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.
Spencer Pratt EXPOSED LA’s Biggest Problem LIVE ON AIR… and The View Completely LOST IT! What was supposed to be another harmless celebrity interview on The View suddenly turned into one of the most uncomfortable political moments television has seen in months. Spencer Pratt walked onto the stage as a former reality TV star, but by the time the segment ended, viewers across the country were asking why he sounded more connected to everyday life in Los Angeles than the people challenging him. The conversation quickly shifted away from celebrity gossip and exploded into arguments about homelessness, drugs, crime, media narratives, and the visible collapse many residents say they experience daily in California cities. Then came the AI ad controversy, the viral comments about human waste in LA, and the moment even the hosts appeared caught off guard by how strongly audiences were reacting online. Now people are wondering whether this interview accidentally exposed something much bigger than one mayoral race. Read the full story below in the comments. - Trends.newsonline.biz
Spencer Pratt walked onto The View looking like exactly the kind of guest the hosts assumed they could easily handle.
A former reality television personality from The Hills running for mayor of Los Angeles sounded, on paper, like the perfect lighthearted daytime television segment.
A few jokes, some playful skepticism, maybe a quick conversation about celebrity culture, and then everybody moves on.
That was clearly the expectation. Instead, the interview spiraled into something completely different. Because within minutes, the atmosphere shifted from entertainment to genuine political discomfort.
The hosts initially approached Pratt with the familiar mixture of amusement and disbelief often reserved for celebrities entering politics.
Questions about his financial struggles, reality television fame, and lack of political experience came quickly.
But Pratt never tried to present himself as a polished politician. That changed the dynamic immediately.
Instead of sounding scripted, he sounded frustrated. Not celebrity frustrated. Citizen frustrated. And that emotional difference mattered far more than many people expected.
Pratt explained that he never intended to become politically active. For years, he largely avoided public political battles entirely.
According to him, the turning point came after wildfires devastated parts of Los Angeles, including the loss of his own home.
That transformed the conversation emotionally. Because suddenly this was no longer a reality TV personality playing politics for attention.
This became someone speaking from personal anger after watching what he believed was catastrophic government failure.
And viewers connected with that instantly. Pratt repeatedly framed his campaign around what he described as “common sense” issues facing ordinary Los Angeles residents.
Crime, homelessness, drug addiction, public disorder, deteriorating infrastructure, and basic safety concerns became the focus of nearly everything he discussed.
Then the conversation intensified. Pratt began describing conditions throughout parts of Los Angeles in blunt detail.
Human waste on sidewalks. Fentanyl needles near parks. Drug addicts roaming around schools. Public disorder becoming normalized in neighborhoods where families once felt safe.
The room noticeably tightened. Because regardless of political ideology, millions of Americans have already seen similar footage circulating online for years.
Videos of open drug use, theft, homeless encampments, and collapsing public order have dominated social media discussions surrounding California cities.
Pratt simply described those realities directly on national television. And emotionally, that landed much harder than many expected.
The hosts attempted pushing back by questioning his qualifications and political experience. But Pratt immediately flipped the criticism back toward establishment leadership.
When questioned about lacking a law degree or city management experience, Pratt sarcastically joked about earning legal credentials online before pointing out that Karen Bass herself had never previously managed a city before becoming mayor.
The exchange resonated online because Pratt did not sound like a polished political strategist trying to win an argument.
He sounded authentic. Messy at times, certainly. But authentic. And in modern politics, authenticity often matters more emotionally than perfect credentials.
That became increasingly obvious as the interview continued. The biggest turning point may have come when Pratt discussed how ordinary residents are reacting to conditions in Los Angeles.
He described even lifelong Democrats becoming frustrated after personally experiencing the city’s visible decline. One story in particular exploded online afterward.
Pratt described his sister accidentally driving through human waste in Los Angeles and being unable to remove the smell from her car despite repeated cleanings.
The story sounded absurd enough to become instantly memorable. But that was exactly why it spread so rapidly.
Pratt communicated through vivid personal imagery rather than policy jargon. People could immediately picture the situation because many viewers had already experienced similar moments themselves or seen comparable footage online.
That emotional relatability made his comments far more powerful than traditional political talking points. Meanwhile, the hosts appeared increasingly uncomfortable as the audience reaction online grew stronger.
At several moments, the panel attempted balancing criticism of Pratt while simultaneously acknowledging public frustration with conditions in Los Angeles.
That contradiction became noticeable. One moment Pratt was dismissed as a reality TV celebrity lacking qualifications.
The next moment, hosts admitted many residents genuinely feel unsafe or frustrated with visible deterioration across parts of California cities.
Viewers immediately noticed the inconsistency. And that inconsistency fueled much of the viral reaction afterward.
The interview escalated even further once discussion turned toward artificial intelligence campaign advertisements Pratt had shared online.
The ads used AI-generated comic-book imagery featuring political figures and exaggerated dystopian themes criticizing California leadership.
Critics labeled the ads dangerous, misleading, and inflammatory. But many viewers reacted very differently. Online audiences began mocking what they perceived as establishment media becoming more emotionally disturbed by AI-generated memes than by actual urban decline visible across major cities.
That comparison quickly spiraled into broader criticism of media credibility itself. People began reposting old clips from 2020 showing reporters standing in front of burning buildings during riots while describing events as “mostly peaceful.”
Those comparisons intensified accusations of media double standards. To many viewers, establishment media figures appeared willing to minimize real-world disorder while simultaneously treating exaggerated political memes as major threats.
Whether fair or unfair, that perception deeply shaped online reaction to the interview. And perception matters enormously in modern politics.
Because once audiences begin believing media institutions selectively frame outrage depending on ideological convenience, trust erodes rapidly.
That erosion of trust became one of the central emotional themes surrounding Pratt’s appearance. At multiple points, even the hosts themselves seemed unsure how aggressively to challenge him without appearing disconnected from realities many viewers already believe exiSt.
That tension became visible. And the more visible it became, the stronger Pratt’s anti-establishment image grew online.
Ironically, attempts to portray him as unserious often strengthened his appeal instead. Especially among frustrated voters exhausted by carefully scripted political language and media narratives they no longer trust completely.
Pratt also benefited from sounding unusually direct compared to traditional politicians. He criticized leaders for prioritizing press conferences, rhetoric, and ideological branding while ordinary residents increasingly worry about basic quality-of-life issues.
His argument was simple. People want safe parks. Functioning streets. Clean neighborhoods. Responsive emergency services.
And many feel local governments have failed to provide those basics despite enormous tax burdens.
That message cuts across ideological lines more effectively than many traditional partisan arguments. Which explains why the interview spread far beyond normal celebrity gossip audiences.
This stopped being about Spencer Pratt specifically. Instead, he increasingly became a symbol for something much larger: frustration with political institutions, distrust toward media narratives, anger over visible urban decline, and exhaustion with ideological battles replacing practical governance.
That emotional undercurrent explains why the segment resonated so strongly online. Millions of viewers did not suddenly become passionate Spencer Pratt supporters overnight.
But many recognized something emotionally familiar in what he described. And perhaps most importantly, many viewers believed he was speaking honestly rather than strategically.
That distinction matters tremendously in modern political culture. Especially during a time when large portions of the public increasingly view politicians, media personalities, and institutions as scripted, artificial, or disconnected from ordinary life.
By the end of the interview, the original premise had completely collapsed. What was supposed to be a harmless celebrity segment accidentally became one of the most viral political media moments of the year.
Not because Spencer Pratt dominated through traditional political skill. But because millions of Americans quietly saw pieces of their own frustrations reflected in what he said.
And judging by the reaction afterward, establishment media figures may have underestimated just how powerful that frustration has become.
