While USA e Iran They try to keep open talks to sign an agreement that leads to the end of the war, The main obstacle seems to focus on one question: what will happen to the enriched uranium that Tehran already possesses? The president Donald Trump He said Monday that Iranian reserves should be handed over to the United States for destruction or, preferably, eliminated under international supervision while Tehran maintains a different position: it insists that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes and refuses to part with one of the most sensitive assets of its strategic capacity.

Trump’s demand goes beyond limit enrichment future: aims to eliminate the material that Iran already possesses, one of the most sensitive points of the negotiations.

At this point, it should be noted that the latest draft of the memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran raises an extension of the ceasefire for 60 daysthe reopening of Strait of Hormuz for commercial transit, the gradual lifting of some economic restrictions and negotiations on sanctions and frozen Iranian assets.

However, The nuclear issue would not be completely resolved in that first stage: the scheme contemplates that Iran reaffirm that it will not develop nuclear weapons and agree to subsequently discuss limits on uranium enrichment and the fate of its enriched uranium reserves. That is to say, The draft seeks to close the immediate military crisis first and leave the most complex and delicate aspect of the agreement for a second phase.the future of the Iranian nuclear program.

Iran has repeatedly rejected the demand for completely abandon uranium enrichment. In April, the head of Iran’s nuclear agency stated that US and Israeli demands to limit enrichment “will not happen.”

Iran has proposed intermediate formulas: accept temporary limits or reduce levels of enrichment in exchange for economic relief and broader international supervision.

Iran’s dilemma: give up or accelerate the nuclear path?

 

The international analyst Francisco Belaunde Matossian considered that the guerra launched by the United States and Israel could have strengthened in some sectors of Iranian power the idea of ​​keeping the nuclear option open as a future security mechanismalthough he warned that the debate would still be far from being closed within Tehran’s leadership.

“It is possible that a part of the most radical sectors are seeing that possibility. Giving up the idea of ​​having an atomic bomb, seeing what has happened, may not be the best”, he pointed out.

He explained that for certain groups within the Iranian power there could be a perception that a nuclear capacity would function as a guarantee against future aggressions.

“It seems logical to think of having an atomic bomb as insurance against any attack”, he insisted.

However, he indicated that within Iran There would also be different positions regarding that strategy. Some sectors would consider that the country already has other tools of geopolitical pressure that could reduce the need to cross the nuclear threshold.

“There are those who argue that the fact that Iran can play with the Strait of Hormuz issue would make it less necessary to have an atomic bomb.”because I would have a way to press to avoid being attacked”he explained.

Belaunde noted that this would have opened an internal discussion in the Iranian Government about what the way forward should be.

For the security and intelligence specialist Andrés Gómez de la Torrethe war could change Tehran’s strategic calculations, although He considered it premature to affirm that Iran has decided to definitively move towards a military nuclear capability.

“It is very difficult to foresee what Iran’s attitude could be at this moment,” held to The Commerce. He explained that The current international scenario is going through a period of increasing deterioration of the nuclear control system.

“The director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, has spoken of a deterioration of the international nuclear order. Many countries are thinking that nuclear weapons are insurance. There is the case of North Korea”he indicated.

Under that logic, warned that an eventual Iranian renunciation of its nuclear project would mean losing a key element of strategic pressure.

“By Iran giving up its nuclear project, it would obviously be losing its last deterrence card”he stated.

Trump’s push for enriched uranium