Bruce Wolman writes:
Speakers at the AIPAC policy conference regularly said that some Arab nations are on the same page with Israel in considering the Iranian nuclear program the biggest threat to regional stability, but the Egyptian Foreign Ministry articulated a different message yesterday.
According to the Jerusalem Post, Ministry spokesman Hossam Zaki said that Western policies aimed at "pressuring Iran to give up its nuclear program will fail because they disregard Israeli nuclear capabilities." More critically, Egypt called the Israeli nukes "the first and greatest threat to security in the region."
Needless to say, Israel did not take the statement kindly. Yigal Palmor, an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman rejected the Egyptian characterization, adding
If he can quote at least one occasion in which Israel has threatened any of its neighbors with the alleged nuclear weapon, then his statements would gain him credibility. Unless he produces evidence to support his claims, these kinds of remarks are completely out of line.
Does Israel really want us to go there? According to globalsecurity.org, hardly a disarmament web site:
The total Israeli nuclear stockpile consists of several hundred weapons of various types, including boosted fission and enhanced radiation weapons ("neutron bombs"), as well as nuclear artillery shells. Strategically, Israel uses its long-range missiles and nuclear-capable aircraft (and, some say, submarines with nuclear-armed cruise missiles) to deter both conventional and unconventional attacks, or to launch "the Samson Option", an all-out attack against an adversary should defenses fail and population centers be threatened. In addition, despite Israel's insistence that it "will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East," these systems represent an effective preemptive strike force. At the same time, Israel deploys tactical systems designed to rapidly reduce an invading force. Following the 1973 war, Israel fielded at least three batteries of atomic-capable self-propelled 175mm cannons equipped with a total of no less than 108 warheads, and placed atomic land mines in the Golan Heights during the early 1980s.
Nuclear weapons need not be detonated to be used as weapons. Early in the 1973 war, Israel went on a nuclear alert, partly in the knowledge that it would be detected by the United States and the Soviet Union. The Soviets, Israel assumed, would restrain their Arab allies while the Americans would speed up resupply efforts. While the USSR did inform Egypt that Israel had armed three nuclear weapons, the extent to which Israel's nuclear alert affected the timing of Washington's subsequent decision to rearm Israel is not clear.
Since the intelligence services of Israel's neighbors can search online just as easily as we can, a reasonable conclusion for them to draw is that Israel's ideas about tactical nuclear weapons in the region represent a real threat.
Zaki announced that Egypt "sought to realize the aims of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to guarantee the security of all states, whereas possession of nuclear weapons by some countries disrupted the balance of power and encouraged other nations to address this imbalance by seeking to acquire nuclear weapons."
At the AIPAC conference an optimistic Jane Harman "hopefully" pointed out the conflicts Egypt was having with Hezbollah and Iran. But only a few hours earlier Egypt had "called on the international community to justify and indiscriminately apply the Non-Proliferation Treaty that requires states to comply with its provisions, and asked it to refrain from the adoption of double standards in pressuring states to abandon their programs."
An Egyptian official directly told the Jerusalem Post that Egypt preferred Israel to pursue diplomacy rather than a military option in confronting Iran's nuclear program.
And lest anyone regard the Foreign Ministry briefing as pro forma, the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram reported on Sunday that President Hosni Mubarak told Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in a meeting that "Egypt opposed any proliferation in the region and that efforts aimed at shedding light on the Iranian nuclear program must be accompanied by parallel efforts to deal with the Israeli program."
I have seen no reference to these reports in the US media. We are left to wonder if President Mubarak raised the issue with Secretary of Defense Gates this morning. Had Egypt called for strong sanctions against Iran, it certainly would have been headlines in the New York Times and Washington Post.
Going by Egypt's public statements, pro-AIPAC Democrats may need more than hope to see fulfilled their desired Arab-Israeli alliance against Iran.
[Weiss comment: Egypt's evident concern with Israeli nukes lends support to the theory that the '67 War was precipitated in part by Nasser's worries about Israel getting the bomb. Nukes are destabilizing. More reason to enforce the NPT.]
Unless Israel opens up the sub-basements at Damona (temporarily bricked over for an inspector sent by JFK in the early sixties) I would think the Israeli Foreign Ministry is completely out of line as well. If Israel only has "alleged nuclear weapons" why did they jail Mordechai Vanunu all those years? You can't put a man in jail for photographing facilities that don't exist.
Israel wants the whole world to focus on the imaginary elephant in the room, Iran's nukes, all the while Israel has got a herd of elephants ready to stampede. The whole world knows about the imaginary and real elephants and yet plays stupid and dumb.
I'm surprised Mubarak went against Israel and the U.S. regarding Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. I know that the entire Egyptian population espouses Arab nationalism and hates the U.S. and Israel; but Mubarak usually shuts them up with his security forces and sucks up to the US/Israel. Israel doesn't want Iran to get a nuke because it would severely diminish Israel's dominant role in the region. If Iran gets the nuke, Israel and the U.S. can't continue bullying "rogue states" on the "axis of evil". Also, Iranian nuclear proliferation might actually get Israel to start thinking about creating a viable Palestinian state.
Damn. Just think of all the 12 year old children Avigdor Lieberman could assault with Israel's nuclear arsenal.
I will repeat what I have said before. Israel over the last 50 years has made two decisions, probably independent of each other, that has created a serious dilemma, 1) They decided to introduce nuclear weapons into the IP dispute. Any cognisant observer would conclude that their Arab adversaries would respond in kind. It is only natural. At first we thought that Egypt would do so, but it is only inevitable if not them than some of her otherenemies would. 2) Israel during the same period settled 80% of their Jewish inhabitants in Tel Aviv greater metropolitan area. An area that can be measured in about five blast zones of a fission weapon. Does that make any sense? Of course the Israeli public is in hysterics at the possibility that some neighboring country might do what they have already done. In any case, Israel has made it's decisions. That should be their problem. For the United States, should we get sucked into nuclear war just because of some stupid decisions that were made by people who have never shown any interest in America's interest.
Mubarak probably wants more money shoved up his ass by Uncle Sam. As soon as more money is delivered he will shut up and order his police to start pulling the finger nails of any Egyptians daring to criticize him and Israel too openly. I guess American companies aren't the only ones seeking more money from us. All these corupt Arab rulers–God, when will the Arbs be rid of them?
Yea, Egypt and Saudi Arabia are long overdue for a revolution.
It's interesting that the US State dept. chose yesterday's NPT meeting to say explicitly that it wanted Israel to join the NPT. This has got headlines in Haaretz & JPost, the latter quoting Dov Weisglass as calling it "the most worrying development in US foreign policy in years."
"If he can quote at least one occasion in which Israel has threatened any of its neighbors with the alleged nuclear weapon, then his statements would gain him credibility." Easy peasy: "I once encountered Ariel Sharon in the Knesset in the late 1970s. I asked him if Israel still had a Masada Option. He boldly announced, "No longer 'Masada Option' – now 'Samson Option.'"" Hal Lindsey
Even Israel should have nuclear weapons it did threaten nobody to use it first.. Israel on the contrary is threatened by Iran's President to be wiped away from the map. Israel faces rockets bombing and terrorist suicide bombing very often. Terrorist organisations like Hamas , Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad want the Israel's destruction. Israel is surrounded and despised by hostile Arab and Muslim countries . As long as those countries believe that Israel has nuclear weapons they will PERHAPS restrain from attacking Israel. If Israel has nuclear weapons IT IS NO QUESTION that it disarms as long the threats and attacks against it last. Ralph
The news Rowan reports here is indeed very interesting but you wonder what exactly it means: The invariably overlooked question when Israel or its partisans talk about the dangers of Iran getting the bomb is if Israel is really so worried about same why don't they agree to give up their own in exchange for a nuke-free Middle East? The only answer I can see possible is that Israel doesn't just want to be free of the possibility of being nuked, it also want to have the sole ability to nuke others. Understandable from a hard-nosed realpolitik perspective, but not one that the world or even the U.S. is likely to stand by if pressed. So, with this State Dept. woman calling for Israel to agree to the NPT is Obama putting his finger on this tremendously vulnerable point and essentially saying to Israel that before the U.S. agrees to crack down on Iran Israel must first give up its nukes? Sounds amazing, but other than a few other more mundane possibilities (the State Dept. person just winging it, or just issuing a rhetorical statement Obama doesn't mean to stand behind), I don't know enough about the NPT to know what other possibilities are. Maybe not calling for Israel to give up its nukes but instead to just agree to an inspection regimen? Anyone out there with some detailed knowledge of what the NPT requires and etc. and what else this could mean?
After there is peace, including a change of policy by Iran, then there will be no need for nuclear weapons. Then there might be merit to Israel's giving up its weapons. If its had nuclear weapons since the late 60's, then that status is the stability. New factors would be the destabalization.
If he can quote at least one occasion in which Iran has threatened any of its neighbors with the alleged nuclear weapon, then his statements would gain him credibility. Unless he produces evidence to support his claims, these kinds of remarks are completely out of line
So Israel's allowed to have nuclear weapons because it already has them, whereas because Iran's still getting hers, she's not allowed?
The point was about destabalization. At a moment in time, in which the Israel/Palestine discussion could resolve and actually reconcile, Iran comes into the picture saber-rattling, fomenting and arming terror attacks on Israeli civilians (lightened now that both Hezbollah and Hamas have temporarily abandoned shelling civilians – did Lebanon and Gaza succeed then?), and likely developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems. It is NEW, and it is not necessary by any definition.
And Israel has been sabre-rattling for 40 years invading various countries, destroying their infrastructure and killing their civilians. What's the difference exactly? It developed it's nuclear weapons at the same time. Now it comes sabre-rattling against Iran and complaining at the prospect of Iran getting nuclear weapons but not even thinking about its own.
The significance of Iran developing nuclear weapons is that it is new. Its support of factions that apply terror as chosen means of "dissent" is not new. Even though its destabalization follows on the heals of the enormous destabalization of the Iraq war, a nuclear armed Iran is a qualitatively different world for israel and the US and the rest of the Arab world. Its really not subject to discussion. It is a fact. The only relevant discussion is how to address it.
I recently read The Nuclear Express. There's a timeline at the end of the book. The reactor at Dimona went critical in Dec. 1963. Interesting timing.
If you want stabilization, I think what you should want is mutual assured destruction. It kept the peace during the Cold War.
Imagine, a jazzman with neophobia. His music must be frightfully dull.
It's pretty obvious that merely having military nuke capacity affords any country a lot of leverage. The indirect threat is always there. Surrounding countries must always consider this. Is it really in USA interest to have only one nuclear-armed or available capacity in the Middle East? I mean balance of power is not a new policy, nor is divide and conquer, nor potential mutual destruction. The current "stability" in the Middle East afforded by Israel might for decades is such a good thing for the people of the Middle East, especially when linked with Uncle Sam's support of Arab tyrant proxies? I think the overwhelming consensus of Main Street over there is NO. Uncle Sam would be wise to consider how long the stabilization process and configuration can go on before it bites him in the ass–as it did on 9/11. Part of USA homeland security should be wiser politics in the Middle East. The focus should be to weaken Uncle Sam's one-sided support for Israeli regime actions. If we can entice Iran to give up nukes, as we have other nations, why is there so far no parallel approach to Israel? The first step in addressing this issue has now been taken by the US State dept. which chose yesterday's NPT meeting to say explicitly that it wanted Israel to join the NPT. Iran is already a member. Let's start playing catch-up with Israel. Let's not be afraid to tie some strings to our annual welfare dole to Israel, one of the top arms dealers in the whole world.
Sure is.
Aristeides – very interesting timing, indeed. I don't think JFK liked the idea of a shitty little Levantine country having a nuclear bomb. And if those bombs can be placed in or near Israeli embassies around the world;, they make very powerful blackmail material. Does anyone think that Israel has 200+ nuclear bombs lined up on shelves, waiting for the 'Next Holocaust' ? No; they don't need to have a grand enemy; all they have to do is spread them around. Play around with the IDF, and zap! New York, Washington, LA or whatever.
a nuclear armed Iran is a qualitatively different world for israel and the US and the rest of the Arab world. How exactly?
Its a new form of veto for Iran. Its method of political "negotiation" historically has been precipicing. So, now in doing so, it can threaten nuclear retaliation. Sure, you can say that Israel undertakes similar methods, but the Iranian capability is NEW, destabalizing.
If Iran's foreign policy were based on acceptance of Israel, then its increment of arms potential to horridly lethal capability, then you could describe its efforts as "defensive". That is NOT the case though, and you know it well.
The status quo has been a disaster for United States interests. It would be best for us if neither Iran nor Israel had nuclear weapons. However, given that Israel already does, it is possible that a destabilization of the current balance may be favorable to the United States. American hostility towards Iran is driven by colonial Zionists. If our leaders put American interests before Israel's, we could easily improve relations with any Iranian government. No one is talking about becoming best buds with the Ayatollahs, nor liking or even respecting them, but rather normalizing political, economic, and social ties in the same way that we did we China. Israelis have become barbarians and have completely lost the moral high ground. They are no longer worthy of our support, and we should look out for ourselves until such time as they reform enough to warrant a second chance.
Its method of political "negotiation" historically has been precipicing. So, now in doing so, it can threaten nuclear retaliation Not really. No-one has really negotiated with Iran on anything. If Iran's foreign policy were based on acceptance of Israel, then its increment of arms potential to horridly lethal capability, then you could describe its efforts as "defensive". I don't see what 'acceptance' of Israel has to do with anything. It has never attempted to attack Israel, nor will it do in the near future. You could call Iranian actions as defensive even if they've never accepted Israel.
Israeli NYC Embassy A Radiation Hot Spot? http://www.rense.com/general75/hotspot.htm
Acceptance of which Israel, Witty? 1948, 1967, current control of land Israel? Acceptance of nuclear Israel as the lone so armed in the Middle East? Both? My, aren't you generous and sensitive.
I don't thing is there is any dispute whether Israel possess nuclear weapons anymore. Israel's stance on the issue is related to legal concerns and the fact that they view the international community with such disrespectful scorn (i.e they are stupid enough to believe anything we tell them).
The Israelis hand a helping hand from a few western nations, including the U.S, in it's acquisition of nukes. Likely American zionists – but Americans just the same. And because of that – and the fact that the U.S is the only one who can do it , really it is they who should insist on disarming the illegal Israeli nukes. If I were king for a day I'd make any far-reaching peace proposal hinge on disarmament of the Zionist bomb….
Rubbish. Israel was not threatened by Iran. And there would be no threat from Hamas, Hezbollah etc if not for the fact that Israel is a fascist state using it's military might to steal land and resources from it's neighbors. And that 's pretty much it.
TO STEVIEB The problem is that people like you the less they know the more nonsense they speak. and write. Of course you didn't see ,hear and read nozhing about Ahmadinejad feclarations neither you did read Hamas "Charter" and of course you ignore that Israel left Gaza 2005 . Unfortunately it is a vaste of time to "debate" with people like you. Ralph
[sigh] Ahmadinejad has never made any threatening declaration about Israel Hamas' charter is a bargaining chip for future negotiations, it means nothing. A bit like the UN Charter Israel left Gaza but then imposed a siege as soon as Hamas took Gaza over. If you impose a siege, it's still called an occupation
IT IS STRANGE THAT EVERYTHING ARABS AND PALESTINIANS DO IS PLAYED DOWN AND EVERYTHING ISRAEL DOES IS CRIMINAL . OF COURSE. ARAB OR MUSLIM CAN KILL ONE EACHOTHER BUT WE ALMOST NEVER HEAR A CONDEMNATION OF THOSE CRIMES BUT WHEN THEY KILL NOT ARABS OR NOT MUSLIMS THEY ARE RIGHT AND THE WHOLE WORLD IS FULL OF THEIR COMPLAINTS . AS USUAL THEY ARE ALWAYS INNOCENT AND THE OTHERS ALWAYS GUILTY . IT IS SO EASY TO GIVE OTHERS THE FAULT OF ONE'S PROBLEMS. I SELDOM DID READ PALESTINIAN ,ARAB OR MUSLIM MEDIA ADMITTING AT LEAST PARTIALLY THAT THEIR GOVERNMENTS OR WHAT THEY CALL "LIBERATION OR RESISTANCE MOVEMENTS" CAUSE PROBLEMS TO OTHER PEOPLE OR COUNTRIES. RALPH
Writing in caps does not give more credibility to your point, nor does it make your point stronger. It's just annoying.
Yes, radioactive to American Interests.
I don't think it's strange that when Israel commits criminal acts they are viewed as criminal. Be careful, bubala, sounds like you've been sniffing the strong stuff.
RE: " pro-AIPAC Democrats may need more than hope to see fulfilled their desired Arab-Israeli alliance against Iran" MY COMMENT: Israel and 'The Lobby' create their own reality.
Of course Arab and Muslim NEVER commit criminal acts.When they do commit it is ALWAYS the other's fault. Ralph
Exactly and BushCo copied that approach; indeed bragged about it. We see the results of both.
Do we give them a big fat blank check like we do israel? Not in America's Name!
FOR THEM THERE ARE THE ARAB AND mUSLIM COUNTRIES WHICH LARGELY COMPENSATE THE US TO ISRAEL. RALPH