US sets new demands for Iran deal: What are they?

United States Vice President JD Vance has called for Iran to make a “meaningful” reduction in its uranium enrichment capacity as part of an agreement to end the war, a demand experts say may signal a softening of Washington’s earlier insistence that Tehran abandon enrichment altogether.

His comments come amid hardline rhetoric from other senior US officials. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has reiterated that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, while President Donald Trump has warned the war will end through either “the nice way or the not-so-nice way”.

Officials in Tehran, meanwhile, have questioned whether Washington genuinely wants negotiations as the US-Israel war on Iran enters its eighth month.

As both sides stake out their positions, Simon Mabon, a professor of international relations at Lancaster University, told Al Jazeera that the prospect of Iran seeking a nuclear weapon has remained remote. Tehran’s negotiators are more concerned with sanctions, frozen Iranian assets, the US naval blockade and fighting across the region – issues he says remain the main obstacles to a deal.

Here is what we know.

What has the US said?

Vance told the Reuters news agency that Iran needed to demonstrate its commitment to not developing nuclear weapons by changing its enrichment programme. “If you don’t want a nuclear weapon, then why do you need 60 percent enriched fuel?” he said.

“If you want to show commitment to not building a nuclear weapon, don’t build highly enriched fuel. That’s a very basic threshold issue.”

Enriching uranium makes it usable as fuel for nuclear reactors or, at much higher levels, for nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran had enriched uranium to 60 percent, below the roughly 90 percent considered weapons-grade. In its May 2025 assessment, it found no credible indications of a structured nuclear programme.

Vance added that the US was speaking with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, although “it’s not totally clear how their country makes decisions”.

Meanwhile, Rubio, speaking to reporters in Athens, accused Iran of missing several opportunities to reach an agreement.

“Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, simple, period, end of story,” he said.

He also claimed Iran had “lost complete control” of the Strait of Hormuz and that its economy was “in total and complete freefall”. Under “crippling” sanctions, it was “about to reach a place few countries in the world have been”, he argued.

Analysts say the comments suggest pressure on Tehran remains central to Washington’s approach, even as Vance’s wording leaves open questions about what nuclear restrictions it would accept.

What has Iran said?

Pezeshkian said on Monday that negotiations with Washington were “futile”, accusing the US of using talks while pursuing Iran’s government.

“Our problem with the United States is that every time we come to the negotiating table, war is immediately imposed upon us,” he said during a meeting with Armenia’s foreign minister.

“They have attacked us three times following talks so far; this demonstrates that they do not seek dialogue. On the contrary, their goal is to bring down the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he said, according to Iran’s official IRNA news agency.

“With an enemy that resorts daily to assassination, sanctions, pressure and threats – and breaks its promises – negotiations become futile, and our nation will not accept such an approach.”

However, Araghchi, addressing foreign ambassadors in Tehran on October 4, said, “Only negotiations based on justice and fairness” could end the conflict, suggesting there is still room for negotiations to continue and a deal to follow.

The statements follow an Iranian proposal presented during the United Nations General Assembly in New York in late September to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and resume negotiations. Trump subsequently rejected it.

How does this compare with previous proposals?

Iran’s latest proposal sought to build on the June 17 memorandum of understanding signed by the two countries, which briefly eased the conflict before breaking down. The new proposal, offered a few weeks ago, essentially compressed the timetable and changed the sequence of steps towards a settlement.

The proposal outlined that fighting would stop on all fronts, including Israel’s offensive in Lebanon. Washington would lift its naval blockade and oil sanctions, and release frozen Iranian assets. The Strait of Hormuz would reopen after seven days, followed by negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme.

Experts say the proposal could have offered Trump a route to restoring shipping ahead of November’s US midterm elections. But differences over the sequence of events remain unresolved.

However, Mabon told Al Jazeera that Washington’s focus on enrichment risked overlooking Tehran’s priorities. “The US is trying to soften its stance on the nuclear question with the Iranians, but for the Iranians, this isn’t the real sticking point. It’s the blockade, the lifting of sanctions, the unfreezing of assets and an end to conflicts across the region.”

A deal allowing limited enrichment would also invite comparisons with the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, negotiated under US President Barack Obama. The agreement restricted Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump withdrew the US from it in 2018.

Mabon said a nuclear agreement had been possible before the current war. “Arguably, a nuclear deal was within reach at several points. We had the JCPOA, of course, but then the Iranians were at the point of agreeing something similar back in February and January. The talks mediated then all suggested a nuclear agreement could be reached, and yet, the decision was taken to go to war.”

What are the other obstacles to a deal?

Mabon said Tehran would need commitments extending beyond the nuclear question. “I think the Iranians would require the lifting of sanctions, the lifting of the blockade and the unfreezing of assets, or at least a road map to that, alongside an end to the conflict in Lebanon and a permanent ceasefire in the Gulf.”

Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains another source of uncertainty, despite Rubio’s claim that Iran has lost control of the waterway.

Although Gulf oil exports have recovered significantly, attacks on vessels continue. On Tuesday, 12 crew members on board a Panama-flagged tanker were injured by an unknown projectile while crossing the strait, India’s Ministry of External Affairs said.

Gulf oil flows, excluding Iran, reached more than 81 percent of pre-war levels in September, according to maritime intelligence firm Kpler. Wider Middle East crude exports exceeded pre-war levels on 14 days that month.

The recovery could ease pressure on the US to reach an agreement, although continuing attacks leave questions over how secure the passage is.

Mabon said Washington’s apparent softening on enrichment suggested it remained uncertain about how fully shipping through Hormuz had recovered.

“If the Americans were confident the strait was open properly, then they’d be pushing for a harder deal.”