# Tehran Refuses to Send 60% Enriched Uranium Abroad and Questions Who Speaks for Washington

*Monday, November 2, 2026 at 10:08 AM UTC — Hamer Intelligence Services Desk*

**Published**: 2026-11-02T10:08:00.570Z (2h ago)
**Category**: geopolitics | **Region**: Middle East
**Importance**: 8/10
**Sources**: OSINT
**Permalink**: https://hamerintel.com/data/articles/22260.md
**Source**: https://hamerintel.com/summaries

---

**Deck**: Iran’s Foreign Ministry says it won’t accept any proposal to transfer 60% enriched uranium to another country and insists the idea wasn’t discussed at recent Doha talks. Spokesperson Esmail Baghaei coupled that stance with accusations of U.S. double standards on war and open doubt about who actually makes decisions in Washington.

Iran has ruled out handing any of its 60% enriched uranium to another country, shutting off one pathway that outside powers have seen as a way to reduce nuclear tensions.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said the transfer of 60% enriched uranium to a third country was not discussed during negotiations in Doha and stressed that Tehran would not accept such a proposal. His comments address one of the most sensitive aspects of Iran’s program, since enrichment to 60% goes well beyond typical civilian power needs and has drawn persistent concern from Western and regional governments.

Baghaei framed Iran’s position within a broader critique of U.S. policy. He spoke of what he called Washington’s double standards on war and said, “We will not be deceived,” signaling deep mistrust of American intentions. He argued that contradictory statements by U.S. officials show confusion and leave the world wondering who actually makes decisions in the United States, asking who Iran should engage with in Washington.

He also said the American public is tired of and angry about what he described as the Israeli regime’s parasitic behavior toward the United States, and accused Washington of devoting its credibility, wealth and standing to a government that “thinks only about war.”

For diplomats, Tehran’s refusal to contemplate transferring 60% enriched uranium abroad narrows the menu of practical steps that might ease proliferation worries. Previous arrangements relied in part on limits to enrichment and on moving sensitive material out of Iran. If that option is now off the table, attention shifts to other mechanisms such as monitoring, on‑site storage arrangements or caps negotiated under more difficult political conditions.

Baghaei’s remarks also underscore how Iran links its nuclear stance to wider regional grievances, including U.S. support for Israel. His suggestion that it is unclear who speaks for Washington reflects Tehran’s concern about rapid shifts in U.S. foreign policy and about investing in talks that might not survive changes in American politics.

The next important signals will be any new reporting by international inspectors on Iran’s 60% stockpile, official U.S. and European reactions to Baghaei’s comments, and concrete moves by Tehran either to adjust enrichment levels or to restrict or maintain access for inspectors. Those steps will show whether this week’s rhetoric hardens into a more permanent negotiating position or leaves room for compromise.