Tehran refuses to dismantle nuclear sites — Trump calls response 'totally unacceptable'

Iran has delivered a formal reply to the American peace proposal, routed through Pakistan, whose role in transmitting it was confirmed by Islamabad. In that reply, Tehran agrees to transfer its stockpile of enriched uranium but refuses to dismantle its nuclear installations. The U.S. presidency called the offer "unacceptable" and raised the prospect of further strikes. The dismantlement question now stands as the only public sticking point in the negotiation.

The heart of the disagreement lies in the very nature of the offer. Tehran frames keeping its installations as a matter of sovereignty, while Washington reads it as a minimum requirement left unmet. On this precise point the two positions are mutually exclusive: one demands the physical destruction of the enrichment infrastructure, the other refuses to allow it.

The context is marked by a gap between rhetoric of military victory and a more entrenched diplomatic reality: Iran remains in place, mediators are exhausted, and allies are divided. Some actors read the uranium transfer as an unprecedented concession and judge a negotiated exit still possible; others hold that only the removal of enrichment capabilities counts as an acceptable outcome.

Still disputed are Pakistan's exact role, cast at times as a central mediator and at times as a mere channel, and the reading of urgency: some actors frame the crisis through its energy and economic consequences, notably on prices and maritime routes, while others stress the absence of an exit strategy. How quickly Iran could reconstitute its capabilities remains a point of technical uncertainty.