Israel Matzav

US support cannot be taken for granted

Former Israeli ambassador to the UN Dore Gold reviews the effort to force Israel to become a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The bottom line is that Israel cannot count on the Obama administration to defend its nuclear ambiguity as previous administrations did. This administration is too deeply involved in the nuclear disarmament pipe dream to help Israel even if it wanted to.

Why is Washington even talking to Cairo about this and getting pulled into this discussion? The Egyptians have effectively manipulated the Iranian issue in order to advance their long-term nuclear objectives vis-a-vis Israel. For example, they have created a new linkage between Iran and Israel. The Egyptian ambassador at the UN, Abdulazziz, has been quoted in American newspapers as saying, "success in dealing with Iran will depend to a large extent on how successfully we deal with the establishment of a nuclear free zone in the Middle East."3

...

The Egyptian argument that there is linkage between Iran and Israel on the nuclear issue is, of course, completely baseless. Iran's drive for nuclear weapons emanates from its regional ambitions to become the main hegemonial power in the Middle East. It claims Bahrain, and sends weapons to Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Gaza. Even if Israel did not exist, Iran would still be racing to develop nuclear weapons to further its own ambitions.

The U.S. knows this but it faces a different problem. Should the Obama administration fail to stop Iran's drive for nuclear weapons, then Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Turkey will all seek nuclear weapons of their own. Washington needs to bolster the NPT before this happens, and therefore is more open to Egyptian arguments than before.

As a result, Israel has to deal with a much more difficult diplomatic environment on nuclear diplomacy than it faced in the past. The new director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Yukiya Amano, has for the first time sent letters to 151 states asking them how to implement an IAEA resolution demanding that Israel sign the NPT. From an Israeli perspective, the letter appeared to be highly discriminatory in that it singled out Israel, without mentioning the other states that have not signed the NPT, especially Pakistan and India.5

...

There is an Israeli perception that much of the international diplomatic activity on the Israeli nuclear file at the IAEA could have been more effectively blocked by Washington, as it was in the past.6 It should be remembered that the Obama administration has elevated the importance of nuclear non-proliferation in its overall foreign policy. Symbolizing his prioritization of the issue, President Barack Obama himself chaired a special meeting of the UN Security Council on September 24, 2009, when Resolution 1887 was adopted calling for ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

...

Whether the U.S. has 5,000 or 10,000 nuclear warheads in its possession will not alter Iranian determination to obtain nuclear weapons, for reasons alluded to earlier. Given the administration's approach to the non-proliferation issue, it becomes harder for U.S. diplomats to argue for Israel's special case in nuclear disarmament in comparison with what was said in the past.

Nonetheless, Israel has a strong case to make about the weaknesses of the NPT and why its entry into nuclear discussions should be put off until after a comprehensive peace is reached and proven to be reliable. But in present circumstances, Israel can no longer take for granted the degree of support it had in the past for its position.

What could go wrong?

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:24 AM