News
Netanyahu reaffirms concerns over Iranian breakout time following Obama comments
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday reiterated concerns over Iran’s breakout time to produce a nuclear weapon, in light of comments made by US President Barack Obama in which he appeared to concede that Tehran would be able to almost immediately atomically arm following the expiration of the nascent nuclear deal under discussion.
Iran and the P5+1 powers (US, UK, France, Russia, China and Germany) agreed a framework to a comprehensive deal last week, paving the way for negotiations to begin towards a comprehensive accord, which must be agreed by June. However, both sides have since indicated differing understandings of last week’s deal outline, with apparent disagreement remaining over key issues such as Iranian nuclear research and the pace of sanctions removal.
In an interview on Tuesday with NPR, Obama sought to underscore the value of the potential agreement, but raised concerns by commenting that “in year 13, 14, 15” of the deal, Iran will “have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.” He added, “So essentially, we’re purchasing for 13, 14, 15 years of assurances that the breakout is at least a year.” US State Department spokesperson Marie Harf subsequently attempted to explain that Obama was referring to “more of a hypothetical” in the event no deal is agreed.
Yesterday, Prime Minister Netanyahu said that he agreed with what appeared to be President Obama’s assessment. He commented, “Israel shares the view that upon the expiry of the nuclear agreement with Iran the latter’s breakout time to achieve nuclear weapons will be zero. This will be the inevitable result of the automatic lifting of the restrictions, which would enable Iran to achieve an industrial-grade production capability.”
Earlier this week, Netanyahu gave interviews to major US television networks, appealing to the P5+1 to broker a better deal than the one currently under discussion, insisting that the choice is not “this bad deal or war.”