Introduction
The past few months have seen some highly significant developments in U.S. nuclear policy, and in this policy's ramifications for the Middle East. This paper will examine these developments.
The Pendulum of the Obama Administration's Nuclear Policy
Upon taking office in 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama announced his intention to promote his vision of global nuclear disarmament. On April 5, 2009 in Prague, he presented an ambitious strategy for achieving this goal, based on three major components: 1) Taking concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons by reducing existing nuclear arsenals; 2) Strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and keeping new countries from acquiring nuclear weapons; 3) Ensuring that terrorists never acquire a nuclear weapon. To achieve the last, President Obama announced a new international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years.
As a further step towards the realization of these goals, on April 12, 2010 President Obama convened the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, DC, with the participation of most of the leaders of the free world.[1]
One month later, in May, the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was convened in New York. In light of President Obama's desire to harness this conference to his own vision, and to make sure that it would be a success – i.e. that it would produce resolutions passed by consensus – his administration was forced into agreeing to the condition, set by the Arab countries and led by Egypt, for international pressure on Israel and for Israel's isolation in the international nuclear community in exchange for such consensual resolutions.[2] Capitulating to the Arab-Egyptian pressure, the Obama administration ultimately decided not to use its power of veto, but to vote for the concluding resolution calling on Israel to accede to the NPT and to place all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards.[3]
President Obama himself welcomed the resolution, saying that it "includes balanced and practical steps that will advance non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy, which are critical pillars of the global non-proliferation regime."[4]
By voting for the resolution, the U.S. abandoned its traditional stance supporting Israel's position that a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East is possible and in fact essential, but must include not only nuclear weapons but all types of non-conventional weapons – such as chemical and biological weapons in the possession of Israel's neighbors – and, moreover, that this goal can be realized only after the attaining of comprehensive peace agreements in the region.
The Obama administration's acquiescence to Arab pressure, and its deviation from long-standing U.S. policy, was perceived by Israel as a threat to its security, and Israel demanded that the situation be rectified. The administration complied; as soon as the conference's concluding resolution passed, administration officials hastened to issue statements aimed at softening the impact of the U.S.'s vote on Israel-U.S. relations. For example, in a May 28 statement, President Obama's national security advisor Gen. James Jones said that the U.S. deplored the decision to single out Israel in the NPT document's Middle East section, and that the U.S. remained committed to Israel's security.[5]
SUPPORT OUR WORK
A more significant backtrack came during Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington on July 6. The Israeli daily Haaretz reported that in talks since the conference, the Americans clarified that the decision had been a "mistake," and that "in an effort to clarify the administration's stance on the Israeli nuclear question, it was determined that – in coordination with Israel – the full details of the high-level understandings [on Israel's status of nuclear ambiguity] between the two sides, reached during the 1960s, would finally be revealed."[6] The White House released a special press announcement stating: "President [Obama] told Prime Minister [Netanyahu] he recognizes that Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats, and that only Israel can determine its security needs."[7]
With this public proclamation, the Obama pendulum swung back to long-standing U.S. policy. However, in the circumstances in which the statement was made – that is, to rectify the U.S.'s vote for the NPT Review conference resolution isolating Israel – Obama's declaration constitutes a public and explicit confirmation of Israel's special nuclear status. The statement expresses the U.S.'s guarantee of Israel's existence and security, and its preservation of Israel's preferred nuclear status in the Middle East. President Obama went even farther, also recognizing Israel's right to deterrence – that is, that Israel is entitled to possess its own strategic deterrent capability. Thus, this statement by President Obama ushered in the end of the era of Israel's nuclear ambiguity.
Consequently, the White House statements following the Netanyahu meeting, i.e. that the U.S. would not touch Israel's policy of nuclear ambiguity, mean nothing, because President Obama had already recognized Israel's nuclear status and its right to maintain it.
Conclusions and Ramifications
The actions in recent months by the Obama administration in nuclear affairs, aimed at advancing a vision and a policy of global nuclear disarmament, have had the exact opposite effect. In his efforts to advance global nuclear disarmament, Obama brought to the fore what the U.S. had for four decades managed to downplay and marginalize – U.S. recognition of and partnership with Israel's policy of nuclear ambiguity. By openly acknowledging what his eight presidential predecessors had recognized implicitly – i.e. that Israel needs nuclear capability to defend its very existence – President Obama has put an end to Israel's status of nuclear ambiguity.
This development could lead to stepped-up demands for nuclearization by leading Arab states that feel threatened by both Israel and by Iran – and could result in accelerated moves in that direction.
*A. Savyon is Director of the Iranian Media Project.
Endnotes:
[1] The stated goals of the April 12, 2009 summit were: "Discussion of the nature of the threat and development of steps that can be taken together to secure vulnerable materials, combat nuclear smuggling and deter, detect, and disrupt attempts at nuclear terrorism;" and "agreement on a joint communiqué pledging efforts to attain the highest levels of nuclear security, which is essential for international security as well as the development and expansion of peaceful nuclear energy worldwide." http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/2010/April/20100406143850zjsredna0.789776.html.
[2] See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 617, "The New UNSC Iran Sanctions Resolution – Main Ramifications," June 22, 2010, The New UNSC Iran Sanctions Resolution – Main Ramifications.
[3] http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=NPT/CONF.2010/50%20%28VOL.I%29.
[4] http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec.../20100601133524esnamfuak0.697735.html.
[5] http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/2010/June/20100601133524esnamfuak0.697735.html
[6] Haaretz (Israel), July 8, 2010 http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/obama-administration-israel-has-right-to-nuclear-capability-for-deterrence-purposes-1.300652.
[7] http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/readout-presidents-meeting-with-prime-minister-netanyahu-israel-0.
