Barack Obama is giving Iran the time it needs to build a nuclear bomb - Telegraph

Barack Obama is giving Iran the time it needs to build a nuclear bomb - Telegraph

Barack Obama's comments have taken the pressure off Iran Photo: AFP

Has President Obama inadvertently given Iran the green light to develop an atom bomb? I only ask because it appears to be the logical conclusion to be drawn from his announcement this week that he is giving Iran until the end of the year to decide whether or not to co-operate with the West over its controversial nuclear programme.

In all the furore over MPs' expenses, it is hardly surprising that the implications of Mr Obama's highly revealing comment have gone unnoticed in this country. But taken at face value, it could have a major impact on how the international crisis over Iran's nuclear programme plays out.

Under pressure from a visiting Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, to explain the latest White House position on Iran, a relaxed Mr Obama remarked: "We should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether [the Iranians] are moving in the right direction."

The only problem with this somewhat lackadaisical approach to the most pressing security issue of the modern age is that, come the end of the year, Iran's development of a nuclear weapon will be a fait accompli.

At the heart of the international campaign to persuade Tehran to halt its programme is the awareness that, according to intelligence estimates, Iran will by the end of this year have sufficient quantities of low-enriched uranium (LEU) to build a nuclear warhead. Even the most doveish intelligence analysts agree that 2,000 kilos would be sufficient for an atom bomb, and in March, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, confirmed that Iran had so far successfully produced half of that amount in its uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.

Natanz has the capacity to produce 100 kilos of LEU a month, which means that, unless Tehran can be persuaded to halt its enrichment activities, it will have all the fuel it needs to produce a bomb by the end of year – just when Mr Obama will be looking to Tehran to respond to his peace overtures.

Whether or not Iran has an active military nuclear programme to turn that fuel into a bomb is a topic of hot debate within the western intelligence community. It is now widely agreed that such a programme was in place until 2003, when it was abruptly abandoned, as Tehran took fright following the invasion of Iraq. Many experts argue that there is now sufficient evidence to suggest that the country has resumed its efforts since the hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the presidency in 2005.

Because of this, those involved in the tortuous negotiations to persuade Tehran to freeze uranium enrichment – which have been under way for six years – are well aware that time is of the essence. Even when Mr Obama, in his first weeks in office, offered the hand of friendship to Iran if it agreed to "unclench its fist", most western negotiators believed that the diplomatic pressure – in the form of economic sanctions – had to be maintained if Tehran was to be brought to its senses.

At a stroke, however, Mr Obama's comments have taken the pressure off Iran, just as the nuclear crisis approaches a critical juncture. Next month, Iran goes to the polls to choose a new president. The outcome of this election will determine the fate of Iran's 30-year stand-off with the West.

However, if this week's confirmation of the four presidential candidates is anything to go by, don't expect a radical change of direction in Tehran anytime soon. Of the 475 people who put their names forward for the contest, 471 were excluded on ideological grounds by the Guardian Council, the all-powerful body which is charged with protecting the core principles of Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution.

The Guardian Council reports directly to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Khomeini's successor as Supreme Leader, which means that the regime has yet again manipulated the election result in its favour before a vote has even been cast.

Mr Ahmadinejad remains the favourite, but in the unlikely event that he fails to win a second term, he would simply be replaced by another conservative hardliner. The other candidates are Mohsen Rezai, a former commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Mir Hossein Musavi, who served as Iran's prime minister under Ayatollah Khomeini in the 1980s, and Mahdi Karroubi, a former speaker of the Iranian parliament. Not exactly a list that will give Iranians a chance to vote for change they can believe in.

As if to set the tone for the forthcoming election campaign, Mr Ahmadinejad earlier this week announced that Iran had successfully launched a missile capable of hitting Israel, while reiterating his determination to press ahead with the nuclear programme.

Whatever happens at the polls, Mr Obama does not have to wait until the end of the year to find out whether Tehran is prepared to make the concessions necessary to resolve this crisis. Whether it is Mr Ahmadinejad or one of the other candidates who triumphs on June 12, the message will be the same: no deal.