The Nuclear Double Standard on Israel is the Main Obstacle to Peace

John Glaser, March 06, 2012

While widely recognized in antiwar circles and on the left, the issue of a nuclear weapons double standard in the Middle East is one of the least appreciated when it comes to the Iran nuclear debate. As President Obama curries favor with Israel and AIPAC, he is heaping punitive sanctions on the Iranian people and continuously issuing public threats of preventive war.

Iran’s crime? Well, it hasn’t committed one, even according to the leadership in both the U.S. and Israel. But they allege Iran is being intentionally opaque regarding the true intentions of its currently civilian nuclear program. This is what people see as a double standard: While Iran is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has publicly pledged its opposition to nuclear weapons development, has subjected itself to thorough international inspections, and in fact has exactly zero nuclear weapons, Israel has done none of the above and has approximately 200 nuclear warheads. Iran is being severely punished and threatened with attack, Israel is supported with unparalleled economic, military, and diplomatic support.

It’s a classic double standard. Fear-mongers who warn against an Iranian nuclear weapon point to the fact that its an oppressive and aggressive regime and would not only use its possession of nuclear weapons to be a regional bully, but would spark a nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East. But Israel, who militarily occupies and oppresses the Palestinian people and who has started several wars of late, can have nuclear weapons, need not sign any international agreements or subject itself to international regulation or inspections, etc.

Now, there is currently a consensus in the U.S. military and intelligence community on the status of the Iranian nuclear program. They assess and have held that Iran’s nuclear program is civilian in nature, that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons and has yet to demonstrate any intention of doing so. However, they also assess that Iran is continuing to develop its program to a point that would put them in the range of developing one rather quickly, should they choose to do so. Adm. Dennis Blair, Obama’s former director of national intelligence, told Congress in March 2009, “We judge in fall 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons design and weaponization activities” but that Tehran “is keeping open the option to develop them.”  While Iran is aiming to be “nuclear capable,” Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said in February, “the intelligence does not show that they’ve made the decision to proceed with developing a nuclear weapon.” James Clapper, current director of national intelligence, and others have reiterated this conclusion. This is essentially a defensive posture on the part of Iran, an attempt to have a deterrent without actually having the deterrent. They don’t break their international obligations, but they signal to their adversaries (who consistently make public threats of overt military attack) that they can quickly develop nukes in the case that they are attacked.

But, as Micah Zenko pointed out yesterday, the double standard is even more glaring than this popular narrative suggests. The history of Israel’s development of nuclear weapons is strikingly parallel to Iran in 2012.

It took years, however, for the United States to verify that Israel had developed a nuclear weapon. This uncertainty persisted despite numerous U.S. inspections of the Dimona reactor—carefully stage-managed by the Israeli government to deceive the Kennedy and Johnson administrations—and assurances that Israel would not “introduce” nuclear weapons into the region. On May 1, 1967, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Katzenbach wrote to President Johnson under the heading, “The Arab-Israeli Arms Race and Status of U.S. Arms Control Efforts:”

“Nuclear Weapons. Concerned that over the long run the Arabs will achieve superiority in conventional forces, Israel is carefully preserving its option to acquire sophisticated weapons, including, we believe, nuclear weapons. We have no evidence that Israel is actually making a bombbut we believe Israel intends to keep itself in a position to do so at reasonably short notice should the need arise. The Israeli reactor at Dimona is capable of producing enough plutonium to make one or two bombs a year, but thus far our periodic inspections of this facility (most recently on April 22, 1967) have uncovered no evidence of weapons activity.”

If you replaced the words “Israel” with “Iran,” it would largely echo the recent findings of the U.S. intelligence community on the suspected Iranian nuclear weapons program. In a twist of historical irony, Iran’s contemporary playbook mirrors the one used by Israel to acquire a nuclear weapon in the 1950s and 1960s.

Even the intelligence assessments are the same. And as Zenko points out, President Obama warned last week that if Iran had a bomb, “It is almost certain that others in the region would feel compelled to get their own nuclear weapon, triggering an arms race in one of the world’s most volatile regions.” Zenko: “Concerns regarding a cascade of proliferation instigated by an Iranian nuclear weapon are as likely today as when Israel built the bomb forty-five years ago.”

Since the sole claim of Iran’s transgression is based on being slightly opaque (arguably) regarding their true intentions for their nuclear program, perhaps we should consider the reason for that opaqueness. Iran is operating out of a perception of threat, just as Israel was when it hid its weapons program from the U.S. in the 50s and 60s. If the U.S. and Israel stopped making public threats of attack, stopped their covert war on Iran, stopped employing economic warfare, might Iran’s defensive opaqueness begin to disappear? And if Israel, Iran’s main adversary, agreed to dismantling its vast stockpiles of nuclear weapons and to a deal enforcing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East – a deal Iran has repeatedly proposed – might Iran’s defense posture expire?

This is the simplest, most complete diplomatic strategy for peace in this conflict, which could threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of people if it actually breaks out one day in the near future. But this peace will not be achieved because there is no political will to dissolve Israel’s nuclear double standard.




13 Responses to “The Nuclear Double Standard on Israel is the Main Obstacle to Peace”

  1. Nicely written, very concise and timely. But it will not convince the great ill-informed masses who fear for Israel.

  2. I couldn't agree more with everything written in this article.It was dead on point with the reality.Israel in my opinion has been and shall be the real threat.They have already detonated a bomb with the help of the French and have the stockpile on hand.Personally I'm disgusted with they're policy of ambiguity and my nations foreign aid(my tax dollars) going to help fund this hypocrisy.I plan to vote for Ron Paul even if I have to pen his name in.At least he is a seasoned statesmen who speaks the truth about this nations failed foreign policies.If America is to survive into the next century let alone the next 5 years ,it has to pull back and reinvent itself and start thinking local and education and investing into its infrastructure.Also get rid of Homesec,TSA ,and the NDAA.

  3. But Israel is "special"… don't you know that they are the "chosen people" (i.e. the master race) and therefore they don't have to play by any rules. /sarcasm

    I saw a poll that said that about 60% of Americans support Israel. Yet 99% of our candidates for President (except Ron Paul) ***unconditionally*** support Israel.
    These candidates are out of touch with almost 40% of the American people. But we never hear anything about that during any of these lame Presidential "debates".

  4. Glaser's right, of course: There's a colossal nuclear "double standard" in the Middle East.

    Iran has no–zip, zilch, nada–nukes; Israel has several hundred. Iran's a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; Israel's never signed a nuclear agreement. Iran is raked over the coals with IAEA inspections; Israel has never agreed to a single inspection.

    But then, Israel is America's fair-haired boy in the Middle East. The U.S. Government whitewashes Israel's criminality, or at least looks the other way. . . .

  5. The dispute with Iran is a dispute with the local State and not the people. On the other hand, the dispute with Israel is as much a dispute with the people as with the local State. Long before there was an Israeli State, the Arabs used terror tactics to clamp down on the numbers of the Jewish community that would become the Israeli people upon achieving statehood. It is this antagonism to the presence of the Israeli people in the Middle East that makes Israel so aggressive. Remember that if the Arabs, the Persians and the Turks backed down, there would be peace but if Israel backed down, their nation (state and people alike) would be dissolved and dispersed if not annihilated altogether!

  6. "Long before there was an Israeli State, the Arabs used terror tactics to clamp down on the numbers of the Jewish community that would become the Israeli people upon achieving statehood."

    Selective memory and the tired "poor little Israel" hyperbole are so typical of the "Israel First" / Zionist rationalizations.

    The King David bombing (the first horrific terrorist bombing after WW2) shoots this argument down in a nutshell. They instituted the future. They have never been saints nor have the Arabs, UK or the USA or held some higher moral ground. History says you are wrong.

  7. I'm not saying the Israelis are saints. No nation is perfect–I'm sure that the libertarians on this site can refer to the connection between immoral actions and statism. But to say, that the Arabs, the Persians and the Turks are far more ready for peace than the Israelis is also a distortion of reality. These peoples as much as the Israelis *do* want peace…on *their terms*!

  8. It is astonishing that no reporter from any major news media has ever confronted in a press conference a US President or the Secretary of State with the question of Israel's nuclear weapons and sought official American standing and clarification of the issue.
    Are we to believe that Western news media are so totally controlled by the Israeli Lobby?

  9. [...] Neither Israel nor the U.S. seem willing to put an end to this seemingly impending conflict with Iran. For example, if Israel agreed to dismantling its vast stockpiles of un-inspected nuclear weapons and to a deal enforcing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East – a deal Iran has repeatedly proposed – Iran’s defensive opaqueness on certain aspects of its nuclear program would surely vanish, along with the pretext for war. But this remains out of the question for Tel Aviv and Washington. [...]

  10. [...] Neither Israel nor the U.S. seem willing to put an end to this seemingly impending conflict with Iran. For example, if Israel agreed to dismantling its vast stockpiles of un-inspected nuclear weapons and to a deal enforcing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East – a deal Iran has repeatedly proposed – Iran’s defensive opaqueness on certain aspects of its nuclear program would surely vanish, along with the pretextfor war. But this remains out of the question for Tel Aviv and Washington. [...]

  11. [...] with no actual pretext (Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program) and perfectly available peaceful alternatives to war, that seems to be Washington’s end [...]

  12. These two countries need to take a more diplomatic stance. The effort needs to be continued, and they must find a common ground. Without communication peace will never occur.

  13. These two countries need to take a more diplomatic stance. The effort needs to be continued, and they must find a common ground. Without communication peace will never occur.
    A good point but I have another opinion… top-essays