Iran’s rival factions close ranks in rejection of US nuclear proposal

Fatemeh Mohajerani, spokeswoman for the Iranian government, told reporters in Tehran that Washington’s “contradictory statements” were complicating the process and undermining trust.

“We are prepared for every scenario, but we will not leave the negotiating table,” Mohajerani said.

Reported offer diverges from US public line

A key source of friction is a draft proposal delivered to Iran on Saturday by Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi, who has been mediating between Tehran and Washington.

The document outlines a possible framework under which Iran could maintain limited low-level uranium enrichment on its soil, according to Axios and other US media outlets.

This reported flexibility contrasts with public remarks from senior US officials, including White House envoy Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who have repeatedly said Washington would not permit any uranium enrichment and would demand full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

The proposal also includes limits on future enrichment, the dismantling of certain facilities, and phased sanctions relief tied to compliance verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Tehran says proposal lacks guarantees

Iranian officials have responded skeptically. Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said on Monday that the proposal lacked credible assurances on sanctions relief — a central Iranian demand.

A senior Iranian diplomat told Reuters the offer was a “non-starter,” citing inconsistencies between the US public position and what was conveyed in the draft.

Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, speaking during a visit to Cairo, confirmed that Tehran is still drafting its formal response.

Iran seen preparing negative response - Reuters

According to Reuters, a senior Iranian diplomat said Tehran is drafting a negative response to the US proposal, which could amount to a rejection. The unnamed diplomat cited by Reuters described the offer as failing to address Iran’s key demands, including recognition of its right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

Sources close to Iran’s negotiating team also criticized what they view as Washington’s shifting stance, which they say has created uncertainty about US intentions and credibility, Iranian state media reported on Monday.

CNN on Monday also reported that the next round of nuclear talks is “very uncertain and may not happen at all,” citing sources familiar with the negotiations.

A senior Iranian official told the network the US proposal was “incoherent and disjointed” and conflicted with the understandings reached during the fifth round in Rome. The official added that “the fact that the Americans constantly change their positions” has become a major obstacle to progress.

US officials reject claim of bad faith

Israel Hayom reported on Monday that American officials expected Tehran to accept some elements and object to others.

The outlet, citing unnamed US sources, said that the administration believes Iran’s response will be more measured and that further talks remain possible. A US official quoted in the outlet said negotiators could begin by addressing areas where the gaps are narrower.

The official also said that negotiations would not continue indefinitely and that all options remain under consideration.

Trump publicly contradicts reported offer

President Donald Trump added to the confusion on Monday when he wrote on Truth Social: “Under our potential Agreement — WE WILL NOT ALLOW ANY ENRICHMENT OF URANIUM!”

The statement directly contradicts media accounts of the proposal delivered to Tehran, which permits limited enrichment under strict international oversight — a provision aimed at accommodating Iran’s long-standing demand for civilian nuclear rights.

The gap between Trump’s public stance and the reported content of the offer has become a central point of contention for Iranian officials, who accuse Washington of negotiating in bad faith.

US senator demands transparency over reported ‘side deal’

US Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on Monday warned that the Trump administration may be pursuing a side arrangement with Iran outside the scope of congressional oversight.

Speaking on the Senate floor, Schumer cited the Axios report and urged the administration to clarify whether informal commitments have been made. He said the alleged deal, if true, contradicts earlier statements by Rubio and Witkoff and risks undermining accountability.

Schumer also said any future agreement must address not only nuclear safeguards but also Iran’s support for regional militant groups.

A news website and a newspaper widely seen as the mouthpieces of rival ultra-conservative factions clashed last week over recent controversial comments by the Chief of Staff of Iran’s Armed Forces Mohammad Bagheri.

At issue are his apparent criticism of harsh police tactics and revelation of details about Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's confidential reply to a letter from US President Donald Trump.

“How is it that the Chief of Staff is taking such positions … despite the clear directive of the Leader of the Revolution regarding countering the enemy’s calculations?” ultra-hardline outlet Raja News wrote in an editorial last Thursday.

Quick with a response was rival daily Javan, which is linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a military body officially under Bagheri's command but whose head is chosen by Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

In a harshly worded commentary on Saturday, it accused Raja News of sowing factional discord which hurts national security and does not serve Khamenei.

The dispute is remarkable not just for its tone but for its target: Bagheri is one of Khamenei’s top appointees and widely seen as a stabilizing figure within Iran’s complex military establishment.

What sparked the criticism?

Iran’s ultra-hardliners—sometimes called ‘super revolutionaries’ by rival camps—first took issue with Bagheri in March, when on the occasion of Iranian New Year the Chief of Staff released a video message recorded at the historic ruins of Persepolis.

The super-revolutionaries condemned his choice of venue and outfit on social media: an ancient, pre-Islamic site rather than a religious one, and civilian clothing instead of a uniform—which the activists said signals pacifism rather than resistance.

Then came Bagheri discussing in public Khamenei’s response to Trump’s March 7 letter: that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons, sought peace in the region but would not abandon its civilian nuclear program and would negotiate only indirectly with the US.

Raja News criticized him for referring to the Supreme Leader instead of Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

The last instance—which appears to have triggered Raja News to attack Bagheri for past remarks—came on May 25, when Bagheri urged Iran’s law enforcement to adapt to the country’s “highly complex and evolving society.”

“The police command will get nowhere if it tries to deal with it using a harsh approach, batons and daggers,” he said in a speech on a university campus in Tehran.

This was seen as a veiled critique of attempts to revive enforcement of a stalled new hijab law, which has been suspended since last September despite hardliner pressure.

Is this really about Bagheri?

The outlet at the heart of the controversy, Raja News, is linked with the far-right Paydari Party and its allies including former nuclear negotiator and presidential candidate Saeed Jalili.

The camp is known to be in a cold war with another presidential candidate, Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, whose supporters joined the Bagheri fray in favor of the Commander in Chief.

“This radical group is smearing all the country’s officials, including the Leader’s appointees, with flawed arguments and hiding behind the Leader,” posted Nader Alizadeh, a pro-Ghalibaf activist, on X.

Some linked the criticism to Bagheri’s recent report on the helicopter crash that killed President Ebrahim Raisi suggesting it may have contradicted hardliner claims that the crash was a foreign plot.

Others suggested the controversy has more to do with the looming question of succession, reflecting anxieties about post-Khamenei leadership and loyalty within the armed forces.

“Obedience and absolute loyalty of the armed forces to the new Leader chosen by the Assembly of Experts will be crucial,” political analyst Mohammad-Ali Ahangaran posted on X. “This is the crux of the matter.”

The slogan “nuclear energy is our absolute right” emerged in the early 2000s, as tensions over Iran’s program escalated and international pressure mounted. It was printed on official banners and chanted in state-sponsored rallies.

But it was never a grassroots demand.

“I want to throw up when I hear the phrase nuclear energy,” says Babak, a software engineer in his mid-forties. “Everyone I know feels the same—it reminds them of high prices and empty pockets.”

It’s easy to see that the grudge runs far deeper and wider than the nuclear program.

“This nuclear standoff has made the wall between us and the rest of the world much taller. Every time (Foreign Minister Abbas) Araghchi says ‘non-negotiable’, he triggers a collective trauma: the lives we’ve lost to his ilk’s stupid posturing.”

They showed some reason with the 2015 deal, Babak says, but it was all undone when President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out.

The chants about nuclear rights died out with that agreement. The term ‘enrichment’ crawled back to technical reports where it belongs.

Now, amid talks with the United States, the government is reviving it, calling enrichment “a non-negotiable right of the Iranian nation.”

Pride, what pride?

But the message holds little weight for many Iranians who increasingly feel their interests and those of Iran’s rulers are mutually exclusive.

“How am I benefiting from this technology, this so-called right?” my neighbour Sonia asks as she breastfeeds her baby in stifling afternoon heat during the daily power cut.

“Isn't one supposed purpose of nuclear energy generating electricity? Why are we having more power cuts with every passing year, then? Why is the share of nuclear power in our grid a literal zero?”

Sonia’s questions are rarely, if ever, discussed in Iran’s media. The nuclear program is a source of national pride, we’re told, and not being proud of it is a crime.

The disconnect between rulers and ruled is nearly complete—so is the gap between official claims and lived experience.

“Their contempt for us people is unreal. And it’s matched by ours for them,” Sonia concludes, her baby now fast asleep. “It’s gotten to a point where many oppose a deal that might improve their lives, because it would benefit the Islamic Republic far more.”

It’s about them, not us

Not everyone is so antagonistic toward the government. Some—more among the older generations, in my experience—are equally critical of regional and world powers.

Retired chemistry teacher Kazem is one of them. He’s the only one of four friends playing chess in the park who is willing to talk to me.

“The Americans first said low-level enrichment would be ok,” he says, “but then changed their position to ‘zero enrichment’, perhaps under pressure from hawks or (Israeli prime minister) Netanyahu.”

“I dislike most of what the government does, but on this one I think it’s the others in Europe and America who are being unreasonable and blocking a potential path forward.”

Kazem’s friends shake their heads in disagreement. One murmurs something to the effect that no sane man believes a word that “this bunch”, Iranian officials, say.

The distrust, in my view, is at the heart of every position that most ordinary Iranians take in relation to those who rule the country.

“The idea of peaceful nuclear energy is a total lie. Yes, it does have many applications—in medicine, for example. But show me just one hospital that’s benefiting from what’s being done in Natanz and Fordow.”

Reza is a technician at a private hospital in Tehran. He says he agrees with the official line about nations’ right to peaceful nuclear energy.

“But this has nothing to do with the nation,” he says, voice rising. “It’s about them, (supreme leader) Khamenei, the (Revolutionary) Guards and the leeches sucking Iran dry and sending the riches to their brood in Canada.

“If it was about the nation, the nation would have been consulted about it. Has anybody ever asked you if you’d rather have centrifuges or a decent car?”

Speaking in Cairo after meeting Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty and International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Grossi, Araghchi said: “If the United States seeks to deprive us of nuclear technology, there will definitely be no agreement.”

He emphasized that uranium enrichment is Iran’s right under international treaties.

“The International Atomic Energy Agency must remain a technical body and not be swayed by political pressure,” he added.

Last week, the IAEA said that Iran operated a covert nuclear program using undeclared material at three sites under investigation.

Araghchi’s comments come amid nuclear talks mediated by Oman.

Also on Monday, Reuters cited an unnamed Iranian diplomat as saying that Tehran is preparing to formally reject a recent US proposal, calling it “one-sided” and “a non-starter.”

The proposal, delivered on Saturday by Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi fails to address Tehran’s core demands—including recognition of its right to enrich uranium and the immediate lifting of US sanctions, according to Reuters.

“In this proposal, there is no change to the US position on enrichment, and no clarity on sanction relief,” the diplomat said.

He added that Iran’s nuclear negotiation committee, which reports to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, has assessed the proposal as incompatible with Iranian interests.

An Iranian official familiar with the matter was also cited by Iranian state-linked media as saying that Tehran does not view the latest US proposal in nuclear talks as a fair basis for agreement.

“The recent US proposal for a new nuclear deal with Iran is unacceptable,” the unnamed source was quoted as saying. “It cannot serve as a fair foundation for any potential compromise.”

Iran has consistently said that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. However, Western powers have accused Tehran of seeking nuclear weapons capabilities—allegations Iran denies.

Iran is the only non-nuclear weapon state enriching uranium to 60% U-235. The IAEA has consistently maintained that there is no credible civilian use for uranium enriched to this level, which is a short technical step from weapons-grade 90% fissile material.

Iran's stockpile of 60% enriched uranium had increased to 275 kg, enough to theoretically make about half a dozen weapons if Iran further enriches the uranium.

Two Iranian officials told Reuters last week that Iran might consider pausing enrichment if the US unfreezes Iranian assets and acknowledges Iran’s civilian enrichment rights as part of a broader political understanding.

Last month, Khamenei said there will be no concessions on enrichment. "Saying things like 'we won’t allow Iran to enrich uranium' is way out of line. No one is waiting for anyone’s permission," he said. "The Islamic Republic has its own policy, its own approach, and it will continue to pursue it."

“It must be clear to us how the oppressive sanctions against the Iranian people will be lifted, to ensure that past experiences are not repeated,” Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei told reporters in Tehran.

"I regret to inform you that the American side has not yet been willing to clarify this issue," Baghaei said at his weekly press.

The White House ordered a freeze on new sanctions activity on Iran last week, The Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday, pausing President Donald Trump’s so-called maximum pressure campaign against Tehran.

Oman's Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad al-Busaidi visited Tehran on Saturday to deliver what Iran described as "elements of a US proposal" related to a possible nuclear agreement.

Muscat has been mediating between Iran and the United States as the two countries seek a breakthrough following five rounds of indirect talks last held in Rome this month.

US proposal under review

Baghaei emphasized that receiving a written text from the US did not signal any agreement on Iran's part.

"Certainly, receiving a text does not mean it is accepted, nor even that it is acceptable," he said. "Exchange of documents is a common practice in all negotiation processes."

Any proposal, Baghaei added, containing “radical and maximalist demands” which ignores what he called the legitimate rights and interests of the Iranian people would not receive a positive response from Tehran.

“The red lines of Iran will be the basis for our response to the American proposal,” he said, underlining the centrality of Iran’s uranium enrichment program and the demand for effective lifting of sanctions.

Iran accuses IAEA of bias

Baghaei also addressed the latest report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), saying it was prepared under pressure from certain Western countries.

“The report contains mostly repetitive content, and some technical matters have been exaggerated,” he said. “We are certain that this report was prepared under pressure from specific countries.”

Documents seen by the IAEA showed that Iran carried out secret nuclear activities with material not declared to the UN nuclear watchdog at three locations which have long been under investigation, Reuters reported last week.

Baghaei criticized what he described as a long-standing pattern of Western states using international organizations for political purposes. “Unfortunately, this has become an undesirable trend over the past two decades,” he added.

He said that Iran’s nuclear activities remain under full monitoring by the agency and warned against misrepresenting internal procedural issues—such as revoking the accreditation of a few inspectors—while ignoring the continued presence of 125 active inspectors in the country.

Israel using nuclear issue to sway US policy, Iran says

Responding to longstanding allegations that Iran seeks to develop nuclear weapons, Baghaei argued that such claims have been used politically by Israel to influence US foreign policy.

“If you review the reports on Iran’s nuclear issue, you will see that since 1984, officials from the Zionist regime have claimed that Iran would obtain a nuclear bomb within six months,” he said. “It’s been nearly 40 years. The peaceful nature of our nuclear program has been consistently proven.”

He added, “Israel’s concern is not about a nuclear Iran, but about losing its ability to impose its will in the region and control US foreign policy.”

No clarity from US yet

Baghaei said that Iran’s key demand remains the complete and verifiable removal of economic sanctions.

“In the nuclear field, the matter is clear to us. If America’s concern is the absence of nuclear weapons, that issue is already resolved,” he said. “What matters is ensuring the real and observable end of the sanctions imposed over the past decades.”

He explained that Iran seeks to see practical outcomes, including improvements in banking, trade, and economic relations.

Iran will respond to any new sanctions

The Iranian spokesman also took issue with recent proposals by some US lawmakers to make certain sanctions permanent.

“This is a clear contradiction in the US approach,” Baghaei said. “On one hand, they claim to support diplomacy, but on the other, they reinforce the very obstacles that prevent any understanding.”

He said Iran regards any new sanctions as “a sign of the lack of seriousness and real intent on the part of the United States to advance diplomatic efforts.”

On the potential activation of the “snapback” mechanism—formally known as the dispute resolution process under the 2015 nuclear deal—Baghaei warned, “We have anticipated multiple scenarios. If such a mechanism is triggered by European signatories, we will respond in kind and appropriately.”

Consortium cannot replace enrichment inside Iran

Baghaei also said that any proposal to replace Iran's domestic uranium enrichment with a multinational consortium is unacceptable.

“This idea is not new, and it’s not surprising that negotiating parties continue to raise it. But the consortium proposal can in no way replace enrichment on Iranian soil.”

Baghaei added that while Iran is willing to participate in such initiatives, it would not consider any arrangement that undermines what Tehran sees as its sovereign right under international law.

Iran remains under global sanctions not only for its nuclear program but also over its human rights record at home, and supporting Russia's war on Ukraine. The situation has left Iran's economy in its worst state since the founding of the Islamic Republic in 1979.