Rethinking the Middle East's nuclear balance
The fierce debate on the Iran deal focuses on the near future, a decade at best. In any realistic analysis of Middle Eastern resources and ambitions, it is likely that the leading regional powers — Iran, Saudi Arabia or even Egypt and Turkey — may, in the long term, acquire or develop nuclear weapons. The No. 1 challenge for the Middle East may then be to create a regional system where the use of nonconventional weapons is phased out.
Summary⎙ Print Following the Iran nuke deal, the US and the regional powers must strive for a regional security agreement, either based on a mutual deterrence verification system or a nuclear-free Middle East.
AuthorUri SavirPosted August 16, 2015
According to an Israeli nuclear expert with extensive firsthand experience on these matters, who spoke to Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, “It may be time for Israel to think in new terms of the existence of nuclear weapons in the hands of Arab and other Muslim countries. With time, a system of mutual nuclear deterrence, backed by the United States, may become necessary. The US should formally guarantee Israel’s strategic edge in the region. In parallel, Washington should aspire for a regional security agreement which would include regional coordination over prohibiting the use of nonconventional weapons — nuclear, chemical and biological — or for that matter, conventional weapons.” The expert added that talks to this effect took place within the Arms Control and Regional Security working group in the mid-1990s, which was one of five multilateral working groups established as part of the Madrid Conference process.
A former senior Egyptian official, involved in these talks from 1992 to 1996, told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity that the discussions yielded very little progress due to Israel’s unwillingness to discuss its alleged nuclear potential. He said, “Egypt adheres today to a vision of a nuclear-free Middle East, which should include Israel and Iran.” At the end of April of this year, Egypt proposed at the UN Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Conference to advance a binding agreement on a nuclear-free Middle East. The United States aborted this proposal.
The two former senior Egyptian officials share the belief that the time has come for policymakers and strategic policy planners to think about the evolving post-Iran-deal reality.
Logically and most probably, the future in the region will take the shape of one of two scenarios: either a mutual nuclear deterrence system or a nuclear-free Middle East.
The US administration will also have to focus on the issue of proliferation of nonconventional weapons once the Iran deal debate is concluded. Obviously, Washington’s first center of attention will be the implementation of the agreement by the Iranians. Yet even if Iran complies with the agreement, the deal will have created a new reality in the Middle East, generating greater ambitions in the Gulf countries to acquire nonconventional weapon capabilities. Thus, the American thinking should combine future security and political realities in the region.
A senior State Department source speaking on condition of anonymity said the administration is well aware of the need for such policy planning. Yet according to this source, the administration estimates that the region is not ripe for a nuclear-free-zone agreement, and it will stand by Israel on the matter. On the other hand, Washington wants to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and is already talking to Egypt and the Gulf States about enhanced security cooperation and assistance and about curbing Iran’s regional ambitions. Similar talks will be held with Israel after the congressional vote.
While President Barack Obama made a historic decision in the right direction on the Iran deal, the US vision for the long-term future of the region in the aftermath of the deal may be myopic. There are very few in the Middle East who believe that in the long run (after 10-15 years) Iran will refrain from developing nuclear weapons. As a result, regional regimes are rethinking their security policies also in regard to the development of nuclear deterrence.
Given this likely development, the US administration should consider a political context in which a new security balance is structured. As it has to include Israel, it must be based on a political solution for the Palestinian issue that leads to peace in the region. This process alone may take a decade (in parallel to the Iran deal). It should include a two-state solution and regional economic cooperation (parallel to the Arab countries recognizing Israel). In such a context, a regional security agreement may be possible, either based on a mutual deterrence verification system or, with time and preferably, a nuclear-free Middle East.
Read more:
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/08/israel-iran-us-mideast-nuclear-free-agreement-obama.html#ixzz3j5ddFp5p
