Please Contribute Here to help us Grow!
For weeks, American diplomats sat across the table with officials from Iran and tried to reach a deal. They travelled to Oman and went to Switzerland. They offered incentives, laid out red lines, and kept coming back. In the end, they concluded it was all a waste of time and reported their findings to President Donald Trump.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Briefing reporters, including ANI, on Tuesday (local time) about the background of the US-led attack on Iran, senior US officials walked reporters through exactly what happened during those three rounds of talks and explained why they believe Iran was never serious about giving up its nuclear programme.
Advertisement
Officials described a pattern of delay, threats, and “false pretences” on the Iranian side during talks held in Oman and Switzerland.
Advertisement
According to US officials, the first round began with what they termed a “threat dressed as a negotiation.” Iran’s lead negotiator, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran, Abbas Araghchi, opened by asserting that uranium enrichment was his country’s “inalienable right.”
Advertisement
He also stated that Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched to 60 per cent — approximately 460 kilograms — was enough material for eleven nuclear bombs, and warned that the United States would have to “pay dearly” to retrieve it.
Advertisement
At one point, Araghchi remarked that Iran would “never allow America to achieve through diplomacy what it couldn’t achieve militarily,” though he later sought to retract the comment. “That was a pretty strong statement about where they felt this negotiation was going,” one US official said.
Advertisement
Before the second round, Washington asked Tehran to submit a written draft proposal within five to six days. Iran agreed, but no document arrived, the US claims. “We have an aircraft carrier out there that they’re complaining about, a second one on the way — and we can’t get a draft agreement out of them,” one official said. “What does that tell you about their intentions?”
Advertisement
During the third round in Switzerland, Iran presented a five-to-seven-page proposal described as a “needs-based agreement,” linking enrichment levels to projected civilian requirements. However, US officials said they were not permitted to take the document away for analysis. One official compared it to “Swiss cheese,” citing significant gaps.
Advertisement
A key dispute centred on Iran’s Tehran Research Reactor, which Iran claims is used for peaceful medical isotope production. The proposal sought to justify enrichment up to 20 per cent at the facility — well above the 3.67 per cent cap established under the 2015 nuclear accord.
Advertisement
Working with Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, US officials said they found the reactor already had seven to eight years’ worth of unused fuel and that “no meaningful medical isotope production had taken place.”
Advertisement
“The claim that they were using a research reactor to do good for the Iranian people,” one official said, “was a complete and false pretence.”
Advertisement
In what officials called a “free fuel test,” the US offered Iran unlimited nuclear fuel at no cost. Iran rejected the proposal, calling it an insult to its dignity. “They twisted themselves into pretzels to explain why enrichment was their national right and their national pride,” one official said.
Advertisement
US officials further alleged that even as talks progressed, Iran was relocating nuclear and ballistic assets underground, including into newly constructed facilities designed to withstand bunker-buster strikes.
Advertisement
After the Switzerland meeting, negotiators briefed President Trump, concluding that while a deal similar to the 2015 accord might be achievable, it would not resolve the core issue. “If you want us to make an Obama-style deal — maybe an Obama-plus deal — we could probably get one done,” officials told the President. “But if you’re asking whether we’d be able to look you in the eye and say we’ve actually solved the issue — no.”
Advertisement
Military operations followed shortly thereafter.
Advertisement
Officials maintained that diplomacy remains an option if Iran fundamentally changes course — including abandoning enrichment and cutting ties with proxy groups such as Hezbollah and the Houthis.
Advertisement
“The door will be wide open,” one official said, but added that Washington currently believes Tehran “had never intended to give up the building blocks of a bomb.”
Advertisement
On February 28, the US and Israel carried out coordinated airstrikes across multiple Iranian cities, targeting military command centres, air-defence systems, missile sites, and key regime infrastructure. These strikes resulted in the deaths of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and four senior military and security officials, with large explosions reported in Tehran and other major cities.
Advertisement
In response, Iran launched ballistic missiles and drones at US assets and allies across the region, including Israel, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan, further widening the conflict in the Middle East and heightening risks for civilians and expatriates alike.-ANI
Advertisement