A major theme of this year鈥檚 US presidential election campaign was the threat to world peace allegedly posed by Iran鈥檚 nuclear program. Democrat President Barack Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney competed to take the hardest line.
Obama boasted of organising the 鈥渟trongest coalition and the strongest sanctions against Iran in history鈥 and promised to 鈥渢ake all options necessary鈥 to force Iran to abandon its nuclear program.
This narrative relies on the false assertion that Iran is developing nuclear weapons with which to attack Israel and the US. It casts the US and Israel as defenders of international peace and security, when a military strike against Iran鈥檚 nuclear facilities would constitute an illegal act of aggression.
While the hype about Iran continues, negotiations on a proposal that could actually reduce the threat of nuclear conflict in the region 鈥 the establishment of a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone 鈥 have been sidelined.
A conference on the proposal set to take place in Finland in December this year, to which Iran agreed, has reportedly been cancelled by the US and Israel.
Potential for nuclear weapons-free Middle East
The proposal to establish a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone has garnered international support since the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) passed a resolution, sponsored by Iran and Egypt, endorsing the idea in 1974. However, no substantive progress has been made towards establishment of the zone.
After years of pressure from Arab states, modest practical step were agreed upon at the 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation (NPT) Review Conference to take the proposal forward.
The Middle East resolution outlined a plan 鈥渢o convene a conference in 2012, to be attended by all States of the Middle East, on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction鈥. The resolution also called upon Israel to join the NPT, and was hailed as a breakthrough.
However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denounced the resolution saying 鈥淚srael is not obligated by the decisions of this Conference, which has no authority over Israel鈥.
The head of Israel's Atomic Energy Commission said in September this year that Israel will not take part in the conference, rejecting it as an attempt to impose a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone 鈥渇rom outside鈥.
This position reflects a double-standard on the part of Israel, which chooses to remain outside the NPT so it can maintain its 鈥減osition of nuclear ambiguity鈥 鈥 allowing it to keep its nuclear weapons without being subject to the same scrutiny as NPT nuclear weapons states. Israel is also free from the Treaty's Article VI obligation to disarm.
It cannot take part directly in NPT negotiations, but Israel exerts considerable influence in negotiations on nuclear matters through its membership of the IAEA, and through the diplomatic weight carried by its ally, the US.
No 鈥榗oncrete deliverables鈥
In 2004, the IAEA planned to hold a forum to discuss the establishment of a Middle East Nuclear Weapon Free Zone. A cable聽聽published by WikiLeaks revealed Israel was keen to ensure that the forum would not produce any 鈥渃oncrete deliverables鈥 towards achieving a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone.
The cable reports that 鈥淚srael has urged the IAEA to view the forum as 鈥榓 one-time educational event鈥欌 with a purely 鈥渋ntellectual鈥 outcome. The Israelis objected to the inclusion of representatives of the Arab League as observers, as "not consistent with the learning process".
When agreement could not be reached on the form the forum would take, it was postponed. The idea was revived by the US in 2007 in an attempt to 鈥渉ead off鈥 the inclusion of an 鈥淚sraeli Nuclear Threat鈥 (INT) item on the agenda for that year's IAEA General Conference. The US consistently opposes language in IAEA, NPT and UN resolutions on nuclear issues in the Middle East that refers specifically to Israel, even though Israel is the only nuclear weapons power in the region.
The INT item was proposed by the Arab group of IAEA member states, partly due to their frustration with the lack of progress on establishing a Middle East Nuclear Weapon Free Zone, and called upon Israel to accede to the NPT and place all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards.
According to from the US Ambassador to the IAEA, Israeli Ambassador Israel Michaeli agreed that 鈥淯S pressure to agree to a Forum鈥 could be a 鈥渏oint of leverage鈥 to persuade Egypt to use its influence within the Arab group to drop the proposed INT agenda item.
The cable reports that Michaeli said that the Israeli 鈥済overnment would not be 鈥榲ery happy鈥 about a Forum鈥 but if it was 鈥渂ased on known elements meaning the agreed 2004 agenda, Israel could countenance it鈥.
In the end, a forum on "Experience of Possible Relevance to the Creation of a Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zone in the Middle East" took place last year. The that concluded with four general proposals for taking the process forward, but no specific or binding measures.
Since the establishment of a Middle East Nuclear Weapon Free Zone would require Israel to declare and ultimately give up its nuclear arsenal, Israel and the US have preferred to focus on the threat allegedly posed by Iran鈥檚 nuclear program.
While Israel鈥檚 official 鈥渞ed line鈥 is Iran having the ability to make what Israel deems to be enough weapons grade uranium to make a bomb, it appears that Iran crossed a red line when it chose to move ahead with its nuclear program after the revolution of 1979.
As a signatory to the NPT, for peaceful purposes. Its announcement in 1974 of a plan to build 23 large nuclear reactors was supported by the West. Construction of Iran鈥檚 first nuclear power plant at Bushehr was originally contracted to a German firm in 1975.
However, after the Iranian revolution ousted the Western-backed shah, Germany refused to continue the work, the US cut off Iran鈥檚 supply of research reactor fuel and France refused to provide any enriched uranium. In 1995, Russia signed a contract with Iran to finish building the reactor, and was subsequently subjected to intense US diplomatic pressure.
A reveals a secret Israeli plan to bribe Russia into delaying construction of the Bushehr plant. The cable reports that Israel told Russia it was 鈥渆xtremely important鈥 to Israel for the work to be delayed.
Russia is reported as agreeing to 鈥渂lame the delay on 鈥榯echnical problems鈥 鈥 so that the Iranians will not be in a position to complain鈥. The cable says that the Director General of the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission told the US Ambassador that 鈥渃onsideration must be given to economic incentives for Russia that will keep it 鈥榦n board鈥 with respect to Iran鈥.
This was not the first time Israel has taken international law into its own hands in relation to the alleged nuclear ambitions of its neighbours. In 1981 Israel attracted international condemnation for the bombing of Iraq鈥檚 Osirak research reactor and in 1991 it bombed Dair Alzour in Syria. Israel claimed the latter was a nuclear facility, but this was never proven to be true.
The same cable reports Israel鈥檚 disappointment that 鈥渄espite the USG鈥檚[United States Government鈥檚] best efforts, Egypt has advanced its position on a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in the IAEA Board's latest resolution on Iran鈥.
This focus on Iran at the expense of substantive progress towards the establishment of a MENWFZ has antagonised states which support the proposal. A reports that the Director of the Egyptian Foreign Ministry鈥檚 Disarmament Office objected to 鈥渢he U.S.'s unwillingness to discuss even technical aspects of a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone. He complained that whenever Egypt asks to discuss Israel, the U.S. shifts the focus to Iran鈥.
A cable from February 2010 reports on a meeting between US and Egyptian military officials during which the Egyptians reportedly suggested the US acknowledge Israel鈥檚 possession of nuclear weapons, which gives Iran "justification for creating its own nuclear weapons鈥.
US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for the Middle East, Dr Colin Kahl, responded that it is 鈥渘ot possible to draw strict parallels between Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons and other Middle Eastern countries 鈥 The goal of a NWFZ in the Middle East could take 10-20 years to achieve; however, the international community could not wait 20 years to address Iran's nuclear program.鈥
In reality, US intelligence agencies have repeatedly concluded that Iran is not acquiring nuclear weapons. The US does not want 鈥渟trict parallels鈥 to be drawn between Iran and Israel because this would bring unwelcome attention onto the threat posed by Israel鈥檚 own nuclear weapons.
Taking allies鈥 interests into account
The establishment of a nuclear weapon-free zone in the Middle East would ban the US and its allies from keeping nuclear weapons on bases in the Middle East. Port visits by nuclear warships could be banned, along with the transit and launch of nuclear weapons by submarines in the region. The agreement to create the zone could also prohibit attacks against nuclear installations in the region, as provided for by the African Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty.
A reports that France objected to text in Egypt鈥檚 IAEA resolution on the establishment of a nuclear weapon-free zone in the region, which called on states in the region to not "permit the stationing on their territories or on territories under their control, of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices".
France is officially the world鈥檚 third largest nuclear weapons power maintaining a fleet of aircraft designed for nuclear strikes, and four nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines. It is the only Western power other than the US to have a military base in the Middle East, established in the United Arab Emirates in 2009.
In 2010, while Obama was promising a 鈥渨orld without nuclear weapons鈥, US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security that the US 鈥渨ill move precipitously and will take allies' interests into account鈥.
Tauscher stressed that 鈥渢he U.S. position on disarmament is not far from that of France鈥, in that it 鈥渞emains committed to an effective deterrent, and the President's recent budget proposal includes a significant increase for the maintaining of U.S. nuclear forces鈥.
Tauscher and her French counterparts discussed strategies to counteract Egypt鈥檚 鈥渁ggressive posture on the Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone 鈥 resolution鈥, including 鈥減hone calls from Presidents Obama and Sarkozy directly to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak鈥 and 鈥渇inding other Non-Aligned Movement states that could be separated from Egypt with promises of assistance that Egypt would no longer receive鈥.
The US plans to spend approximately $640 billion$640 billion on nuclear weapons and related programs over the next 10 years. The continued reliance by the US and its allies on nuclear weapons, along with their willingness to subvert progress towards the establishment a MENWFZ for their own strategic interests, belies their claim to be a force for peace and stability in the region.
Disarmament chicken and egg
While purporting to support the idea of a MENWZ, Israeli and the USUS insist that such an agreement cannot be negotiated until peace has been realised in the Middle East. Arab states argue that negotiations towards achieving a MENWFZ could play an important role in the peace process, and point to the fact that 21 Arab states signed the NPT during height of the Arab-Israeli conflict as evidence of Israeli hypocrisy.
As well as rejecting calls to accede to the NPT, Israel refuses to abide by international law and take the steps necessary towards achieving a just peace with Palestine. In violation of UN resolutions for over 40 years, Israel has refused to end its military occupation of Palestinian land and withdraw to the internationally recognised 1967 border.
It refuses to recognise the right of Palestinian refugees to return to the land they were forced from in the 1948 and 1967 wars. It sanctions the building of illegal settlements in Palestinian territory and continues construction of the Israeli West bank barrier, otherwise known as the apartheid wall, which further annexes Palestinian land.
Essentially, Israel鈥檚 position is that it will not negotiate a MENWFZ until a peace agreement has been concluded with its neighbours, which it is not willing to negotiate either.
After the 2009 IAEA conference where the INT resolution was passed, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman wrote to each of the member states who voted in favour if it, condemning the resolution鈥檚 Arab sponsors.
Extracts from the letter, , state that as well as a 鈥渇undamental change in regional circumstances鈥, progress towards achieving a MENWZ cannot be made without 鈥渁 significant transformation in the attitude of states in the region towards Israel鈥.
This would appear to mean that Israel is not willing to negotiate a MENWFZ until other states in the region accept the state of Israel as it exists, despite the violations of international law and continuing acts of aggression upon which it is founded.
The Finnish convenors of this year鈥檚 MENWFZ conference sent diplomats to Israel to try to persuade them persuade them to take part. At a recent IAEA meeting, Arab states agreed not to put forward a resolution which referred to Israel鈥檚 nuclear weapons, in the hope that this would encourage Israeli participation.
However, the US reportedly says the time is 鈥渘ot opportune鈥. Within days, Israel reaffirmed its commitment to force over negotiations when it began bombing Gaza. The US has explicitly defended Israel鈥檚 latest attack, as it implicitly defends Israel鈥檚 possession of nuclear weapons.
Iranian people increasingly suffer over their government鈥檚 alleged nuclear ambitions, it is the actions of Israel and its allies which continue block progress towards a peaceful, nuclear weapons free Middle East.