U.S. President Donald Trump has publicly downgraded the urgency of recovering the 400 kg of 60%-enriched uranium still buried under the rubble of Iran’s bombed nuclear sites, telling reporters the removal effort is “more for public relations than it is for anything else.”
“More for public relations than it is for anything else… I would just feel better getting it.”
— Donald Trump
The admission collapses the central justification offered for last year’s U.S.-Israeli bombing of Iran’s declared nuclear facilities in June 2025 — the campaign that was sold to the American public as an existential necessity to prevent Tehran from obtaining nuclear material.
The stockpile that survived the war
Despite the bombing, the IAEA-tracked stockpile of 400 kg enriched to 60% purity — a step away from weapons-grade — was not destroyed. It remains under the rubble, still in Iranian hands, still monitored from above by U.S. surveillance. Trump described that surveillance as adequate, calling its presence the reason removal isn’t urgent.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu takes the opposite line. He described removal of the uranium as “terrifically important” and insists the conflict cannot be considered concluded while the material remains on Iranian soil. That gap between the two leaders’ framing matters, because the threat to renew strikes reported by the NYT this week centres on exactly this disagreement.
What Iran has offered, what Iran refuses
Tehran has rejected the U.S.-Israeli demand to dismantle enrichment or hand over the uranium. It has, however, offered a partial concession: down-blending the 60%-purity material to lower-grade reactor fuel. The U.S. and Israel have refused this in favour of full removal.
Iranian parliamentary spokesman Ebrahim Rezaei went further, warning that another strike will move Iran’s enrichment to weapons-grade — the line Tehran has not yet crossed despite holding the material for over a year.
“PR” — what Trump actually said, and what it means
By Trump’s own framing, removing the uranium is not about preventing an Iranian bomb. It is about optics. About being able to claim a clean conclusion to a war that was sold as preventing a bomb but in fact left the bomb material exactly where it was, with the original owner.
That is a striking admission. It implicitly concedes:
- The bombing did not actually achieve its stated military objective
- The follow-on demand for “full removal” exists not because the material is uniquely dangerous, but because without it the war looks unfinished
- The “PR” loss that would come from leaving the uranium in place is what’s driving the renewed pressure
Iran, for its part, has now been told publicly that the uranium is wanted not because of the threat it poses, but because Washington needs the picture to look better. That is a difficult opener for any negotiation.
Source: RT.com
