Marie Harf: Obama Didn’t Actually Mean Iran Could Quickly Build Bomb in 13 Years

QUESTION: "I would like to go to Iran —"
MS. HARF: "Okay."
QUESTION: "— and the President’s rather unusual sales job in this most recent interview in which he said that after 13 years, Iran would have the capability or could have the capability to produce a weapon. Is the idea simply —"
HARF: "That quote, I think, that people are referring to – I think his words were a little mixed up there, but what he was referring to was a scenario in which there was no deal. And if you go back and look at the transcript, I know it’s a little confusing. I spoke to the folks at the White House and read it a few times. It’s my understanding that he was referring to – even though it was a little muddled in the words – to a scenario in which there was no deal."
QUESTION: "But I thought that without a deal, they could – they’re at breakout in two to three months —"
HARF: "Correct."
QUESTION: "— not 13 years."
HARF: "Right, right. He wasn’t saying something different. It was more of a hypothetical: Well, look, without a deal, this is what could possibly happen. He was not indicating what would happen under an agreement in those years."
QUESTION: "So after 13 years, if there is a deal based on the parameters that you got in Lausanne, the Administration’s contention is that they still would not be able to – they would still not be able to produce – they would still be a year away?"
HARF: "Well, as we’ve said, we needed to get to a year breakout – up to – at least a year breakout time for at least 10 years. Given that we’re still – part of the negotiations remains what happens to some of those pieces in those further-on years, I don’t have a specific breakout time to put onto those years at this point, but obviously we want as long of a breakout time for as long as possible."
QUESTION: "So the year —"
HARF: "So it would not be zero. I mean, that’s why he was addressing a hypothetical scenario in which there was no agreement."