Iran goal: To build a nuclear bomb in 60 days, says Israel minister

Iran is working toward a 'threshold status' of being able to produce a nuclear bomb with 60 days notice, says Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Debate in Israel over Iran's nuclear aims continues.

(AP Photo/Ariel Schalit)
Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak delivers a speech to the Foreign Press Association members in Jerusalem last month.

Iran's nuclear strategy could eventually allow it to build an atomic bomb with just 60 days' notice, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said on Friday.

His remarks elaborate on long-held Israeli concerns that Iran is playing for time even as it engages world powers in negotiations aimed at curbing its uranium enrichment drive. Talks are due to resume in Baghdad on May 23.

"They are currently trying to achieve immunity for the nuclear program," Barak told the Israel Hayom newspaper.

"If they arrive at military nuclear capability, at a weapon, or a demonstrated capability, or a threshold status in which they could manufacture a bomb within 60 days - they will achieve a different kind of immunity, regime immunity."

RECOMMENDED: 5 key sites in Iran's nuclear program

Iran insists that its often secretive uranium enrichment is for peaceful energy and medical needs. At higher levels of purification, such projects can yield fuel for warheads, but Israel and the United States agree Iran has not taken that step.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last year issued a report detailing alleged Iranian research and development activities that were relevant to nuclear weapons, lending independent weight to Western suspicions.

Barak has said Iran is holding off until it can dig in behind defenses sufficient to withstand threatened Israeli or U.S. air strikes on its nuclear facilities.

His 60-day timeline for potential Iranian warhead production appeared aimed at skeptics both at home and abroad of Israel's alarm who say it is too early to rattle sabres.

Israeli leaders believe the diplomatic drive, which involves the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, has a low chance of success, and suggest that Iran's rulers seek an atomic bomb as insurance against outside intervention.

CONFRONTING SCEPTICS

Some prominent Israelis have questioned the strategic value of a pre-emptive strike, with former spy chief Yuval Diskin last week accusing the government of promulgating the "false impression" it had the means of halting Iran.

"This is not so. We have been talking all the time about a delay," said Barak, indicating that Israel could not eradicate Iran's nuclear program, but saw value in forestalling it.

Israel is reputed to have the region's only atomic arsenal, but many experts - including U.S. military chief, General Martin Dempsey - have voiced doubt that its conventional forces would be able to deliver lasting damage to Iran's distant, dispersed and fortified facilities.

The idea that some countries with civilian atomic projects might then use them for military purposes is commonplace, letting states keep their options open while not necessarily violating their non-proliferation commitments.

A leaked diplomatic cable from 2008 quoted senior U.S. State Department official John Rood saying Japan was "not a nuclear threshold country...but rather is 'over the threshold' and could develop nuclear weapons quickly if it wanted to" should it feel the need to vie with its nuclear-armed Asian neighbours.

Barak, who leads the sole centrist party in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's conservative coalition government, has in the past sounded sanguine about Israel's ability to deter a nuclear-armed Iran from attacking.

But with an Israeli election expected in September, and given Iran's nuclear advances as well as Western war jitters, Barak has publicly closed ranks with the hawkish Netanyahu.

In Friday's interview with the pro-government daily, Barak said Iran might regard trying to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons as worth the risk of catastrophic retaliation.

Under such thinking, he said, "after the exchange of strikes, Islam would remain and Israel would no longer be what it was". (Editing by Crispian Balmer and Angus MacSwan)

RECOMMENDED: 5 key sites in Iran's nuclear program

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.