Aberconwy MP Guto Bebb has raised concerns that an Iranian nuclear deal that fails to fully address real dangers in the Middle East may be agreed in order to win President Obama a foreign policy “legacy” before he leaves office.
The Conservative MP voiced his concerns in a Westminster Hall debate he secured. The United States, the UK, Germany, France, Russia, and China are understood to be in the final stages of nuclear negotiations with Iran.
Mr. Bebb is alarmed by rumours that Iran will be allowed to keep not 1,000 but 6,000 centrifuges.
He said: “We can do the maths. We would be looking at 25 kg of enriched uranium within not six months, but four.”
The MP fears other countries in the region will now seek to develop similar capabilities and that the deal will not reduce tensions but hike these higher.
Arms race threat
He said: “My concern [is] that other countries in the region would end up in an arms race – not to produce a nuclear weapon, but to be within six months of a breakout. It is worth mentioning that Prince Turki al-Faisal from Saudi Arabia stated clearly that “whatever the Iranians have, we will have, too”.
“That comment should be taken seriously by the Government when they assess the merits or otherwise of the deal.”
Voicing concerns about Iran’s missile capabilities, he said: “[We] are looking at a deal that will possibly be limited to 10 years… Given that the deal does nothing, as far as I can see, to deal with Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, there is a real question as to whether 10 years is insufficient.”
Mr. Bebb also has strong concerns about inspections to ensure Iran sticks to the terms of a deal.
Deal must be ’foolproof’
He said: “If we are trying to reach an agreement to curtail the breakout time for Iran to develop nuclear capacity, the sophistication and possible development of centrifuges is crucial, yet there is no detail, as far as I can see, about what kind of monitoring of research and development will be undertaken…
“The question of whether we will have a proper verification process in any agreement gives rise to real concern. If we have an agreement with a proper verification process, it must be maintained and foolproof, but once again Iran’s track record does not give us much confidence.”
Describing what he understands has been put on the table, he said: “Looking at the bare bones of the proposed agreement, it would appear that the [negotiators] are now willing to accept Iran’s being at the threshold of a nuclear breakout, and that that threshold will be maintained for the next 10 years.”
Suggesting that President Obama may want to secure a foreign policy success story, he said: “I do not want to be described as a cynic, but it is fair to question whether the agreement is actually an effort to resolve the issue, or whether it is effectively an effort to ensure a foreign policy legacy for the current American administration… I think that there is a genuine realization that we need an agreement, but must that agreement be rushed to achieve a foreign policy goal for a US Administration who might not be in place for very long?”
Mr Bebb warned there are “real questions to be asked about whether we can support any proposed deal.
Former Conservative Defence Secretary Liam Fox echoed Mr Bebb’s concerns, stating that “allowing the number of centrifuges to remain at 6,000 or above is an utterly unacceptable risk” and “anything less than unfettered access is unacceptable”.
He said: “The prospect of a nuclear arms race in one of the world’s most unstable regions, where the likelihood of the use of such weapons is probably greatest, should be of concern to us all. The stakes are enormous…
“A bad deal is worse than no deal. Appeasement has a very bad track record.”.