TEHRAN, Iran — Iran has ruled out transferring any of its enriched nuclear material outside the country, with senior security official Mohsen Rezaei warning that any fresh United States military strikes would trigger retaliation against American bases, including facilities located far from Iranian territory.
Rezaei made the remarks in a televised interview with Lebanon’s Al Mayadeen, as diplomatic efforts to end the conflict remain uncertain and Washington signals that it does not currently see a need for another major round of combat operations. His comments underline the gap between the two countries over Iran’s nuclear programme, the future of its enriched uranium stockpile and the conditions required to resume negotiations.
“Any new US attacks will also be met with targeting US bases far away,” Rezaei said, according to Reuters. He also said Tehran was not currently holding negotiations with Washington and that Iran had informed Moscow its enriched nuclear material would remain inside the country.
Tehran Rejects Transfer Of Enriched Uranium
Rezaei’s most significant message concerned the fate of Iran’s enriched uranium. He said the country would not allow even the smallest quantity of enriched nuclear material to be taken abroad, rejecting a central proposal that has featured in discussions about possible arrangements to address international concerns over Tehran’s nuclear programme.
He argued that Iran needed the material for its own purposes, including the development of nuclear-powered ships and submarines. Iranian officials have also said that Tehran has communicated its position to Russia, which has previously been discussed as a possible destination for uranium removed from Iran under a negotiated arrangement.
Russia has offered to take custody of Iranian uranium as part of a possible agreement intended to reduce tensions and address concerns about the stockpile. However, Moscow has said that the decision rests with Tehran. Rezaei’s latest comments appear to close off that option, at least under Iran’s publicly stated position at this stage.
The disagreement is central to any potential nuclear settlement. Washington has maintained that Iran’s nuclear programme must be addressed in initial negotiations aimed at ending the conflict. For the United States and its partners, the location, quantity and level of enrichment of Iran’s uranium are major questions. Tehran, by contrast, insists that it has the right to retain nuclear material for what it describes as peaceful and national purposes.
Why The 60 Per Cent Enrichment Figure Matters
.jpg){kind=link}
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) estimated that Iran possessed 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 per cent before the US and Israeli attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025. The agency’s figure was recorded before those strikes, and the amount that may have survived them remains unclear.
Uranium enrichment increases the concentration of the uranium-235 isotope. Natural uranium contains only a small proportion of uranium-235, while enrichment raises that proportion for different uses. Fuel for many civilian nuclear power reactors is commonly enriched to around 3–5 per cent. Uranium enriched to 60 per cent is far above the level normally required for civilian power generation and is close to the 90 per cent level commonly associated with weapons-grade uranium.
However, 60 per cent enriched uranium is not the same as a finished nuclear weapon, and enrichment level alone does not establish that a country has decided to build one. Weapon development involves additional technical, engineering and delivery-system requirements. Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons, while the United States, Israel and other Western governments have repeatedly raised concerns about the scale and direction of its nuclear activities.
The unresolved stockpile question is particularly important because inspectors have not been able to establish how much of the material remains after the attacks or precisely where it is held. The uncertainty complicates efforts to design an agreement that could be independently verified.
For background on the facility and the wider nuclear issue, readers can consult the International Atomic Energy Agency and its reporting on safeguards and Iran’s nuclear programme.
Iran Warns Of Retaliation Against US Bases
.jpg){kind=link}
Beyond the nuclear issue, Rezaei’s warning about possible retaliation adds another layer of risk to the already tense relationship between Tehran and Washington. He said any renewed US attack would be answered by strikes against American military bases, including those located far from Iran.
In further remarks reported by Iranian media, Rezaei indicated that bases in European countries could also be considered targets if they were used to support attacks on Iran. Such statements are threats made by an Iranian official; they do not establish that an attack has been ordered or that a specific target has been selected.
The warning is significant because the United States maintains military facilities and personnel across the Middle East and in Europe. Any attack on those facilities could draw additional countries into the confrontation, place service members and civilians at risk and widen the conflict beyond the immediate US-Iran theatre.
Iran has previously used missile and drone capabilities in regional confrontations, while US forces maintain air-defence and other military assets across partner countries. The possibility of retaliation therefore remains a concern for regional governments, particularly those hosting foreign forces or relying on the security of nearby shipping routes.
Washington Signals Less Need For Further Major Strikes
Rezaei’s comments came as senior US officials played down the immediate need for additional large-scale military action. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the economic pressure campaign against Iran was having a substantial impact and that major combat operations were not currently necessary, according to reporting from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
President Donald Trump has also adopted a more measured public tone in recent remarks about the conflict, describing the military phase as effectively over while the broader confrontation remains unresolved. Reuters noted that analysts have linked the change in tone to the political environment following the Republicans’ defeat in the November 3 midterm elections. That interpretation is an assessment of the political context, not proof that the election result alone determined Washington’s Iran policy.
The administration still faces competing demands: maintaining pressure on Tehran, protecting US forces and regional partners, addressing the nuclear stockpile and avoiding a renewed conflict that could affect energy markets and international shipping. A reduced emphasis on immediate military action does not necessarily mean that sanctions, naval pressure or other forms of coercion will be relaxed.
Iran Says There Are No Direct Negotiations Underway
Rezaei said there were no negotiations currently taking place between Tehran and Washington, disputing suggestions that the two governments had entered a new direct diplomatic process. His position follows earlier comments that Iran had presented conditions for any return to talks and was awaiting a clear response from the United States.
Reuters has reported that Iran sent a nuclear proposal to the United States through Qatar, with a senior Iranian official saying that discussions would only proceed after Washington addressed seven demands put forward by Tehran. The full text of those demands has not been made public in the reporting cited here, and the existence of a proposal transmitted through a mediator should not be confused with confirmed direct negotiations or an agreed framework.
Qatar has played a mediation role in regional diplomacy, maintaining communication channels with both sides. Such indirect contacts can help convey proposals even when governments are unwilling to meet face to face. However, mediation does not guarantee that the parties have accepted each other’s conditions or are close to a settlement.
Tehran’s Conditions Extend Beyond The Nuclear Programme
Iran’s demands, as described by its officials and reported by international media, extend beyond the fate of enriched uranium. They include an end to hostilities across the region, particularly in Lebanon, the lifting of the US naval blockade on Iranian ports, access to frozen Iranian assets and guarantees against renewed military action.
These conditions illustrate why the dispute has become broader than a technical negotiation over uranium enrichment. Tehran wants a wider arrangement addressing military pressure, economic restrictions and regional security. Washington, meanwhile, has said the nuclear issue must be part of any initial negotiations and has continued to use economic and strategic pressure to influence Iran’s decisions.
The two sides therefore face a sequencing problem: Iran wants several measures addressed before negotiations resume, while the United States wants nuclear commitments included at the beginning of any process. Unless the parties find a way to discuss these issues in parallel, the disagreement over which steps should come first could keep diplomacy stalled.
Analysis: What Iran’s Refusal Means For A Possible Agreement
.jpg){kind=link}
Rezaei’s statement sets out a firm public position on one of the most contentious elements of a potential nuclear agreement: whether Iran would accept the removal of enriched uranium from its territory. If Tehran maintains that position, negotiators may have to explore alternatives to transferring the material abroad, such as verified limits on enrichment, dilution of some stockpiles, monitored storage arrangements or other safeguards. These are possible negotiating concepts, not agreements currently accepted by the parties.
Any alternative would have to address the central concern raised by the IAEA and governments seeking assurances: that the quantity and enrichment level of nuclear material can be independently monitored and that there is no diversion to undeclared activities. Iran, for its part, would likely seek guarantees that any restrictions are matched by sanctions relief and protection against further attacks.
The uncertainty surrounding the material that may have survived the 2025 strikes makes verification more difficult. An agreement cannot be reliably assessed if inspectors cannot establish the baseline inventory, inspect relevant sites and verify subsequent declarations. Restoring a credible monitoring arrangement would therefore be a major practical test for any diplomatic initiative.
The military warnings also raise the stakes. A new US strike could prompt Iranian retaliation, potentially affecting American bases, regional partners, energy infrastructure and maritime traffic. Conversely, continued pressure without a diplomatic channel could leave both sides in a prolonged standoff in which misunderstandings or incidents carry the risk of escalation.
For now, Rezaei’s remarks show that Iran is not publicly prepared to accept the removal of its enriched nuclear material and is warning Washington against renewed military action. The United States has not abandoned its demand that the nuclear issue be addressed. With the two positions still far apart and the status of Iran’s stockpile uncertain, the prospect of a durable agreement remains dependent on renewed diplomacy, verifiable nuclear safeguards and a broader understanding of regional security.
Sources And Further Reading
- Reuters: Iran will not allow enriched nuclear material to leave the country, security chief says
- Reuters: Iran’s top security official says no talks underway with US
- Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: Iranian security chief insists enriched uranium will not leave Iran
- The Times of Israel: Iran rules out transfer of enriched nuclear material
- The Straits Times: Iran’s security chief says enriched nuclear material will remain in the country
- International Atomic Energy Agency: Nuclear safeguards and monitoring
- Wikimedia Commons: Free-use photographs and licence information
Editorial note: The Natanz photograph is an archive image from 2022 and should not be interpreted as showing the facility’s current condition. The other images are contextual photographs of Rezaei, Iran’s flag and Tehran. All photographs are credited with links to their stated licences.