+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

A way out from under the Middle East's nuclear shadow

Princeton experts offer Solution for ending the nuclear dangers across the Middle East.

By Neve Gordon

Plutonium separation plant control room at the Dimona Reactor, as photographed and exposed by Mordechai Vanunu (photo: Mordechai Vanunu, http://www.vanunu.com/)

Across the globe headlines pronounced that a “breakthrough agreement” had been reached in Geneva. Iran’s atomic ambitions had been curbed in exchange for limited sanctions relief, thus deflating the longstanding military standoff. The deal hammered out between Iran and the United States, France, Germany, Britain, China and Russia stipulates that Tehran will halt progress on enrichment capacity, stop developing its heavy water reactor at Arak, and open access to international weapons inspection. While this deal paves the way for Iran’s reintegration into the family of western nations, and can therefore be conceived as a real milestone, in terms of the Middle East nuclear problem any robust agreement will have to include Israel.

Within Israel, speaking about the nuclear program in Dimona is taboo. Mysteriously, however, there is also a broad-based agreement to keep silent about it in DC and in most European capitals. This despite claims made by independent analysts who have estimated that Israel likely has around 80 warheads today and is believed to be the only state in the region that has produced separated plutonium, and possibly highly enriched uranium, the key ingredients in nuclear weapons. Indeed, it may now have enough plutonium, including the plutonium already in weapons, for up to 200 nuclear warheads.

So why are politicians and mainstream media outlets concentrating on Iran and its decision to embark on a nuclear program instead of adopting a more ambitious framework that considers the steps needed to make the Middle East a zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction? To be sure, I am against Iran developing a nuclear weapon, but I am also opposed to Israel having a nuclear arsenal, which at 200 warheads would be larger than the arsenal of Britain. There is, after all, a connection between the two and this connection needs to be spelled out if a broader framework is to be adopted.

A framework for a nuclear free zone

Creating a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East is actually not a new idea. Ironically, it was first proposed in the United Nations General Assembly in 1974 by no other than the major “culprit” in the recent fray – Iran.  Together with Egypt, these two countries attempted to roll back Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons and to restrain further proliferation in the region by having all states join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).  In 1990, Egypt broadened the proposal to include a ban on chemical and biological weapons; namely, to create a Weapon of Mass Destruction free zone in the region.

Yet, as everyone knows, nothing came of these initiatives, even though nuclear weapon free zones have been established in five regions: Latin America and the Caribbean (in force since 2002), the South Pacific (1986), South-East Asia (1997), Africa (2009) and Central Asia (2009). Today, nuclear weapon free zones cover the Southern hemisphere and have a combined membership of 97 states, more than half the states in the international community.

Why, one might ask, should the Middle East be any different?

A Middle East free zone

The problem, of course, is that the Middle East has emerged as a nuclear proliferation hotbed. Israel has held on to its nuclear weapons, refused to join the NPT, significantly expanded its stockpile of fissile material for weapons, and developed advanced delivery systems. Clandestine nuclear-weapon programs were revealed in Iraq in 1991, in Libya in 2003, and in Syria in 2007 – all while these countries were signatories to the NPT. In 2003, Iran was discovered to have an undeclared uranium enrichment research and development program as well as a reactor under construction that could potentially be used for plutonium production for weapons.

Targeting one country will not solve this regional problem. In a bold report put out by the International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM) based at the Program on Science and Global Security at Princeton University, a group of nuclear experts suggest introducing measures of collective restraint regarding fissile material production and use in order to foster confidence that all nuclear activities in the region are indeed peaceful in intent and not being pursued as a camouflage for developing nuclear-weapon options.

The IPFM experts emphasize that Israel must take initiatives to demonstrate that it is seriously interested in a regional zone free of weapons of mass destruction. The experts propose a series of steps: Israel should begin by ending any further production of plutonium and highly enriched uranium, declaring the size of its stocks of these materials and placing portions of its fissile material stocks under IAEA safeguards for elimination. By the time a Middle East zone came into force, Israel would need to have eliminated all of its nuclear weapons and placed all of its fissile materials under international safeguards – as South Africa did when it gave up its nuclear weapons in the early 1990s.

Simultaneously, the experts from Princeton suggest that Iran, as the only country in the Middle East with a national civilian enrichment program, could play a pioneering role precisely by advancing a global shift away from national enrichment plants. Countries in the region with plans to construct nuclear power plants (so far, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt) could join in the management of Iran’s enrichment plants and help set the goals for the program and fund any expansion. This would create a major barrier to Iran using its enrichment plants for making nuclear weapon material.

Regional inspections

To keep everyone honest, the IPFM proposes that discussions be launched among the members of a possible Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction on the design of regional verification arrangements strong enough so that all countries in the region can have confidence in the absence of secret nuclear weapon programs and that countries are complying with the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions. This regional inspection system would be in parallel to the international verification systems associated respectively with the NPT and the Chemical Weapons Convention. There is currently no international system to verify the Biological Weapons Convention.

Obviously, transforming the region into a free zone of weapons of mass destruction is in the interests of all of the people living in the Middle East. Consider the current fear that different groups in Syria will get their hands on chemical weapons and use them for chemical terrorism in the region and elsewhere. All those involved seemed to agree that the best and indeed the only guarantee that this will not happen is by destroying the weapons. The destruction of these weapons should neither be seen as a solution relevant for Syria alone — as it currently is — or as being limited to chemical weapons. Rather the call for the end of all weapons of mass destruction should be an inclusive regional demand.

The experience of creating nuclear free zones following the end of the Cold War suggests that progress can be made in the absence of a larger or more comprehensive settlement of political conflicts and disputes. Indeed, progress on such issues can contribute to confidence building and improved relations among states and may even serve as the impetus for wider regional rapprochement.

This article was first published in Al Jazeera. Neve Gordon is the author of Israel’s Occupation and can be reached through his website.

Related:
Earthquakes and Israel’s nuclear project: The nightmare scenario
Should Israel go public about its nuclear capacities? 

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. In 2005, this American writer was in Jerusalem and became a reporter because Vanunu told me:

      “Did you know that President Kennedy tried to stop Israel from building atomic weapons? In 1963, he forced Prime Minister Ben Guirion to admit the Dimona was not a textile plant, as the sign outside proclaimed, but a nuclear plant. The Prime Minister said, ‘The nuclear reactor is only for peace.’

      “Kennedy insisted on an open internal inspection. He wrote letters demanding that Ben Guirion open up the Dimona for inspection.

      “The French were responsible for the actual building of the Dimona. The Germans gave the money; they were feeling guilty for the Holocaust, and tried to pay their way out. Everything inside was written in French, when I was there, almost twenty years ago. Back then, the Dimona descended seven floors underground.

      “In 1955, Perez and Guirion met with the French to agree they would get a nuclear reactor if they fought against Egypt to control the Sinai and Suez Canal. That was the war of 1956. Eisenhower demanded that Israel leave the Sinai, but the reactor plant deal continued on.

      “When Johnson became president, he made an agreement with Israel that two senators would come every year to inspect. Before the senators would visit, the Israelis would build a wall to block the underground elevators and stairways. From 1963 to ’69, the senators came, but they never knew about the wall that hid the rest of the Dimona from them.

      “Nixon stopped the inspections and agreed to ignore the situation. As a result, Israel increased production. In 1986, there were over two hundred bombs. Today, they may have enough plutonium for ten bombs a year.”

      On 9 December 2013, Vanunu wrote:

      “Changes in date, Court hearing against the restrictions not to leave Israel, schedule hearing in the Supreme court will be Dec’ 25, 2013.

      “The same Appeal was 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011.

      “The court can send me free and end all this case from 1986-2013.”

      Reply to Comment
    2. Average American

      Kennedy was a sensible president. Wanted to keep us out of Viet Nam too. Also wanted to stop borrowing from the Jewish-operated Federal Reserve Bank and start using our own US Treasury currency.

      Israel didn’t join Non Proliferation Treaty because Israel has more work to do. The current borders of the State of Israel are not the end of their goals. Nuclear weapons will help them carry out their expansion to the borders of “The Land Of Israel”, which includes Cyprus, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, half of Iraq, and Sinai. It’s the most astounding territorial ambition since 1940’s Germany.

      But Israel itself is just a game piece on the table. Israel is created and supported and directed by the Rothschild Jewish banking dynasty. If one tries to go against Israel, one tries to go against the Rothschilds, which is dangerous if you ever need to borrow money.

      Reply to Comment
      • Vadim

        Let me see if I get you – Israel is said to have nuclear weapons for 5 decades now, it has “the most astounding territorial ambition since 1940′s Germany”, is backed by “the Rothschild Jewish banking dynasty” and probably has the most powerful military in the region. In spite of all this global omnipotence we fail to conquer a couple of backward countries like Jordan and Syria? We give away Sinai and Gaza? We fail to subdue our Arab neighbors? We forget that 20% of Israelis are Arabs have full rights?

        We (supposedly) have nukes, but even our enemies don’t really care that much. Now look what happens when Iran wishes to build nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia is suddenly interested in nukes and Egypt leaves the NPT.

        It doesn’t even make sense. Unless this is some sort of belief, like a religion for you. In this case, EVERYTHING proves what you think and NOTHING can disprove it.

        Man, don’t you see you are being fed with lies that don’t even make sense?

        Regarding the Land Of Israel borders – Cyprus?! this is something new for me, could you provide resources?

        Reply to Comment
    3. Marcos

      Hey Pollock, time to calm your down again. He is getting mighty ornery.

      Reply to Comment