You are here:  Home  >  International  >  Current Article

Bombshell testimony: Head of nonpartisan nonproliferation think tank says breakout time under deal could be 6-7 months (The Daily Tip)

By   /   August 4, 2015  /   No Comments

    Print       Email

Aug. 4, 2015

At a Senate hearing, David Albright, President of the Institute for Science and International Security, stated that Iran’s breakout time could be as low as 6-7 months, calling into question the administration’s claim to have secured a one-year breakout.Albright based this calculation on the likelihood that Iran would deploy its more advanced IR-2m centrifuges in an attempt to break out, and on the failure of the deal to require full dismantlement of all of the equipment used in the cascades at the Fuel Enrichment Plant. Senator Menendez (D-NJ) stated that Albright’s claim concerns him because “six or seven months, that’s not going to be helpful if they decide to break out… The next president of the United States… will really only have one choice: to accept Iran as a nuclear weapons state or to have a military strike, because sanctions will be ineffective.”Albright also criticized the provision giving Iran up to 24 days to provide access to suspicious, undeclared sites. In his testimony, he wrote that Iran has extensive experience in evading IAEA monitoring and that “twenty four days could be enough time, presumably, for Iran to relocate undeclared activities that are in violation of the JCPOA while it undertakes sanitization activities that would not necessarily leave a trace in environmental sampling.”  Additionally, Albright warned that the procurement channel set up by the deal falls short of what is needed to be effective because there would only be up to 30 days to reject proposed exports to Iran, which is not enough time for countries including the United States to assess whether certain exports to Iran could contribute to activities inconsistent with the deal.

At the hearing, Dr. Robert Joseph, former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, also criticized the deal because it recognizes and legitimizes a path to nuclear weapons, provides for ineffective verification, fails to prevent breakout, and fails to limit Iran’s ballistic missile development. Moreover, Joseph argued that the deal increases the likelihood of nuclear proliferation in the region, undermines the nonproliferation regime and the IAEA, and enables a more aggressive and repressive Iranian regime, thereby increasing the prospect of conflict and war. He concluded that Congress should reject the deal because “a bad agreement is worse than no agreement.”

    Print       Email

Leave a Reply

You might also like...

Was the Soleimani Killing a Policy Success?Mona Charen (Patriot Post)

Read More →