A senior U.S. official has said Iranian negotiators were informed during the Geneva talks that President Donald Trump’s position is “zero enrichment” on Iranian soil. However, the unnamed official added that if Iran’s proposal includes “small, token enrichment” and the Iranians provide precise documentation demonstrating that this level poses no threat, the United States would review it. Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi, however, told reporters on Friday that the American side did not ask Iran during the Geneva talks to agree to “zero enrichment,” and he also rejected claims that Iran had proposed a temporary suspension of its enrichment program during those negotiations.
Tehran – IranView24
Abbas Aslani, an international affairs expert, in an interview with Iran Daily said that raising terms such as “token enrichment” is, in fact, largely a form of wordplay aimed at scaling down whatever nuclear concessions might potentially be granted to Iran by the United States.
From a technical and legal standpoint, how is the concept “token enrichment” defined, and could it be accepted or managed within Iran’s nuclear policies?
This concept has no clear definition or established status in the technical literature of the International Atomic Energy Agency or even in international law concerning treaties, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. It appears that such expressions are coined to downplay, belittle, or constrain Iran’s nuclear achievements, as Tehran maintains that, based on its inherent rights, it is entitled to benefit from the nuclear fuel cycle.
Naturally, the other side seeks to minimize this and portray it as insignificant. Iran has repeatedly stated that it will carry out the level of enrichment required to meet its needs. Tehran’s position, both in the past and at present, seems clear. Labeling it as “symbolic” would not appear to be acceptable to Iran. However, enrichment would be pursued in line with the country’s needs and within the framework of any agreement reached, while a reduction in enrichment levels—and, naturally, in the number of centrifuges or their scale—had already been anticipated.
In your view, could such a proposal help break the current deadlock over enrichment?
Proposals of this nature may stem from what could be described as the US side’s maximalist approach. In any negotiation, there is inevitably give-and-take. If one party receives concessions, it must also grant concessions. However, since they have sought to apply maximum pressure while also putting forward maximum demands, they resort to such terminology. If this spirit governs other issues as well, it could act as an obstacle rather than a facilitator, as has been the case so far. Still, the American side faces pressure domestically from certain factions and lobbies, as well as externally from actors such as Israel. The use of such terms may therefore be aimed at easing the atmosphere and reducing those pressures. From that perspective, it may assist the American side itself to some extent—rather than the negotiation process or Iran. Otherwise, it offers no particular advantage to the Iranian side or to the talks.
How do you assess the narrative gap between Iranian officials and US media reports regarding the content of the recent talks? Is it a matter of negotiation tactics, a battle of narratives, or genuine differences in interpretation?
By occasionally leaking incomplete or even inaccurate information, the American side attempts to turn up the heat on Iran’s negotiating team, either at the table or outside the negotiating room, and in effect cast a shadow over the quality of negotiations or the manner in which the Iranian team grants concessions. Previously, Western media consistently reported that the US position was zero enrichment and that enrichment would not be accepted at all. Now, however, it is being suggested that a certain level of enrichment might be acceptable. From a psychological standpoint, such positioning may be important for the Americans; first, to avoid coming under pressure for having granted excessive concessions to Iran; and second, because the Trump administration, even while engaging in diplomatic talks with Iran, appears intent on preserving the prestige of maximum pressure and avoiding being accused of backing down—even if it steps back from the idea of zero enrichment and accepts enrichment at some level. From the outset, it was conceivable that if an agreement were to be reached, enrichment levels or the scale of enrichment in Iran would be significantly reduced. This does not necessarily contradict that prospect.
Araghchi has rejected any proposal for a temporary halt or suspension of enrichment by Iran. What do you see as the source of such claims in Western media? Could this be part of psychological pressure or an effort to manage domestic and international expectations?
Beyond the political-level negotiations being pursued, there is a battle of narratives unfolding between the two sides. Moreover, in economic, security, and even military domains, threats, pressures, and measures are seen from the American side, while the Iranian side has sought to adopt countermeasures in response. Narratives can, in essence, lay the groundwork for certain policies or even shape emerging trends. The American proposal under the banner of zero enrichment has long been their genuine policy demand—not only during Trump’s tenure but also under previous US presidents, who likewise sought to ensure that Iran would have no enrichment capability at all. However, they were unable to achieve that objective.
At the current juncture, despite having effectively accepted the issue of enrichment in principle, their repeated references to it outside the negotiating room appear intended to create ambiguity and doubt, thereby exerting pressure on Iran to extract concessions in other areas. In effect, they seek to let uncertainty hang over the talks and use it as psychological leverage.
Source: Iran Daily
