
The US administration demands that Iran reduce its ability to enrich uranium as a condition for a settlement, amid ambiguity surrounding the fate of the stockpile of nuclear materials and centrifuges after the strikes.
AI-generated summary
Iran was enriching uranium to a rate of up to 60 percent before its facilities in Natanz and Fordow were targeted in 2025. Washington is demanding a new agreement that imposes restrictions on enrichment.
Iran's nuclear program has returned to the forefront of the dispute between Tehran and Washington, with the US administration demanding that Iran reduce its ability to enrich uranium as a condition for reaching a settlement.
US Vice President J. D. Vance told Reuters yesterday evening, Wednesday (October 7th), that Washington wants Iran to take practical steps to prove that it is not seeking to develop a nuclear weapon.
What did Iran have?
Before the attacks that began in June 2025, Iran was enriching uranium to 60 percent. This is much higher than the levels normally used in energy production, and technically close to the 90 percent level used in nuclear weapons.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, before the strikes, Iran possessed about 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent.
The agency says that this quantity, if its enrichment level is increased, could theoretically contain enough material to produce several nuclear weapons. This does not mean that Iran had ready-made nuclear weapons.
Tehran asserts that its program is intended for peaceful purposes, while the International Atomic Energy Agency said that it does not have reliable evidence of the existence of an organized Iranian program to manufacture a nuclear weapon.
Great damage and ongoing uncertainty
The strikes targeted the main enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow, causing significant damage to them.
The International Atomic Energy Agency said that the above-ground facility in Natanz was destroyed, while other underground facilities were severely damaged.
But the main problem today is not only related to the status of the facilities, but also the fate of the enriched uranium that existed before the attacks. Iran did not provide the agency with complete information about the amount of material that survived or its whereabouts, and inspectors were not able to fully return to the damaged sites.
It is believed that more than 200 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent may have remained in underground facilities in the Isfahan region, in addition to other possible quantities in Natanz.
Can Iran return to enrichment?
There is currently no confirmed information that Iran has returned to enrichment at levels it was at before the strikes.
But experts point out that Tehran's retention of a 60 percent enriched uranium stock may make raising the level of enrichment later easier than starting from low levels.
Mystery also remains about how many centrifuges survived the attacks or are located in other locations.
The 2015 nuclear agreement provided the International Atomic Energy Agency with broader oversight of these devices, but this oversight declined after the United States withdrew from the agreement in 2018 and the subsequent deterioration of cooperation between Iran and the agency.
What does Washington want?
Vance said that Iran's possession of 60 percent enriched uranium raises questions about the nature of its program, because this level is not needed by regular nuclear power plants.
Washington wants any new agreement to include clear restrictions on Iran’s ability to enrich.
These restrictions may mean reducing the enrichment rate, reducing the number of centrifuges, limiting the number of nuclear facilities, or getting rid of part of the enriched uranium stock.
But the main obstacle remains determining what Iran actually owns after the strikes. The facilities suffered significant damage, but the fate of part of the nuclear materials and devices is still unknown.
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
Continued American demands to impose clear restrictions on Iranian uranium enrichment.
Likely · Within months

The Houthi group announced the targeting of King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh with a ballistic missile, amid an escalation in mutual attacks with the Saudi-led coalition and violent battles in Yemen that left more than 200,000 people dead, displaced, and diseases spread.

Hezbollah received $200 million from Iran to help displaced people, while Lebanon intends to bring up Israel's withdrawal at the Florida meeting. In another context, Iraqi security imposed a curfew in Hawija following ISIS attacks, and a UNIFIL site came under fire in southern Lebanon.

Celia Flores, the wife of former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, is seeking to leave prison in New York and move to house arrest due to heart health problems, while the couple faces criminal charges that could lead to life imprisonment. New York prosecutors are expected to file new charges related to allegations of torture of American citizens in Venezuela during Maduro's rule.

The leader of the Houthi group, Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, criticized the Mecca defense alliance between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan, and described it as an attempt by Riyadh to implicate Ankara and Islamabad in the aggression against Yemen, claiming that Saudi military operations kill children and women without providing evidence.

Maricarmen Abascal, 87, died after being forcibly evicted from the apartment she had lived in for more than 70 years in Madrid because she could not afford a rent increase from 500 to 2,650 euros a month, sparking nationwide protests and leading Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez to call early elections on November 29.

The Syrian Ministry of Information denied reports of sending Syrian military personnel to Yemen to assist Saudi Arabia in its war against the Houthis, stressing that Syria's priority is reconstruction and strengthening institutions, while reports indicated talks between Riyadh and Damascus about sending 10 to 20 thousand Syrian military personnel, and warned of the dangers of military intervention in Yemen due to sectarian and geopolitical tensions.