Norway-Taliban Ties Date Back to Years Ago, Former Afghan Diplomats

Norway-Taliban Ties Date Back to Years Ago, Former Afghan Diplomats
TT

Norway-Taliban Ties Date Back to Years Ago, Former Afghan Diplomats

Norway-Taliban Ties Date Back to Years Ago, Former Afghan Diplomats

Norway is known as an international mediator and has long been in contact with various war parties in countries around the world. Amongst these groups is Taliban which has had contacts with Norwegian politicians ever since 2005, when they regrouped following their fall from power in 2001. The summit on January 23, 2022 is not the first trip of Taliban to Norway. In the last 15 years, the heads of the group have been repeatedly invited to Norway on secret trips and have spoken to officials there.

Norway has long tried to solve conflicts in various countries. Now, with its open and official invitation of Taliban officials, it has kickstarted the official political presence of Taliban in Europe. Taliban were refused ordinary diplomatic protocol but were given the opportunity to speak to European and US officials and also representatives of Afghan civil society. But why did Norway lead this process and what makes Oslo interested in Taliban and their interactions with Afghan society?

Manizha Bakhtari, a former ambassador of Afghanistan to Norway, spoke to Independent Persian about the Taliban-Norway relationship which goes back at least 15 years. According to her, because the Norwegian governments have long been interested in bringing about peace and solving of conflicts in various countries around the world, it has also been in contact with Taliban, at least since 2005, i.e. when the group started its resurgence in Afghanistan.

Bakhtari, who was the Afghan top diplomat in Norway from 2009 to 2015, told me: “During my mission, the Norwegian government repeatedly invited Taliban leaders to visit that country secretly and to meet with Norwegian politicians. But these meetings were kept from people, media and even the Afghan embassy and were held in secret locations.”

Another former Afghan diplomat, who spoke to Independent Persian on the condition of anonymity, said official invites to Taliban are nothing new for Norway.

“In 2013, as Taliban prisoners were freed from Guantanamo and stationed in Doha, the Norwegian government issued diplomatic passport for some Taliban leaders and invited them to talks in Norway,” the diplomat said. “This is while the Afghan government refused to issue passports to these people at the time.”

The recent Taliban trip to Oslo led to a lot of controversy. Especially jarring to many human rights activists was the presence of Annas Haqqani on the delegation. A leading member of the Haqqani network, he has been in charge of a number of deadly terrorist attacks in Afghanistan. Responding to criticisms of his government, Norway’s Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store said he didn’t know anything about an invitation to Haqqani.

The former Afghan diplomat said Store’s claim, that he didn’t know anything about Haqqani’s trip, was unreasonable. Even if he had come under a different name, his passport has his picture which shouldn’t have evaded the Norwegian immigration authorities who issued him a visa.

It’s not the first time that Taliban are invited to European capitals, who are committed to all human rights standards, to speak with the political officials there.

Speaking to Independent Persian, Shukria Barakzai, Afghanistan’s ambassador to Norway from 2015 to 2019, also confirmed the long-standing relations between Taliban and Oslo. She said the official ties date back to 2013, when Taliban opened their Doha offices. Norwegians had a direct role in writing the US-Taliban agreement in Doha, Barakzai added.

“Norway acts as a soft pressure actor for the US,” Barakzai told me. “Norway intervenes in the affairs of countries that are important to the US; those it has plots for.”

Both former Afghan envoys to Norway insisted that the Oslo meeting on January 23 might be seen as the first official and open meeting between Norway and the Taliban delegation but there are long-standing ties between the two. Norway also had a key role in the Doha agreement of 2020 which, many believe, led to the collapse of the former Afghan government. Norway is thus amongst the key actors in recent developments in Afghanistan. Hosting Taliban in Oslo can bring about a change in Taliban’s standing and its relations with other countries.

What will result from the Oslo summit?

Norway’s invitation of Taliban led to contrasting reactions from politicians and Afghan human rights community. Some consider the Oslo summit a step towards the recognition of Taliban and their normalization as the government. Some others see this as an opportunity for direct dialogue between human rights and women’s activists with Taliban officials, in the presence of international observers.

For Shukria Barakzai, this summit is mostly important because representatives of Afghan women got to sit at a table with Taliban and foreign officials and put forward human rights demands.

“No group will get to a final conclusion based on this meeting,” Barakzai says. “Taliban will not get recognition out of it and no attack order against them will be issued either. But what matters is globalizing of the struggle and resistance of women of Afghanistan against extremism and anti-human rights orders.”

Every opportunity to share the demands of Afghan women with the world should be used, she added.

For Manizha Bakhtari, the Oslo summit is a step towards Taliban’s introduction to the international community as a political group. Based on her experiences in Europe, she believes other European countries will now follow suit.

“More talks in Europe will mean, at least, a de facto recognition of Taliban,” Bakhtari said. “This has already happened but will be more normalized now.”

Taliban are a terrorist group and Norway was wrong to treat them as political guests, Bakhtari added. According to her, this was a major mistake by Norway and against its human rights values. She only hopes that the meeting could have helped humanitarian aid to Afghanistan.

The meeting did offer a chance for direct dialogue between Taliban and representatives of Afghan women, Barakzai insisted.

“If it was a meeting only with Taliban and without representatives of Afghan civil society, Norway would have been seriously criticized by its own citizens and other human rights defenders,” the former diplomat said.

Complaining about political dealings ignoring human rights, Barakzai said: “It seems to me that human rights values are gradually losing their place in political dealings. Governments that claim to support human rights, usually support these rights in their own territory but, beyond it, the political dealings supersede human rights for them.”

Can Taliban’s behavior change?

Is Taliban changing from a violent and extremist group to one with reasonable political positions? According to Bakhtari, the group has always tried to show a young and soft face to Europe but they haven’t actually changed.

“Norway has been in touch with Taliban for a long time,” she says. “All this while, Taliban shows a new and soft face to Norwegians. That’s why there is some trust between them and European countries like Norway. But Taliban is the same Taliban.”

Shukria Barakzai agrees that there is no hope for Taliban changing their behavior. The group is led by extremist clerics who are uneducated and without understanding of politics or governance and so long as they are in power, you can’t hope for any change.

“Taliban currently violates civic freedoms and human rights,” Barakzai said. “It has denied women the right to education, labor, social interaction and even freedom of clothing. Taliban’s domination over Afghanistan is declining because people are fighting against such extremism and violation of human rights.”

Taliban’s treatment of Afghan people, and especially Afghan women, was in contradiction with the culture of Afghan society and even Islamic rules, Barakzai said. Taliban is a unique group with its own behavior which isn’t in line with Afghan or Islamic culture.

The Taliban delegation’s meeting with envoys from Europe, US and Afghan civil society in Oslo happened following five months of the rule by the group. During this time, it has committed dozens of murders, arrests, torture and kidnapping of civilians and soldiers of the previous government, reporters and protesting women. The latest case that made the news was arresting of protesting girls in Kabul and Balkh. Hoda Khamoosh, representing Afghan women in Oslo, spoke about them.



Back to Israeli Occupation of South Lebanon?

Smoke rises from explosions during Israeli military operations in the Lebanese village of Taybeh on April 1, 2026. (AFP)
Smoke rises from explosions during Israeli military operations in the Lebanese village of Taybeh on April 1, 2026. (AFP)
TT

Back to Israeli Occupation of South Lebanon?

Smoke rises from explosions during Israeli military operations in the Lebanese village of Taybeh on April 1, 2026. (AFP)
Smoke rises from explosions during Israeli military operations in the Lebanese village of Taybeh on April 1, 2026. (AFP)

A month into Israel's war against Hezbollah, invading Israeli troops are gradually advancing in south Lebanon, raising fears for the area's fate following the last Israeli occupation that lasted nearly two decades.

Since war erupted last month, Israeli officials have said Israel intends to establish a "security zone" inside Lebanon.

More recently, Defense Minister Israel Katz said the military "will establish itself in a security zone inside Lebanon ... and will maintain security control over the entire area up to the Litani" river, around 30 kilometers (20 miles) from the border.

What is happening on the ground and how far could Israel go?

- What's happening in south Lebanon? -

The Israeli military previously issued unprecedented evacuation orders for swathes of the country's south, where Iran-backed Hezbollah holds sway.

An Israeli military source told AFP that four army divisions are currently deployed across the country's northern border.

A Western military source in south Lebanon said "the Israelis are advancing one axis at a time" and destroying border villages as they go.

The source told AFP on condition of anonymity that Israeli forces had taken the strategic town of Khiam, located along the eastern stretch of the shared border.

Hezbollah, which drew Lebanon into the Middle East war last month with rocket fire towards Israel, has been claiming repeated attacks on Israeli troops in south Lebanon, where Israel's military says 10 soldiers have been killed in combat.

The Iran-backed group is not halting Israeli troops' advance "but is seeking symbolic victories such as the destruction of Merkava tanks", the Western military source said.

David Wood, senior Lebanon analyst at the International Crisis Group, told AFP that as Israel pushes further inside Lebanon, "it is entering a style of warfare that might actually suit Hezbollah better, in this sort of guerrilla hit-and-run style of fighting".

Lebanon's army has announced troop "repositioning and redeployment" in parts of the south where Israel is advancing.

A Lebanese military source said Israeli soldiers have advanced up to 10 kilometers (six miles) in some places, and Lebanon's army, which has limited means, fears it will be targeted or encircled.

Israeli fire has killed one on-duty Lebanese soldier.

United Nations peacekeepers deployed in south Lebanon have been powerless to stop the fighting, with three of their troops also killed.

- What does Israel want? -

Katz has said Israel would control south Lebanon up to the Litani, and vowed that hundreds of thousands of south Lebanon residents will not return until northern Israel's security is guaranteed.

Lebanese Defense Minister Michel Menassa this week denounced "a clear intention to impose a new occupation of Lebanese territory".

UN aid chief Tom Fletcher has warned that south Lebanon could become another occupied territory in the Middle East.

But Eyal Zisser, a Lebanon expert at Tel Aviv University, cautioned against taking Katz's announcements at face value.

"He's good at making statements, but you always have to check first of all if it is in full agreement" with what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says, he told AFP's Jerusalem bureau.

Netanyahu has ordered troops to "further expand" a so-called security zone in south Lebanon "to definitively neutralize the threat of invasion (by Hezbollah) and to keep anti-tank missile fire away from the border".

Military analyst and retired Lebanese army general Khalil Helou told AFP that Hezbollah has "recruited people from southern towns" for decades, giving the group "local power" that Israel fears could be further exploited if southerners return.

- New occupation? -

Israel has previously tried to create a buffer zone in southern Lebanon.

Following a first invasion in 1978, Israeli troops returned four years later, entering Lebanon all the way to Beirut to drive out Palestinian fighters.

Hezbollah was born in response to the 1982 invasion.

Israel withdrew gradually but kept an area up to 20 kilometers deep inside Lebanese territory until 2000, when it pulled out under persistent pressure from Hezbollah.

Lebanese are increasingly concerned about a return to a similar scenario.

In its last war with Hezbollah and even after a November 2024 ceasefire, Israeli troops damaged or destroyed swathes of border villages and towns through strikes, controlled demolitions and the wrecking of agricultural areas.

Zisser said Israel maintaining control of the area south of the Litani was technically feasible.

"But you need to make a decision and you need to decide how to do it, (whether) to occupy the entire territory and establish yourself there" or not, he said.

Wood meanwhile cautioned that an occupation would create "new security threats" for Israel.

"If Israel denies people the right to return to their ancestral homes, then armed resistance groups will emerge or will continue to take up this struggle," he said.


Al-Tanf Crossing Opens Iraqi Energy Lifeline to Counter Hormuz Disruption

Iraqi fuel tankers heading to enter Syrian territory (Syrian General Authority for Land and Sea Ports)
Iraqi fuel tankers heading to enter Syrian territory (Syrian General Authority for Land and Sea Ports)
TT

Al-Tanf Crossing Opens Iraqi Energy Lifeline to Counter Hormuz Disruption

Iraqi fuel tankers heading to enter Syrian territory (Syrian General Authority for Land and Sea Ports)
Iraqi fuel tankers heading to enter Syrian territory (Syrian General Authority for Land and Sea Ports)

In a step reflecting a strategic shift in regional energy routes, Baghdad has officially begun exporting crude oil via Syria, in an effort to bypass the paralysis that has affected traditional maritime trade corridors. The move, which Damascus described as a return to its role as a “transit compass” and a vital platform for global energy, comes amid sweeping geopolitical shifts in the region that are imposing a new economic reality based on overland integration between the two countries.

The first convoys of Iraqi fuel tankers set off through the Al-Tanf–Al-Waleed border crossing, heading toward the Baniyas refinery on Syria’s Mediterranean coast, marking the effective launch of a new phase of economic cooperation. The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported that the cargo of 299 fuel tankers will later be loaded for export.

The Al-Tanf crossing had been closed since 2015, when ISIS took control of it. In 2016, US-backed forces established a military base in Al-Tanf. Syrian forces took control of the base last month, paving the way for the crossing to reopen.

"Transit Compass"

With the first convoys entering Syrian territory through the Al-Tanf–Al-Waleed crossing en route to Baniyas, Syrian Energy Minister Mohammed Al-Bashir wrote on X: “From the Syrian-Iraqi border to the maritime carriers in Baniyas... Syria is returning as a transit compass and a strategic export platform for global energy.” He said the step “enhances national interests and advances Arab economic integration toward broader horizons.”

The General Authority for Land and Sea Ports said the move represents “an important milestone in developing economic cooperation between the two countries by activating trade and energy routes, enhancing opportunities for economic integration, and supporting trade flows in the coming phase,” stressing its readiness to provide all necessary facilitation and ensure efficient procedures.

Mazen Alloush, director of public relations at the authority, announced Tuesday via Facebook the reopening of the Al-Tanf–Al-Waleed crossing, confirming the entry of the first Iraqi oil tanker convoys toward the Baniyas terminal.

In parallel, a delegation from the authority conducted a field tour to assess readiness at the Al-Yarubiyah–Rabia crossing ahead of plans to resume operations in early May, while also reviewing the status of the Semalka–Fishkhabour crossing as part of procedures to integrate it into the authority’s operational system. Passenger traffic has resumed at the Al-Bukamal–Al-Qaim crossing.

Alongside the reopening of Al-Waleed, Syrian government efforts are focused on activating Al-Yarubiyah–Rabia in early May and completing procedures at Semalka–Fishkhabour to strengthen the broader cross-border connectivity network.

For his part, the Iraqi subdistrict head of Al-Waleed, Mujahid Mardhi Al-Dulaimi, told the Iraqi News Agency (INA) that the crossing has entered a trial reopening phase with crude oil tankers beginning to move between Iraq and Syria. He said more than 150 tankers are currently waiting to enter Syrian territory, expecting daily traffic to reach at least 500 tankers.

Oil cooperation between Syria and Iraq has the backing of President Donald Trump’s administration. US Special Envoy to Syria Tom Barrack said last week at the Atlantic Council that Syria could be “the solution” to the energy crisis stemming from the situation in the Strait of Hormuz, highlighting the potential development of pipeline networks, including from Iraq.

Iraqi fuel tankers heading to enter Syrian territory (Syrian General Authority for Land and Sea Ports)

"Syria a Vital Option"

The move gains added significance amid escalating regional tensions and intensifying confrontation between the United States and Israel on one side and Iran on the other, which has resulted in direct threats to navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20 percent of global energy supplies pass.

In this context, economic expert Dr. Fadi Ayash said Iraq, as a major oil producer, has found in Syria a vital and available option to sustain export flows, especially given the difficulty of secure maritime exports. He said the current direction aims to raise tanker traffic to between 500 and 700 per day at a minimum.

Amid drone attacks and shelling targeting the Syrian side of the border since the outbreak of the unprecedented regional war- including a drone strike last Saturday launched from Iraq on the Al-Tanf base in southeastern Syria, questions arise about the sustainability of keeping crossings open and continuing Iraqi oil exports through Syrian territory under these security conditions.

Ayash said: “There is no doubt that Iraq is among the Gulf countries most affected by the current war, given that it is a major oil producer and exporter heavily dependent on export revenues. It therefore had to look for alternatives to sustain exports, and Syria was a viable option. However, sustainability depends on balancing financial and oil needs- especially with continued disruption in the Strait of Hormuz- against on-the-ground security challenges in active conflict zones.”

Iraq is seeking to increase exports through Syria to between 600 and 700 trucks per day, making it a vital and mutually agreed option. According to Ayash, this represents “a practical application of spatial economics as a temporary solution to sustain exports, allowing time and resources to revive the pipeline linking Iraq and Syria to the Baniyas oil terminal on the Mediterranean. Pipeline exports are more efficient, less costly, and more secure, particularly as border areas are subject to intermittent security tensions and shelling, posing direct risks to trucks and crews.”

Iraq had reduced oil production by about 80 percent, to 800,000 barrels, due to shipping difficulties.

Operations Despite Risks

Despite the risks, initial convoys have begun moving, indicating an effort to proceed despite regional conditions. Ayash said continuation depends primarily on the ability of security forces in both countries to secure tanker routes, as well as the availability of financial, technical, and logistical resources needed to rehabilitate pipelines and pumping stations in both Iraq and Syria.

Economic Returns for Syria

According to current estimates and agreements under implementation, exporting Iraqi oil through Syrian territory is expected to generate direct and indirect financial and technical benefits for Syria. Transit fees alone could reach between $150 million and $200 million annually if operations run at high capacity.

The Syrian treasury would also benefit from port fees, storage and unloading charges, and road service revenues for trucks. Operating between 600 and 700 trucks daily would drive significant spending on fuel, maintenance, and road fees, stimulating economic activity along transit routes.

Ayash added that the arrangement could allow Syria to obtain shares of oil or derivatives at preferential prices or as part of transit compensation, easing its energy import bill. These revenues, he said, are vital under current conditions, contributing to economic recovery and foreign currency inflows, although final returns depend on export volumes and border security stability, which remains essential for sustaining exports through the Syrian route.


Securing Iran’s Enriched Uranium by Force Would Be Risky and Complex, Experts Say

 This image from an Airbus Defense and Space's Pléiades Neo satellite shows a truck in the upper left-hand corner that analysts believe was carrying highly enriched uranium to a tunnel in the compound of the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, in Isfahan, Iran, June 9, 2025. (Airbus Defense and Space© via AP)
This image from an Airbus Defense and Space's Pléiades Neo satellite shows a truck in the upper left-hand corner that analysts believe was carrying highly enriched uranium to a tunnel in the compound of the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, in Isfahan, Iran, June 9, 2025. (Airbus Defense and Space© via AP)
TT

Securing Iran’s Enriched Uranium by Force Would Be Risky and Complex, Experts Say

 This image from an Airbus Defense and Space's Pléiades Neo satellite shows a truck in the upper left-hand corner that analysts believe was carrying highly enriched uranium to a tunnel in the compound of the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, in Isfahan, Iran, June 9, 2025. (Airbus Defense and Space© via AP)
This image from an Airbus Defense and Space's Pléiades Neo satellite shows a truck in the upper left-hand corner that analysts believe was carrying highly enriched uranium to a tunnel in the compound of the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, in Isfahan, Iran, June 9, 2025. (Airbus Defense and Space© via AP)

Should the US decide to send in military forces to secure Iran’s uranium stockpile, it would be a complex, risky and lengthy operation, fraught with radiation and chemical dangers, according to experts and former government officials.

US President Donald Trump has offered shifting reasons for the war in Iran but has consistently said a primary objective is ensuring the country will "never have a nuclear weapon." Less clear is how far he is willing to go to seize Iran’s nuclear material.

Given the risks of inserting as many as 1,000 specially trained forces into a war zone to remove the stockpile, another option would be a negotiated settlement with Iran that would allow the material to be surrendered and secured without using force.

Iran has 440.9 kilograms (972 pounds) of uranium that is enriched up to 60% purity, a short, technical step from weapons-grade levels of 90%, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog agency.

That stockpile could allow Iran to build as many as 10 nuclear bombs, should it decide to weaponize its program, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi told The Associated Press last year. He added it doesn’t mean Iran has such a weapon.

Iran long has insisted its program is peaceful, but the IAEA and Western nations say Tehran had an organized nuclear weapons program up until 2003.

Nuclear material is probably stored in tunnels

IAEA inspectors have not been able to verify the near weapons-grade uranium since June 2025, when Israeli and American strikes greatly weakened Iran’s air defenses, military leadership and nuclear program. The lack of inspections has made it difficult to know exactly where it is located.

Grossi has said that the IAEA believes a stockpile of roughly 200 kilograms (about 440 pounds) of highly enriched uranium is stored in tunnels at Iran’s nuclear complex outside of Isfahan. The site was mainly known for producing the uranium gas that is fed into centrifuges to be spun and purified.

Additional quantities are believed to be at the Natanz nuclear site and lesser amounts may be stored at a facility in Fordo, he has said.

It's unclear whether additional quantities could be elsewhere.

US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told a House hearing March 19 that the US intelligence community has "high confidence" that it knows the location of Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpiles.

Radiation and chemical risks

Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium fits into canisters each weighing about 50 kilograms (110 pounds) when full. The material is in the form of uranium hexafluoride gas. Estimates on the number of canisters range from 26 to about twice that number, depending on how full each cylinder is.

The canisters carrying the highly enriched uranium are "pretty robust" and are designed for storage and transport, said David Albright, a former nuclear weapons inspector in Iraq and founder of the nonprofit Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.

But he warned that "safety issues become paramount" should the canisters be damaged — for example, due to airstrikes — allowing moisture to get inside.

In such a scenario, there would be a hazard from fluorine, a highly toxic chemical that is corrosive to skin, eyes and lungs. Anyone entering the tunnels seeking to retrieve the canisters "would have to wear hazmat suits," Albright said.

It also would be necessary to maintain distance between the various canisters in order to avoid a self-sustaining critical nuclear reaction that would lead to "a large amount of radiation," he said.

To avoid such a radiological accident, the canisters would have to be placed in containers that create space between them during transport, he said.

Albright said that the preferred option for dealing with the uranium would be to remove it from Iran in special military planes and then "downblend" it — mix it with lower-enriched materials to bring it to levels suitable for civilian use.

Downblending the material inside Iran probably is not feasible, given that the infrastructure needed for the process may not be intact due to the war, he added.

Darya Dolzikova, senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, agreed.

Downblending the material inside Iran is "probably not the most likely option just because it’s a very complicated and long process that requires specialized equipment," she said.

Risks for ground forces

Securing Iran's nuclear material with ground troops would be a "very complex and high-risk military operation," said Christine E. Wormuth, who was secretary of the Army under former US President Joe Biden.

That's because the material is probably at multiple sites and the undertaking would "probably take casualties," added Wormuth, now president and CEO of the Washington-based Nuclear Threat Initiative.

The scale and scope of an operation at Isfahan alone would easily require 1,000 military personnel, she said.

Given that tunnel entrances are probably buried under rubble, it would be necessary for helicopters to fly in heavy equipment, such as excavators, and US forces might even have to build an airstrip nearby to land all the equipment and troops, Wormuth said.

She said special forces, including perhaps the 75th Ranger Regiment, would have to work "in tandem" with nuclear experts who would look underground for the canisters, adding that the special forces would likely set up a security perimeter in case of potential attacks.

Wormuth said the Nuclear Disablement Teams under the 20th Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, Explosives Command would be one possible unit that could be employed in such an operation.

"The Iranians have thought this through, I’m sure, and are going to try to make it as difficult as possible to do this in an expeditious way," she said. "So I would imagine it will be a pretty painstaking effort to go underground, get oriented, try to discern ... which ones are the real canisters, which ones may be decoys, to try to avoid booby traps."

A negotiated solution

The best option would be "to have an agreement with the (Iranian) government to remove all of that material," said Scott Roecker, former director of the Office of Nuclear Material Removal at the National Nuclear Security Administration, a semiautonomous agency within the US Department of Energy.

A similar mission occurred in 1994 when the US, in partnership with the government of Kazakhstan, secretly transported 600 kilograms (about 1,322 pounds) of weapons-grade uranium from the former Soviet republic in an operation dubbed "Project Sapphire." The material was left over from the USSR's nuclear program.

Roecker, now vice president for the Nuclear Materials Security Program at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, said the Department of Energy's Mobile Packaging Unit was built from the experience in Kazakhstan. It has safely removed nuclear material from several countries, including from Georgia in 1998 and from Iraq in 2004, 2007 and 2008.

The unit consists of technical experts and specialized equipment that can be deployed anywhere to safely remove nuclear material, and Roecker said it would be ideally positioned to remove the uranium under a negotiated deal with Iran. Tehran remains suspicious of Washington, which under Trump withdrew from a nuclear agreement and has twice attacked during high-level negotiations.

Under a negotiated solution, IAEA inspectors also could be part of a mission. "We are considering these options, of course," the IAEA's Grossi said March 22 on CBS' "Face the Nation" when asked about such a scenario.

Iran has "a contractual obligation to allow inspectors in," he added. "Of course, there’s common sense. Nothing can happen while bombs are falling."