13MAY

Putin blames Washington for killing uranium deal

4 min read

20:00UTC

Putin told a Moscow press conference that Russia's uranium-custody offer for Iran still stands and that Washington, not Tehran, killed the arrangement by demanding US-territory storage.

← Back to 800 drones, three ceasefires, one cliff Jump to analysis ↓

ConflictDeveloping

Key takeaway

Putin said Washington killed the Russian uranium custody deal and the verification void leaves the claim untestable.

Vladimir Putin told a press conference in Moscow on 9-10 May 2026 that Russia's offer to take custody of Iran's enriched uranium "still stands" ¹. Putin's procedural claim is the new material in his 9-10 May remarks. Putin said "initially everyone agreed" the uranium would go to Russia, and that "the United States hardened its position and demanded that the uranium be transported exclusively to US territory", at which point Iran hardened its own position. Tehran has not corroborated. Washington has not commented. The line was carried by Moscow Times, Eastern Herald, Dawn.com and Pravda USA, all second-tier outlets with Putin as the sole named source.

The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear-inspections body) has had no on-site access in Iran since the 11 April Majlis 221-0 cooperation suspension, which means no third party can audit Putin's account in real time. GOV/2026/8, dated 27 February 2026, remains the most recent Board of Governors report Vienna has issued. Rafael Grossi, the IAEA Director-General, told the AP on 29 April that 18 containers of approximately 200 kg of 60%-enriched uranium had entered the Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility tunnel on 9 June 2025, four days before Israel's first strikes . That tunnel record is the last inspector-grade observation anyone has on the stockpile a Russian custody arrangement would notionally cover.

Putin is invoking a real precedent. Russia transported Iranian-enriched uranium under JCPOA Annex I procedures in 2015, with US, Russian and IAEA sign-off. The collapse he describes here merges three negotiation rounds into one procedural sequence: 2015, the 2024 "Anchorage" talks, and the 2026 MOU window. Even if true in part, the conflation simplifies a more textured record, and the verification void means no third party can audit it. Yuan-only PGSA tolls at up to $2m per ship sit beside the uranium claim as another off-dollar instrument running outside Western reach, which is the broader pattern Moscow is trading on.

For non-aligned audiences, the framing reframes the standard Western position that "Iran will not surrender its uranium". Washington's silence is itself a data point, and Russia gains a costless diplomatic surface ahead of any Trump-Xi or Trump-Putin window. A custody arrangement for material no inspector has counted in 14 months remains a paper offer, regardless of which side Putin places the blame on.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Iran has about 200 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% purity, the stuff that could, with further enrichment, be used to make a nuclear weapon. One potential solution to the crisis has been for Iran to hand this uranium over to Russia for safekeeping, rather than the US. Putin claimed at a press conference that originally everyone, including the US, agreed Russia would hold the uranium, but then Washington changed its mind and demanded the uranium go to the US instead, which made Iran dig in. Putin alone has gone on record with this sequence; Tehran has not corroborated and Washington has not commented. Neither Iran nor the US has confirmed his account. And the UN nuclear watchdog (the IAEA) has been blocked from entering Iran's nuclear sites since April, so no independent body can verify what's actually in those sites or what was agreed. The claim matters primarily because it gives non-Western countries a ready-made narrative that blames the US for blocking a deal.

Deep Analysis

Root Causes

Putin's claim operates at the intersection of three structural conditions, each of which amplifies the narrative impact independent of its factual accuracy.

First, the IAEA has been locked out of Iranian nuclear facilities since the Majlis 221-0 vote of 11 April 2026. No independent body can verify Putin's account, Iran's silence, or Washington's non-comment. The verification void that makes the uranium custody dispute central to the MOU also makes Putin's counter-narrative about that dispute structurally unverifiable.

Second, Putin's claim appeared in second-tier outlets (Moscow Times, Eastern Herald) rather than the Kremlin's primary English-language channels. This distribution pattern, carrying significant claims through outlets with lower editorial credibility, is consistent with a trial balloon rather than a formal policy statement.

It allows Moscow to introduce the narrative into global information flow, test the response from non-aligned audiences (BRICS+ members, Global South media), and deny it as misquoted or distorted if it produces diplomatic blowback.

Third, Rosatom's February-April 2026 offer to take custody of Iranian uranium, tabled through Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov and Rosatom CEO Alexei Likhachev in three different technical formats (transfer and dilute, equivalent natural uranium, financial payment), was never formally accepted by either Iran or the US. Putin is retroactively characterising an unaccepted offer as a trilateral consensus that Washington destroyed, a reframing that requires no new facts.

What could happen next?

Consequence
Putin's narrative, carried without Chinese corroboration, creates a US-blaming framework for the uranium custody failure that will circulate in BRICS+ diplomatic circuits independent of its accuracy, making future US demands for multilateral buy-in on Iran uranium disposal harder to achieve.
Medium term · 0.74
Risk
The distribution through second-tier outlets rather than Kremlin primary channels means the claim can be escalated or denied depending on Western and Iranian reactions, giving Moscow maximum narrative flexibility without a formal commitment to the account.
Immediate · 0.78
Precedent
If the 'US demanded US-only custody' account goes unchallenged by Washington, it may harden as the received narrative in non-aligned forums, setting a precedent that the US cannot achieve multilateral uranium-custody arrangements without formally rebutting the account in the UN Security Council or IAEA Board.
Long term · 0.66

Source Landscape

This story draws on neutral-leaning sources

Primary parallel: Under the 2015 JCPOA Annex I, Russia agreed to transport approximately 25,000 kg of Iran's low-enriched uranium to Russia and return an equivalent volume of natural uranium, a transaction executed in December 2015 under IAEA monitoring with a US, Russian, and IAEA trilateral sign-off.

That precedent demonstrates that Russian custody of Iranian uranium is technically and diplomatically feasible within a multilateral framework. Putin's 2026 claim that 'initially everyone agreed' on Russia custody is structurally plausible as a starting position precisely because the 2015 precedent exists, which is why the claim cannot be dismissed as invented.

Counter-parallel: The 2003-2006 Libya WMD dismantlement saw the US take physical custody of Libyan centrifuge components under a bilateral US-UK-Libya framework, without Russian involvement and without IAEA custody. The US demanded direct physical custody in that case as a condition of sanctions relief.

If Washington's 2026 position mirrors the Libya model, US physical custody as a condition rather than a negotiating position, then Putin's account of US intransigence may be an accurate description of a US demand that was indeed incompatible with any Russia-custody framework, but one that reflects US strategic preference rather than unreasonable overreach.

Consensus view: Brookings Institution and the Vienna Centre for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation (VCDNP) both flag Putin's claim as structurally consistent with an established Russian information tactic: repositioning a failed initiative as a US veto rather than a Russian or Iranian failure.

VCDNP's Laura Rockwood, who worked IAEA safeguards for 27 years, notes that under the 2015 JCPOA Annex I, Russia transported Iranian uranium under a tripartite sign-off involving the US, Russia, and IAEA, making a US demand for 'exclusively US territory' storage structurally implausible under any prior diplomatic framework, since no JCPOA-era precedent for US unilateral custody of Iranian uranium exists. Putin's claim therefore inverts the actual procedural baseline.

Counter-view: Iran's Tasnim and PressTV amplified Putin's account without corroboration, reflecting a convergent non-Western narrative interest: both Moscow and Tehran benefit from framing the US as the obstructive party.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry, which has significant interests in the uranium custody outcome, has not corroborated Putin's claim, a notable absence given that Beijing has confirmed other elements of the US-Iran breakdown on the record. The absence of Chinese endorsement is the strongest available signal that the claim cannot be independently verified by any party with access to the relevant diplomatic record.

Key tension: Whether Putin's 'initially everyone agreed' formulation reflects an actual early-stage trilateral consensus (Russia, Iran, US) that the US subsequently walked back, or whether it is a selective account of exploratory discussions that never reached formal agreement, a distinction that matters greatly for assessing who bears responsibility for the verification void.

First Reported In

Update #94 · Tehran writes, Trump tweets, Brent breaks

Eastern Herald· 11 May 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

Caused by

Iran misses MOU deadline; verifier locked out

Iran's missed 9 May MOU deadline provided the context in which Putin's uranium-custody counter-narrative appeared, reframing the breakdown as US intransigence.

Occurred 9 May 2026

Read story →

This Event

Putin blames Washington for killing uranium deal

A Russian-state press event has become the public default source on a US negotiation track that Washington has not contested on the record.

Different Perspectives

NATO eastern flank (B9 + Nordics)

The B9+Nordic Bucharest joint statement on 13 May reaffirmed Ukraine's sovereignty within internationally recognised borders and backed NATO eastern flank reinforcement; the summit accepted Zelenskyy's bilateral drone deal proposal as a structural alternative to the stalled US export approval pathway, treating it as a European defence architecture question rather than aid delivery.

IAEA / Rafael Grossi

Grossi is still negotiating a sixth ZNPP repair ceasefire with no agreement after 50 days of 750 kV line disconnection; the 3 May ERCL drone strike that destroyed environmental monitoring equipment represents a qualitative escalation in infrastructure degradation that the IAEA has documented but cannot compel either party to halt.

Péter Magyar / Hungary

Magyar's incoming foreign minister pledged on 12 May that Hungary will stop abusing EU veto rights; the pledge is a statement of intent rather than a binding legal commitment, and Magyar's MEPs voted against the €90 billion loan as recently as April, while a planned referendum on Ukraine's EU accession preserves a downstream blocking lever.

EU Council and European Commission

The Magyar cabinet formation on 12 May removes the Hungary veto that had blocked the €9.1 billion first tranche since February; the Commission is now coordinating the three-document disbursement package for an early-June vote. The structural blocker is gone; the disbursement question is now scheduling, not politics.

Donald Trump / White House

Trump announced a 9-11 May three-day ceasefire with a 1,000-for-1,000 prisoner exchange attached, then called peace 'getting very close' on 11-13 May while Russia's 800-drone barrage was under way; his public framing adopted Russian diplomatic language without securing any Russian operational concession or verifying the exchange was agreed.

Vladimir Putin / Kremlin

Putin told reporters on 9 May the war is 'coming to an end' while Peskov confirmed on 13 May that territorial demands are unchanged and Russia requires full Ukrainian withdrawal from all four annexed regions; the verbal accommodation costs Moscow nothing and conditions any summit on a pre-finalised treaty Kyiv cannot accept.