism, created 5 May and collecting $1.5-2 million per VLCC in crypto, has not been stood down and cannot be dissolved by Ghalibaf's signature.

Israeli Cabinet

Netanyahu admitted he had not seen the memorandum's text but confirmed IDF forces would stay in southern Lebanon; Finance Minister Smotrich called for ten Beirut buildings destroyed per Hezbollah drone and National Security Minister Ben-Gvir said the agreement 'does not bind us in any way'. Israel signed nothing in Islamabad and is the central unresolved variable in the Lebanon clause.

Iranian Majlis hardliners

Around 60 MPs signed a letter demanding Ghalibaf explain the memorandum; Paydari faction MP Sabeti said the deal violates the Supreme Leader's red lines, and MP Aboutorabi argued the document carries binding obligations 'that cannot be resolved by simply changing the name'. President Pezeshkian defended the negotiators against accusations of betrayal, confirming the fracture inside Iran's political class.

US Vice President JD Vance

Vance signed on 15 June and said the memorandum was 'not conditioned on Israel withdrawing from Lebanon' while also saying it 'envisioned a ceasefire that covers both Iran and Lebanon'. The two formulations are incompatible and hand Iran's foreign minister a ready-made violation claim before Geneva.