Iran Said It Possesses Enough Uranium For 11 Nukes: Report
U.S. negotiations with Iran broke down after Tehran’s negotiators openly stated their intention to enrich uranium to levels suitable for producing nuclear weapons, according to Steve Witkoff, President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy.
Witkoff recounted that the American delegation was taken aback by this declaration, causing him and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to exchange uneasy glances as the Iranian officials clarified their stance.
“The Iranians made it clear from the start that they believe they have an undeniable right to enrich all the uranium they possess,” Witkoff said in an interview with Fox News. “That was how they opened the talks.”
U.S. negotiators immediately pushed back, with Witkoff stating that Washington believed it had the right to completely shut down Iran’s enrichment activities. Instead of backing down, Iranian officials reinforced their position.
“Jared and I just looked at each other and thought, ‘Is this really happening?’” Witkoff said.
The breakdown became inevitable when Tehran rejected a U.S. proposal that would have frozen enrichment for a decade. Under the plan, the United States offered to supply Iran with nuclear fuel at its expense.
“That was the moment we understood they had no intention of doing anything other than enriching uranium for nuclear weapons,” Witkoff said.
Iranian negotiators acknowledged the size of their nuclear stockpile during the discussions, Witkoff said. Two officials confirmed that they possessed approximately 460 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent.
Witkoff noted that the Iranians acknowledged the potential conversion of this material into as many as 11 nuclear bombs.
“They weren’t hiding it. They were proud,” he said, noting further that Iranian negotiators also boasted about being able to evade international monitoring systems as the country was enlarging its stockpile.
Tensions escalated sharply during a meeting last Thursday in Geneva when Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi shouted after the American delegation reiterated its demand for a ten-year halt to enrichment, according to NBC News.
Witkoff said he responded calmly to the outburst. “If you prefer, I can leave,” he told Araghchi.
Following the collapse of the talks, the U.S. team provided President Trump with an update on the situation. A senior administration official indicated that the president was taken aback by the Iranian delegation’s candid insistence on enrichment. Witkoff noted that the negotiations demonstrated Tehran’s lack of interest in reaching a meaningful compromise.
“President Trump sent us to see if Iran was serious,” he said. “But by the second meeting, it was clear a deal was impossible. We came to the third meeting in good faith, and they wanted us to project optimism. There was nothing optimistic about it.”
Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance is doubling down on his message that there is “no chance” the United States will become entangled in a prolonged Middle East war if President Donald Trump authorizes additional military action against Iran.
Speaking aboard Air Force Two on Thursday, Vance stressed that the White House is not contemplating a protracted “nation-building” scenario in Iran with thousands of U.S. military “boots on the ground.”
“The idea that we’re going to be in a Middle Eastern war for years with no end in sight—there is no chance that will happen,” Vance told The Washington Post.
The United States has long maintained that enrichment inside Iran presents a potential pathway to nuclear weapons capability and has stated unequivocally that Tehran cannot be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon.
On social media following an appearance on “Jesse Watters Primetime” on Monday, Vance reiterated the administration’s position.
“President Trump will not get the United States into a years-long conflict with no clear objective,” Vance wrote. “Iran can never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. That is the goal of this operation, and President Trump will see it through to completion.”
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
