Korea's May consumer sentiment sharply rebounds on strong exports and equities SEOUL, May 22 (AJP) -South Korea’s consumer sentiment rebounded sharply in May, returning to optimistic territory after briefly slipping below the long-term average a month earlier, as robust exports and a record-setting stock rally outweighed concerns over prolonged Middle East tensions and rising energy prices, central bank data showed Friday. Sentiment about current economic conditions and future prospects improved even as inflation expectations hovered near 3 percent, reinforcing the case for maintaining a monetary tightening bias to contain inflationary pressures from imports and wage increases. The Bank of Korea said the Composite Consumer Sentiment Index (CCSI) rose to 106.1 in May from 99.2 in April, marking the strongest monthly increase since the post-pandemic rebound period and pushing sentiment back above the long-term average benchmark of 100. The recovery was broad-based across nearly all major categories. Consumers’ assessment of current economic conditions jumped 15 points — the strongest gain since October 2020 — to 83, while expectations for future conditions also surged 14 points to 93. Expectations for living standards climbed five points to 97, while household income expectations rose two points to 100. Consumer spending outlook also improved two points to 110, supported by strong stock-market returns and generous bonus payouts from high-performing technology companies. Housing sentiment strengthened notably as expectations for home prices surged eight points to 112, reversing part of the weakness seen earlier this year. Wage outlook sentiment also edged up two points to 122. Expectations for interest rates eased slightly, with the interest-rate outlook index slipping one point to 114, though it remained historically elevated. Consumers also appeared somewhat more optimistic about employment conditions. The employment outlook index rose six points to 88 after falling sharply in April, reflecting hopes that the export-driven recovery would generate broader spillover effects across the economy despite ongoing conflicts in the Middle East. Inflation concerns, however, remained elevated. Consumers’ perceived inflation rate over the past year rose to 3.0 percent in May from 2.9 percent in April, while one-year-ahead inflation expectations eased only slightly to 2.8 percent after hitting 2.9 percent the previous month. Longer-term inflation expectations for three and five years ahead remained anchored at 2.6 percent. The survey showed petroleum products remained the dominant driver of inflation concerns, with 85.2 percent of respondents citing oil-related products as a key factor behind expected price increases over the next year. Public utility charges and industrial goods followed. The inflation outlook follows Thursday’s producer price data, which pointed to mounting upstream cost pressures across the economy. The Bank of Korea said the producer price index rose 2.5 percent in April from the previous month and 6.9 percent from a year earlier, led by a surge in petroleum and chemical products. Prices of coal and petroleum products jumped 31.9 percent on-month, while overall energy prices rose 7.9 percent. The broader domestic supply price index, which measures prices of goods and services supplied to the domestic market, climbed 5.2 percent on month in April, while the total output price index surged 3.9 percent. The debt market has increasingly priced in a higher-for-longer rate environment as inflationary pressure persists alongside a stubbornly weak currency. The five-year government bond yield has neared 4 percent and the 20-year paper topped 4.2 percent, while even the one-year note traded at 3.165 percent, sharply above the benchmark policy rate of 2.5 percent. The Bank of Korea is scheduled to hold its rate-setting meeting next Thursday. 2026-05-22 08:46:16

Trump's Red Line: Iran's Enriched Uranium and the Shadow of Hormuz 2026 May has seen the Middle East publicly discussing ceasefires and peace negotiations, yet it remains precariously positioned atop a massive powder keg. President Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that "the war will soon end." However, beneath the negotiation table, the most dangerous flashpoints are becoming increasingly evident. At the center of this tension is a single issue: Iran's enriched uranium. On May 21, Trump asserted at the White House, "We will secure it." He reaffirmed the U.S. intention to acquire and dispose of 440 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium held by Iran. This is not merely a technical issue in nuclear negotiations; it symbolizes the entire conflict and represents a "visible victory" that Trump needs for domestic political reasons. Trump has characterized this war as one aimed at stopping Iran from reaching the brink of nuclear weapons capability. For Trump, the act of securing enriched uranium and transporting it back to the U.S. or a third country could serve as a historic achievement, surpassing the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) established under former President Barack Obama in 2015. However, this point also represents an absolute red line for Iran. The Iranian leadership has reportedly solidified its stance against the export of enriched uranium. While this is a matter of eliminating potential nuclear weapon capabilities from the U.S. perspective, for Iran, it is a question of national pride and regime survival. Moreover, a dangerous collective psychology is forming within Iran as a result of this war. The sentiment that "North Korea, which possesses nuclear weapons, has not been attacked, while Iran, which does not, has been" is gaining traction. This perception is likely to harden the Iranian regime's stance. Analysts suggest that a strategic mindset emphasizing the need to maintain the "potential" to develop nuclear weapons is taking root within Iran's military and Revolutionary Guard. Thus, a significant gap remains between the U.S. demand for "complete removal" and Iran's desire for "domestic preservation and dilution." Trump is eager to expedite a resolution to the negotiations, driven not only by diplomatic concerns but also by domestic political and economic pressures. The U.S. economy continues to grapple with high inflation and interest rates. The prolonged conflict in the Middle East is exacerbating international oil prices and logistics costs, directly impacting American consumers through rising gasoline prices. Trump's repeated assertion that "gas prices will drop once the war ends" reflects this reality. With the midterm elections approaching in November, inflation poses a critical threat. American voters are more sensitive to immediate issues like gas prices and living costs than to democracy or geopolitics. Trump is acutely aware of this political landscape. However, the conflict has already escalated beyond a simple U.S.-Iran confrontation. The situation in the Strait of Hormuz exemplifies this escalation. Iran has effectively begun to leverage the "Hormuz toll" card. The Strait of Hormuz is a vital artery for global energy, with approximately 20 million barrels of oil and LNG passing through daily. Should Iran impose tolls or military pressure in this region, the global economy would face immediate repercussions. In response, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly warned that "if such actions materialize, diplomatic agreements will be impossible." The U.S. is already considering responses at the United Nations Security Council level. The Hormuz issue transcends mere maritime navigation rights. It is intrinsically linked to global hegemony. The Persian Empire has historically been at the center of civilization and trade through the Strait of Hormuz and the Silk Road for thousands of years. The Iranian leadership remains acutely aware of this geopolitical legacy. Conversely, the U.S. views "freedom of navigation in international waters" as an absolute principle. Ultimately, both sides are clashing over the same body of water with vastly different historical memories and strategic concepts. An even more pressing issue is the rapid escalation of U.S. military fatigue, which is occurring faster than anticipated. According to reports from The Washington Post, the U.S. has utilized over 200 THAAD interceptors during this conflict, nearing half of its total stockpile. Naval vessels in the Eastern Mediterranean have also deployed significant numbers of SM-3 and SM-6 interceptors. The problem lies in the production rate not keeping pace with consumption. The U.S. missile defense system was originally designed as a key component of its Indo-Pacific strategy to deter both China and North Korea. However, the ongoing conflict in the Middle East is rapidly depleting these reserves. Consequently, South Korea and Japan are also left on edge. In fact, discussions about the potential redeployment of THAAD in South Korea have begun to shake the security structure in Northeast Asia. Interestingly, Trump's "America First" policy appears to be caught in a paradox at this juncture. The U.S. is exhausting significant strategic assets and intercept systems to defend Israel. However, dissatisfaction is growing domestically over why U.S. weapon stockpiles are being depleted in the Middle East. Even American think tanks are beginning to express concerns that the Middle East is encroaching on the Indo-Pacific strategy. This is precisely why Trump continues to oscillate between war and negotiation. The mix of hardline rhetoric and conciliatory messages is a daily occurrence. Another intriguing variable is Russia. President Vladimir Putin has already reintroduced the "Russia export" card, suggesting a plan to send enriched uranium to Russia for compromise, similar to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. On the surface, this appears to be a mediation proposal. However, it conceals a completely different calculation. Putin aims to secure leverage in negotiations with Trump by intervening in the resolution of the Iran conflict. This strategy seeks to create negotiation space with the U.S. regarding the Ukraine war and sanctions against Russia. Trump's irritation at Putin's suggestion to "focus on the Ukraine issue" stems from this dynamic. Ultimately, the current situation in the Middle East is not merely a regional war. It is a microcosm of 21st-century complex geopolitics involving the U.S., Iran, Israel, Russia, Europe, and China. While negotiations appear to be underway, they remain precarious. Trump needs a victory, Iran must avoid the image of capitulation, Israel aims to eliminate Iran's nuclear potential entirely, and Russia seeks to expand its influence through mediation. The global economy is also sensitive to even the slightest shifts in the winds of the Strait of Hormuz. While the war may pause temporarily, the geopolitics of the Middle East are far from resolved. This situation raises profound questions for the world. This conflict is not merely about nuclear negotiations; it represents a direct clash between two histories and two civilizations. On one side is the United States, a superpower with a 250-year history. On the other is Iran, inheritor of a 5,000-year-old Persian civilization. The U.S. has shaped the modern world order. From the dollar and military power to technology and finance, much of today's global system operates around the U.S. In just 250 years since its independence in 1776, the U.S. has become the most powerful nation in human history. Conversely, Iran is not merely a Middle Eastern country. Its roots trace back to the Persian Empire of Cyrus the Great and Darius the Great. The Achaemenid dynasty managed a vast multi-ethnic empire as early as the 6th century BC, creating a network of civilizations connecting Mesopotamia, Central Asia, India, and the Mediterranean. While the Western world often views Iran as a "rogue state," Iranians do not see themselves as a small nation. They consider themselves the "heirs of civilization." This fundamental difference in perception shapes how the U.S. and Iran interpret each other. The U.S. views the Iranian nuclear issue as a matter of international security and non-proliferation, while Iran perceives it as a question of national regime and civilizational pride. This is precisely why what is needed now is not merely a logic of power. Instead, a new imagination at the level of human civilization is required. This could embody the spirit of the 'Noah Accord.' The Middle East has already undergone a significant transformation with the Abraham Accords, established between Israel, the UAE, and Bahrain. This agreement, which recognizes Abraham as a common ancestor for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, has become a symbol of civilizational reconciliation beyond a mere diplomatic document. Now, a greater imagination is necessary. Noah is a common ancestor of humanity predating Abraham. In the traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Noah symbolizes "human survival and reconciliation." What the Middle East needs now is not just nuclear negotiations. It is about establishing an order where humanity can survive together. Neither the U.S. nor Iran can fully subjugate the other. The U.S. can shake the Iranian regime with military power, but it cannot erase the pride of Persian civilization. Conversely, Iran cannot completely dismantle the U.S.-centric world order. Ultimately, both sides will have to compromise at some point. This compromise must not merely be a transaction but a peace that acknowledges each other's dignity, history, and civilizational pride. In the East, there has long been a philosophy of "coexistence." The belief is that a victory that completely defeats the opponent does not last long. Within the traditions of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism, East Asia has sought harmony amidst conflict. South Korea also shares such historical experiences. It has had to survive among powerful nations like China, Japan, the U.S., and Russia. Thus, Koreans value not only the balance of power but also the balance of relationships. This mindset is now needed in the U.S. and Iran. The U.S. must allow Iran to maintain at least a semblance of dignity. Iran, in turn, must move away from outright rejection of the U.S. international order. For instance, instead of directly exporting enriched uranium to the U.S., a compromise could involve transitioning to an internationally managed system or a joint management approach involving Russia, neutral countries, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Ultimately, the key is not about winning or losing. It is about whether humanity can take a step back from the brink of war. This is especially critical as the global economy is nearing a breaking point. The Strait of Hormuz is the lifeblood of global energy. If it is disrupted, international oil prices will soar, and the entire logistics, shipping, insurance, and financial markets will be shaken. This is particularly fatal for countries like South Korea. South Korea has a very high dependency on energy imports. Oil and LNG from the Middle East are lifelines for its industries. The semiconductor factories of Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix, as well as Hyundai Motor's production lines, ultimately rely on stable energy supplies. If the Hormuz crisis deepens, the won may weaken, and inflationary pressures could rise simultaneously. As an export-driven economy, South Korea would also be directly impacted by global maritime logistics instability. The larger issue is security. The U.S. has significantly depleted its THAAD interceptor stockpile during this conflict. Some reports indicate that nearly half of the stockpile has been used for Middle Eastern defense. This could have implications for security in Northeast Asia. U.S. strategic assets are not infinite. The limitations of managing conflicts in the Middle East, Ukraine, the Taiwan Strait, and the Korean Peninsula simultaneously have become evident in this war. Ultimately, South Korea must consider a more complex strategy moving forward. The U.S.-South Korea alliance remains crucial. However, South Korea must also maintain a certain level of diplomatic space with the Middle East, China, and Russia. Energy security, supply chain stability, and the reliability of the semiconductor and AI industries are now matters of national survival strategy, not just economic issues. The world is now discussing the era of the AI revolution. Yet paradoxically, humanity stands once again before the oldest questions. How will civilizations coexist? How far will great powers go in using force? And can humanity transcend war? The 5,000-year-old Persian civilization and the 250-year-old United States now face these questions. The world awaits their answers.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-22 07:45:00

Eli Lilly's New Obesity Drug Shows 28% Weight Loss in Clinical Trials Eli Lilly's next-generation obesity treatment has demonstrated an average weight loss of over 28% in late-stage clinical trials, surpassing the weight loss rates seen in previous major obesity drug studies, drawing significant market interest. On May 21, Reuters reported that Eli Lilly announced its experimental obesity drug, retatrutide, resulted in an average weight reduction of 28.3% over 80 weeks among participants. The trial focused on obese patients without diabetes and the figure is based on the highest dosage group of 12 mg. According to Eli Lilly, more than 45% of patients in the highest dosage group lost over 30% of their body weight, a reduction comparable to that achieved through obesity surgery. Kenneth Custer, president of Eli Lilly's cardiovascular and metabolic health division, stated, "This level of weight loss is what has been expected from obesity surgery." Retatrutide works by targeting three hormonal pathways related to weight control, including glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), and glucagon receptors. Its broader mechanism of action compared to existing GLP-1 drugs enhances its weight loss effects. The results exceed the weight loss rates reported in previous major obesity treatment trials. Eli Lilly's Zepbound and Novo Nordisk's Wegovy showed approximately 15-20% weight loss in separate studies. Adverse effects were reported at lower rates than in earlier trials. While sensory side effects were a concern in previous studies, the incidence in the highest dosage group for this trial was 12.5%, down from 20.9% in earlier trials. About 11% of patients in the highest dosage group discontinued treatment due to side effects. Eli Lilly aims to launch retatrutide as early as next year, pending regulatory approval. The results from this trial are expected to serve as key data for the approval application to regulatory authorities.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-22 07:19:18

Trump Announces Deployment of 5,000 Additional U.S. Troops to Poland President Donald Trump announced that the United States will deploy an additional 5,000 troops to Poland. This announcement follows confusion surrounding the planned deployment of 4,000 troops to the country. On May 21, Trump stated on his Truth Social platform, "The U.S. will send an additional 5,000 troops to Poland." He cited the election of Karol Nawrocki, the Polish president he supported, as a key factor in this decision. Prior to this announcement, there had been controversy regarding the deployment of the initially planned 4,000 troops, with reports from Reuters and the Associated Press indicating that the Pentagon had canceled the deployment plan. However, U.S. Vice President JD Vance and the Polish government clarified that the troop reduction was merely a temporary delay, not a cancellation. This announcement comes amid ongoing discussions about the realignment of U.S. forces stationed in Europe. The Trump administration has urged NATO member countries to take on a greater role in European defense, with discussions about the potential reduction of U.S. troop levels in Europe. Poland has emerged as a key hub for Eastern European security following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It serves as a major conduit for military and logistical support to Ukraine and is a critical point on NATO's eastern front. The Polish government has stated that it plans to allocate 4.8% of its GDP to defense spending this year. Trump's announcement is seen as a reaffirmation of the U.S. commitment to Poland's defense amid discussions about the realignment of U.S. forces in Europe. However, details regarding the timing and composition of the troop deployment have yet to be disclosed.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-22 07:07:07

U.S. State Department: Iran's Toll Proposal Would Block Diplomatic Agreement Mark Rubio, U.S. Secretary of State, identified Iran's proposal for a toll in the Strait of Hormuz as a significant obstacle to U.S.-Iran diplomatic negotiations. While some positive signals have emerged in talks between the two nations, the issue of tolls in the Strait has become a critical factor in determining the feasibility of an agreement. On May 21, Reuters reported that Rubio stated in a press conference, "If Iran implements a toll system in the Strait of Hormuz, a diplomatic agreement will become impossible." He emphasized, "No one in the world supports a toll system," adding that imposing such fees is unacceptable and cannot happen. Rubio characterized Iran's toll proposal as a "threat to the world" and "completely illegal," arguing that charging commercial vessels for passage through the Strait undermines international navigation norms. The Strait of Hormuz is a vital corridor for global oil transportation. Iran has leveraged its control over the Strait as a bargaining chip in negotiations, while the U.S. views the imposition of tolls or passage permits for vessels as actions that disrupt international maritime order. Rubio's remarks indicate that the U.S. considers the toll issue not merely a secondary concern in nuclear negotiations but a condition for any agreement. However, Rubio left some room for negotiation with Iran. He noted, "There are good signals in talks with Iran," but added, "I don't want to be overly optimistic." He assessed that the Iranian regime is somewhat divided and stated, "We need to watch the developments over the next few days."* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-22 07:00:00

Pope Leo XIV Calls for Return to Diplomatic Dialogue, Criticizes Military Reliance Pope Leo XIV has urged the international community to return to diplomatic dialogue. He emphasized the need to revive bilateral, regional, and multilateral diplomatic channels amid a reliance on military force in international relations. On May 21, according to Vatican News, Pope Leo XIV met with the newly appointed non-resident ambassadors to the Holy See from eight countries: Sierra Leone, Bangladesh, Yemen, Rwanda, Namibia, Mauritius, Chad, and Sri Lanka. During the meeting, he stated, "There is an urgent need to return to diplomacy that promotes dialogue and consensus." The Pope pointed out the contradiction in the international community's pursuit of peace through military means. He stressed that peace should not be a condition of domination but should be built through dialogue and mutual understanding. He added, "Diplomacy should not be limited to bilateral relations but must extend to regional discussions and multilateral cooperation." Pope Leo XIV also highlighted the role of international organizations. He remarked that "international organizations are crucial tools for conflict resolution and promoting cooperation," and called for increased representation and effectiveness. He warned that if countries prioritize only their individual interests, it will be difficult to create a just international order, emphasizing that a willingness to reconcile interests for the common good should be the starting point of diplomacy.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-22 06:51:47

Dow Jones Hits Record High as Oil Prices Drop The three major U.S. stock indices rose together as expectations for peace negotiations between the U.S. and Iran led to a drop in international oil prices, easing energy cost pressures and boosting investor sentiment. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at a record high. On May 21, the Dow gained 276.31 points, or 0.55%, finishing at 50,285.66. The Standard & Poor's 500 index rose 12.75 points, or 0.17%, to close at 7,445.72, while the Nasdaq Composite increased by 22.74 points, or 0.09%, ending at 26,293.10. Market attention focused on the geopolitical situation in the Middle East and oil price trends. According to Reuters, optimism surrounding progress in U.S.-Iran peace negotiations supported investor sentiment. Brent crude oil prices briefly rose to around $109 per barrel but later fell below $103. As concerns over soaring oil prices eased, the stock market rebounded. However, the gains were limited. Key issues such as Iran's uranium export and navigation management in the Strait of Hormuz remain unresolved, leaving uncertainty in the negotiations. Investors are wary that a resurgence in oil prices could increase inflationary pressures and corporate costs. In individual stocks, Nvidia fell despite strong earnings and an $80 billion stock buyback plan. High market expectations and concerns over intensified competition in the semiconductor sector weighed on its stock price. Walmart also showed weakness, reflecting a conservative outlook due to cost pressures from high oil prices. Economic indicators somewhat alleviated fears of a slowdown. New claims for unemployment benefits in the U.S. decreased, and manufacturing metrics showed signs of improvement. While the resilience of the economy was confirmed, inflation and oil price variables remain, tempering expectations for interest rate cuts from the Federal Reserve.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-22 06:42:55

U.S. Uses Half of THAAD Missiles for Israeli Defense, Raising Security Concerns in Asia The United States has reportedly expended a significant portion of its advanced interceptors in defense of Israel against Iranian missile attacks. Approximately half of the U.S. stockpile of THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) interceptors has been used. This depletion of missile defense resources is raising security concerns among Asian allies, including South Korea and Japan. According to the Washington Post on May 21, the U.S. launched over 200 THAAD interceptors to bolster Israel's defense, which accounts for nearly half of the Pentagon's total inventory. Additionally, U.S. Navy vessels stationed in the eastern Mediterranean fired more than 100 SM-3 and SM-6 interceptors. Israel's usage was lower than that of the U.S., with the country firing fewer than 100 Arrow interceptors and about 90 David's Sling interceptors. A U.S. administration official noted, "The U.S. fired approximately 120 more interceptors than Israel and intercepted twice as many Iranian missiles." The concern now lies with the remaining stockpile. Kelly Grieco, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center, estimates that the U.S. has about 200 THAAD interceptors left. There are also concerns that production lines may struggle to keep pace with demand. The large-scale depletion of advanced interceptors in the Middle East could weaken U.S. military readiness in other regions. This anxiety has spread to Asian allies such as South Korea and Japan. The Washington Post reported, "The shortage of U.S. interceptors is heightening tensions for Asian allies like South Korea and Japan." Both countries rely on U.S. military deterrence and missile defense support to counter threats from North Korea and China. If hostilities resume, the burden on the U.S. could increase further. The Washington Post noted, "The Israeli military has temporarily excluded some missile defense batteries for maintenance, which could increase the burden on the U.S. if hostilities resume." The U.S. Department of Defense and Israel have refuted interpretations suggesting that the burden has fallen disproportionately on one side. The Pentagon stated that the ballistic missile defense system is just one part of a multi-layered integrated air defense network. Both countries have coordinated various assets, including fighter jets and drone defense systems. The Israeli Embassy in Washington also emphasized that operations between the two nations have been coordinated at the highest levels.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-22 06:36:57

Putin Introduces Plan to Export Iranian Uranium to Russia in Meeting with Xi Jinping Russian President Vladimir Putin introduced a plan to export enriched uranium from Iran to Russia during an informal meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. This proposal comes as U.S. President Donald Trump has stated that he will not allow Iran to retain high-enriched uranium. According to the TASS news agency on May 20, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov briefed reporters on the discussions between Putin and Xi. Peskov noted that Xi explained to Putin details regarding Trump’s recent visit to China, and the issue of Iran was also discussed. Peskov stated that Putin described the plan for transferring Iran's enriched uranium to Russia, calling it a proposal that could be accepted if both Iran and the U.S. deem it appropriate. Russia has indicated that the acceptance of this plan is contingent upon the judgments of the U.S. and Iran. This proposal arises amid ongoing negotiations where the export of Iran's enriched uranium has become a key issue. Recently, Trump responded negatively to a question about whether Iran could continue to hold high-enriched uranium in future agreements, stating, "No." He also expressed intentions to destroy the uranium after its export. In contrast, Iran maintains a firm stance against exporting its uranium. Reuters reported that two senior Iranian sources indicated that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has instructed that low-enriched uranium should not be sent abroad. Iran believes that exporting high-enriched uranium could make it more vulnerable to potential attacks from the U.S. and Israel. The contentious issue revolves around Iran's stockpile of 60% enriched uranium, which significantly exceeds the level needed for civilian nuclear fuel and approaches the 90% enrichment required for nuclear weapons. Russia had previously proposed transferring Iran's enriched uranium to its territory last month, but the U.S. rejected the idea. Peskov also criticized the U.S. regarding the situation in Cuba during the same briefing. He stated, "The U.S. blockade of Cuba has devastating effects on the general population," adding that military posturing only worsens the situation for the Cuban people. Peskov expressed opposition to the indictment of former Cuban National Assembly President Raul Castro, stating, "We oppose the U.S. approach of pressuring other countries' leaderships," and declared that pressure on Cuba is unacceptable.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-22 06:28:49

Trump Rejects Iran's Stance on Enriched Uranium Export As Iran's Supreme Leader has established a policy against exporting enriched uranium, President Donald Trump has firmly rejected this stance. Trump stated that Iran cannot retain enriched uranium in any future agreements, making the issue of nuclear material export a central point of contention in upcoming negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. On May 21, during a press briefing at the White House, Trump responded to a question regarding whether Iran could keep enriched uranium in future agreements. He said, "No. We will export it." Trump added, "We neither need nor want that uranium," and indicated that the material would likely be destroyed after export. He emphasized, "We will not allow Iran to keep it in any form," and reiterated, "I will not let Iran have nuclear weapons." These comments followed a strong statement from Iranian officials. According to Reuters, two senior Iranian sources reported that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader, issued a directive prohibiting the export of weapons-grade uranium. Iran believes that exporting enriched uranium could make it more vulnerable to potential attacks from the U.S. and Israel. The key issue revolves around Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium, particularly the 60% enriched variety. This level of enrichment significantly exceeds that required for civilian nuclear fuel and is close to the 90% enrichment needed for nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) estimated that prior to the U.S. and Israel's attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities last year, Iran possessed approximately 441 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium. The current amount remains unclear. While Iran denies any intention of developing nuclear weapons, the U.S. and Israel view the export of enriched uranium as a critical condition for any future agreements. As Iran maintains its stance against export, and Trump rejects this position, the gap between the two sides has widened. On the same day, Trump also expressed opposition to tolls in the Strait of Hormuz, stating, "We do not accept tolls; the Strait of Hormuz is an international waterway."* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-22 06:23:49