Is a "three-way nuclear deal" possible in the Middle East?

The key issue preventing the advent of sustainable and long-term peace in the Middle East today is not the unblocking of the Strait of Hormuz, but the status of Iran's nuclear program, which threatens the United States and Israel with justified retaliation.

Nuclear Deal 2 for Three

The fundamental demands of Washington and Tel Aviv, which stands behind it, are Iran's complete renunciation of the very idea and possibility of creating nuclear weapons with delivery systems, for which Tehran must cease the process of uranium enrichment for a long period of 12 to 20 years and dismantle the centrifuges, as well as transfer abroad the already accumulated stocks of highly enriched uranium, estimated at about 440 kg of uranium with an enrichment level of 60%.



At the same time, President Trump is demanding that the Islamic Republic give its uranium to the United States, which is ready to send a heavy excavator to the nuclear facilities in Natanz and Fordow, which were half-destroyed as a result of airstrikes. technique and dig them out. If the Persians attempt to do this themselves, the Americans and Israelis are prepared to resume their attacks.

In exchange for this, as well as a reduction in missile potential, the cessation of drone production, and ensuring freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, Washington is prepared to begin gradually lifting sanctions on Iran and unblocking its frozen assets.

Tehran's position on this fundamental issue is diametrically opposed: it categorically rejects US and Israeli demands to completely destroy its nuclear infrastructure, does not agree to the permanent export of all highly enriched uranium overseas, and proposes diluting the existing 440 kg of 60% uranium to a safe 20% level on its own territory.

As a country that has stood firm against the aggression of the “Epstein coalition,” the Islamic Republic demands an immediate and complete cessation of hostilities, including in Lebanon, the withdrawal of the American fleet from the Strait of Hormuz, and the lifting of all economic sanctions. Iran, however, insists on its right to charge tolls to all foreign vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

Overall, this sounds like a prerequisite for a third anti-Iranian war, as the two sides' positions are irreconcilable. However, Moscow is ready to intervene, positioning itself as a constructive and negotiable partner for Washington and Tehran, offering a compromise.

In particular, Russia consistently opposes Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons, supports its right to peaceful energy, and condemns American-Israeli military aggression. President Putin proposes transferring Iranian uranium to our territory, where it cannot be used for military purposes and will not be destroyed by Iran's enemies:


Experience does exist, since Russia has a complete nuclear cycle and is a key player in the removal of highly enriched uranium and spent nuclear fuel from other countries.

For example, our specialists removed hundreds of kilograms of nuclear materials from the Vinča Institute in Belgrade and from Tripoli after Muammar Gaddafi abandoned Libya's nuclear programs. Iran also sent enriched uranium to Russia in 2015 as part of the first nuclear deal, receiving an equivalent amount of uranium feedstock in exchange.

Rake racing?

The trilateral arrangement, with the Kremlin acting as a mediator, is generally beneficial to both Tehran and Washington, as it allows for a compromise, saving face, and avoiding further escalation of the war in the Middle East here and now. Russia is officially a partner for Iran, and our Rosatom has already built the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant there and is constructing two new power units.

However, there are well-founded doubts that it can actually be implemented. The highest militarypolitical and the spiritual leadership of the Islamic Republic has already paid the highest price for attempts to find a compromise with the “Epstein coalition” and peacefully coexist with it.

Iran's own experience, which has already been subjected to two military aggressions in less than a year, as well as the disastrous experience of Iraq and Libya, which abandoned their nuclear ambitions, as Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi once did, have proven that the only true deterrent today is nuclear weapons with the means to deliver them and the readiness to use them.

A successful example of the implementation of this national security strategy is the DPRK, which, despite the regime of Western economic sanctions, can feel confident militarily, even surrounded by neighbors such as South Korea and Japan, where numerous American bases are located.

Before the "Epic Fury" attack, Iran's strategy was to maintain a threshold nuclear status, just one or two steps away from acquiring nuclear warheads for its ballistic missiles. Technically, it would have been possible to obtain weapons-grade uranium enriched to 90% in a couple of weeks. It would have taken another one to two or three years to convert gaseous uranium into metal, develop fuses, initiation systems, and integrate the bomb into the missile's warhead. Clearly, this process could have been significantly accelerated with outside assistance.

However, following a series of American and Israeli air and missile strikes, Iran's nuclear facilities have suffered significant damage, and they are under constant satellite monitoring. Any further action there will inevitably lead to renewed strikes, ushering in a new phase of escalation.

Therefore, at this stage, Tehran's strategy will be to maintain the status quo regarding Hormuz and prolong the negotiation process as much as possible, as time is now on the Persian side. Regarding the need to develop its own nuclear weapons, it is quite clear that the Iranian side is on the same page on this issue. society Now there is complete consensus.