Report: Iran Was Nearing Nuclear Capabilities While Negotiating ‘Peace’
Oman’s foreign minister said Feb. 27 that negotiations with Iran had produced a potential breakthrough on the country’s nuclear program, even as the Islamic Republic was continuing to secretly advance its nuclear weapons program.
Speaking during an interview on CBS in Washington, the minister said Iranian officials had agreed in principle to eliminate their stockpile of enriched uranium, permit full monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and convert existing nuclear material into reactor fuel.
According to the minister, the proposal would involve irreversible steps to prevent the material from being used for weapons purposes while allowing international inspectors to verify compliance.
“This is something completely new,” he said. “If you cannot stockpile material that is enriched, then there is no way you can actually create a bomb.”
On the same day that Oman announced a reported breakthrough in nuclear negotiations with Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) circulated a confidential report raising concerns about undeclared nuclear material, Vision Times reported.
The agency said it was unable to verify the exact size, composition, or precise location of the material. Inspectors also reported what they described as a “loss of continuity of knowledge” regarding Iran’s nuclear inventory, indicating that monitoring gaps had prevented the agency from maintaining a complete record of the material’s status.
Analysts reviewing intelligence reports, satellite imagery and international monitoring data say evidence suggests Iran continued advancing aspects of its nuclear program while diplomatic negotiations were underway.
According to the assessments, Tehran allegedly concealed portions of its nuclear activities from international inspectors while expanding construction of hardened facilities tied to the program. The developments were reported to have occurred during the months preceding military strikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure in early 2026, the outlet reported.
Four strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities during the ongoing U.S.-Israeli military campaign highlight both allies’ determination to eliminate Iran’s remaining pathways to nuclear weapons, said a separate report.
The attacks, which appear to be carried out by Israel, targeted several locations: a covert nuclear weapons development site known as Minzadehei; entrances to enrichment facilities at Natanz; structures within the nuclear complex at Isfahan; and a laboratory in the Lavisan 2/Mojdeh complex that houses facilities operated by Iran’s nuclear weapons program’s administrative arm, SPND, the separate report added.
Diplomatic discussions in late February focused on a proposed framework that would significantly restrict Iran’s nuclear program, according to officials familiar with the talks, Vision Times noted.
Under the proposal, Iran would stop accumulating enriched uranium, permit comprehensive monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and convert existing nuclear material into reactor fuel. The measures were intended to limit Iran’s ability to produce weapons-grade material while allowing for international oversight.
However, a confidential IAEA report circulated around the same time raised questions about whether such commitments could be effectively verified. Agency inspectors had already warned of a “loss of continuity of knowledge” regarding Iran’s nuclear materials after access to key facilities had been restricted for several months, said the outlet.
The report said Iran had concealed a stockpile of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity in an underground tunnel complex at the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center.
Because inspectors lacked access to several enrichment sites, the IAEA said it could not confirm the full size, composition, or precise location of Iran’s nuclear stockpile.
Military strikes targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure began the following day, Vision Times added.
For years, international monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program focused on whether Tehran would enrich uranium to 90 percent purity, the level widely considered weapons-grade.
However, some researchers have suggested that lower enrichment levels could still pose proliferation risks. In July 2025, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists published research indicating that 60 percent-enriched uranium could be used in crude nuclear devices without additional enrichment.
A separate study by physicists at Illinois State University estimated that approximately 40 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent could produce a device with an explosive yield of about one kiloton, said Vision Times.
U.S.–CANADA WATER TENSIONS? OTTAWA SIGNALS SOVEREIGNTY IS NON-NEGOTIABLE…
U.S.–CANADA WATER TENSIONS? OTTAWA SIGNALS SOVEREIGNTY IS NON-NEGOTIABLE…
Tensions between Washington and Ottawa have taken an extraordinary turn — not over trade, defense, or tariffs — but over water.
Amid deepening drought conditions across the American West, President Donald Trump raised the idea that Canada’s vast freshwater reserves could help alleviate shortages in states like California, Arizona, and Nevada. While he stopped short of issuing a formal demand, his remarks suggesting Canada’s water could act like a “large faucet” for the United States ignited immediate controversy.
Ottawa’s response was swift — and unequivocal.
Prime Minister Mark Carney rejected any suggestion that Canada’s freshwater resources are up for negotiation, declaring them a sovereign public trust and “not a commodity to be controlled or transferred under external pressure.”
The exchange has exposed a deeper fault line in North American relations: how nations respond to resource scarcity in an era of climate stress.
The Drought Reality in the American West
The American Southwest is facing sustained water pressure:
The Colorado River system is under historic strain.
Lake Mead and Lake Powell remain below long-term averages.
Rapid population growth continues in water-stressed regions.
Agriculture in California and Arizona is increasingly vulnerable.
Cities including Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles are investing heavily in conservation, wastewater recycling, and desalination. But long-term projections show continued volatility as climate change alters snowpack and runoff patterns.
In that context, Trump’s comments about Canada’s freshwater abundance resonated with some U.S. observers who see continental resource sharing as pragmatic.
What Canada Actually Controls
Canada holds roughly 20% of the world’s freshwater resources — though much of that is locked in glaciers, remote watersheds, or flows northward away from population centers.
The two countries already cooperate extensively on shared water systems, most notably through:
The Great Lakes agreements
The Boundary Waters Treaty (1909)
The Columbia River Treaty
British Columbia recently confirmed that discussions regarding the modernization of the Columbia River Treaty are under review by the U.S. administration — though no formal collapse of agreements has occurred.
What has not happened is any formal U.S. demand for ownership or control of Canadian water infrastructure. The dispute remains rhetorical — but politically charged.
Why Ottawa Drew a Hard Line
Carney’s refusal reflects longstanding Canadian policy.
Canada has historically resisted:
Bulk freshwater export proposals
Cross-border water diversion megaprojects
Treating freshwater as a tradable commodity under trade agreements
The concern in Ottawa is not short-term sales — it’s legal precedent. If water were formally commodified, it could fall under international trade dispute mechanisms, potentially limiting Canada’s ability to regulate its own supply in the future.
Canadian leaders across party lines have traditionally viewed water sovereignty as non-negotiable.
Carney framed the issue in environmental and strategic terms:
Climate volatility affects Canadian watersheds too.
Glacial melt is accelerating in Western Canada.
Long-term ecological impacts of diversion are unpredictable.
The argument is not simply nationalist — it’s precautionary.
The Infrastructure Reality
Large-scale water transfers from Canada to the U.S. Southwest would require:
Thousands of miles of pipeline or canal systems
Massive pumping energy requirements
Multibillion-dollar capital investment
Complex environmental approvals
No such project is currently under construction or formally approved.
Policy think tanks have studied water diversion concepts for decades, but they remain economically and politically contentious.
The Philosophical Divide
At the heart of the controversy is a deeper debate:
Is water an economic asset that can be traded like oil or gas?
Or is it a protected public trust insulated from market forces?
In the United States, market-based allocation of water resources is more common. In Canada, water governance is more closely tied to public stewardship and provincial authority.
That philosophical difference is now colliding with climate pressure.
What This Means Geopolitically
Despite heated rhetoric, this is not a military standoff. It is a policy divergence amplified by climate stress.
Still, the symbolism matters.
For decades, U.S.–Canada relations have been defined by:
Deep integration
Predictable cooperation
Quiet dispute resolution
Public disagreement over water — a resource fundamental to survival — marks a notable escalation in tone, if not yet in formal policy.
Experts warn that as climate change intensifies:
Water diplomacy will become as important as energy diplomacy.
Resource security will increasingly shape alliances.
Infrastructure vulnerability will redefine leverage.
The Path Forward
Realistically, any future cooperation would likely take the form of:
Joint conservation initiatives
Shared basin management
Technology exchange (desalination, recycling, storage)
Climate adaptation coordination
Large-scale bulk water transfers remain politically radioactive in Canada and economically complex in the United States.
For now, Carney’s message is clear:
Canada’s water is not for sale.
And Washington has not formally moved beyond rhetoric.
The Bigger Picture
This episode highlights a larger truth:
In the 21st century, water — not oil — may become the defining strategic resource.
But unlike oil, water is immovable geography. It is tied to ecosystems, borders, and long-term sustainability.
How the United States and Canada manage water cooperation in a warming climate will signal whether resource stress leads to confrontation — or innovation.
