The Arab League is pushing to end Israel’s nuclear secrecy and demanding that it come under the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear nation. The Obama Administration asked the Arab League NOT to do this because Israel would clearly resist and it would become less likely that the Middle East would become a nuclear free zone any time soon. The Obama Administration has focused on non-proliferation from the start. There were hints in the President’s speech in Cairo to this effect and then much more overt statements in his speech to the United Nations Security Council.
In Cairo, he said, “When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations.” Shortly thereafter in the same speech, the President said, when speaking of Iran:
But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America’s interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.
I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.
Clearly, these paragraphs in general, and specifically those verses that I have highlighted, concern Israel.
Speaking to the UN General Assembly this past September, the President noted that he had “outlined a comprehensive agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons.” The first of the “four pillars” the President cited as being important for “the future that we want for our children concerned nuclear non-proliferation. He said:
First, we must stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and seek the goal of a world without them.
This institution was founded at the dawn of the atomic age, in part because man’s capacity to kill had to be contained. For decades, we averted disaster, even under the shadow of a superpower stand-off. But today, the threat of proliferation is growing in scope and complexity. If we fail to act, we will invite nuclear arms races in every region, and the prospect of wars and acts of terror on a scale that we can hardly imagine….
All of this must support efforts to strengthen the NPT. Those nations that refuse to live up to their obligations must face consequences. Let me be clear, this is not about singling out individual nations — it is about standing up for the rights of all nations that do live up to their responsibilities. Because a world in which IAEA inspections are avoided and the United Nation’s demands are ignored will leave all people less safe, and all nations less secure.
A fragile consensus stands in the way of this frightening outcome, and that is the basic bargain that shapes the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It says that all nations have the right to peaceful nuclear energy; that nations with nuclear weapons have a responsibility to move toward disarmament; and those without them have the responsibility to forsake them.
Certainly, with these two speeches in mind, the Arab world must have expected the Obama Administration to sign the NPT. Yet, now the Obama Administration seems to be against this. Why? It may have something to do with ideals meeting reality.
As Israel clearly benefits from nuclear ambiguity and even more-so from the belief that it indeed possesses nuclear weapons, it makes no sense for Israel to sign on to the NPT. More importantly for the issue at hand, and another issue that has been ignored for the most part entirely, is that the United States benefits by Israel’s nuclear ambiguity. As an ambiguous nuclear power, the threat of Israeli nuclear action has helped the United States maintain dominance in the region. As a declared nuclear power, the United States would have to deal with Arab nations demanding Israel’s disarmament while at the same time facing other Nations such as North Korea and Iran who are working on nuclear weapons programs, with North Korea already possessing them and Iran nearing that point. Other nations may demand to be allowed to obtain them. If Israel were to be disarmed, chemical and biological weapons take on much larger importance and conventional armies become significantly more useful against it. The threat of another major war would increase dramatically. Israel’s nuclear ambiguity is not only best for US interests, but best for peace in the region. Thus, the reality of the situation is that it remains best for the United States not to pressure Israel to sign the NPTÂ in spite of the fact that nuclear non-proliferation is the Obama Administration’s top foreign policy goal.