Bibi Goes to Washington: How About a Nuclear Free Middle East?
Israel's Likudnik Prime Minister, Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu, was one of the driving forces behind the neo-conservative foreign policy doctrine of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). PNAC called for a new "realm" in the Middle East forged through aggressive military action. Its successful prodding of the United States to invade and occupy Iraq ranks as its greatest achievement. Every step of the way Bibi Netanyahu was a cheerleader for George W. Bush's misguided and bloody military adventure in the Middle East. Today, Bibi comes to Washington to size up President Barack Obama and pump up the "existential threat" that an Iranian atomic bomb raises against the State of Israel. He'll also push back against Obama's desire for starting up a sane process toward settling the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He's one of the few politicians who won't even pay lip service to a "two-state" solution. And Bibi will do it with panache and self-confidence (but not style).
The greatly anticipated meeting between Obama, (who is trying to foster multilateral cooperation in the Arab and Muslim world), and Netanyahu, (who prefers much blunter instruments of "diplomacy"), has led some blogs and newspapers, such as the Telegraph in the U.K., to report that Obama will warn Netanyahu today that Israel can no longer count on "blank checks" from the U.S. government. But Bibi knows he has powerful friends in Washington who will defend his every word and deed. Right-wing Republicans, liberal Democrats, the press corps, and the good offices of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) will support whatever he says and whatever he wants. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point behind closed doors the more experienced and reactionary Israeli prime minister overshadows the less experienced and liberal president. It might be the case that Netanyahu has far more friends in Washington than does the President.
At the customary joint press conference following their meeting, President Obama will have some tough words for Iran while he restates the old Bush policy that Iran must never be allowed to acquire nuclear bombs. Bibi's Amen chorus in the Beltway will applaud loudly. It's far too early to say anything substantial about George Mitchell's efforts in negotiating a Middle East peace so we'll hear undecipherable diplomatese on the "two-state" thing.
But the "800-pound gorilla" in the room that hinders what Obama says he wishes to accomplish in curtailing Iran's nuclear ambitions is Israel's own nuclear arsenal. Mordachai Vanunu spent a long time in an Israeli prison because he confirmed long-held suspicions that Israel has nuclear weapons. The fact that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has not been shy about launching asymmetrical pre-emptive air wars against virtually all of its neighbors from time to time, might lead one to think it's not too bizarre that a nuclear-armed Israel raises alarms in the region. The IDF could, if it so desired, annihilate every large city in Iran in a matter of minutes and turn a large swathe of the country into a smoking, irradiated ruin.
Israel's nuclear arsenal causes more problems than it solves. It's the driving force behind Iran's desire to acquire its own nuclear weapons as deterrence against possible IDF nuclear attack. It undermines President Obama's top international priority of aggressively reducing the existing number of nuclear weapons as part of his non-proliferation regimen. And by emphasizing the gravity of the prospect of an Iranian bomb without acknowledging even the existence of the Israeli bomb creates a set of false strategic choices making a conventional strike against Iran's nuclear facilities sound like a "rational" decision.
Despite the mad ravings of the Dick Cheneys and the John Boltons and the Benny Morrises and the William Kristols and the PNAC dead-enders about the efficacy, indeed the "necessity," of an IDF (or U.S.) pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, such an act of aggression would be an unmitigated catastrophe. For the United States it would endanger American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. For Israel it would lead to its skies being alight with Katyusha rockets from southern Lebanon. For the Middle East it would enlarge the area of violence and further enrage its people. And for the world it would disrupt the flow of oil and bring the attention (and possibly the intervention) of bigger powers with large stakes in Iran's stability.
These are some of the reasons why even George W. Bush wasn't crazy enough to attack Iran. Calmer voices from the Joint Chiefs prevailed, which led Bush to sideline Cheney and the other PNAC nut-bags before they could "bring 'em on" in Iran too. That single decision not to attack Iran was the only wise one Bush made over the course of his two terms as president. Even now PNAC (which re-branded itself to the more innocuous sounding "Foreign Policy Initiative") is still calling for military action against Iran.
But the only reasonable way to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions is to create a framework, which Joseph Cirincione of the Ploughshares Fund has been talking about for years, where the Middle East becomes a "Nuclear Free Zone." All nuclear weapons in the region must be dismantled and removed through international inspections, oversight, and multilateral agreement. Israel's nuclear arsenal must go the way of South Africa's. Then real peace negotiations can commence. If any region in the world cries out to be "nuclear free" it's the Middle East. Unless the Israeli bomb is included in President Obama's nuclear non-proliferation goals his vision for a nuclear-free world will become nothing but a mirage. It's easy to demand that our adversaries stop their nuclear programs. But nuclear non-proliferation only becomes real when we demand that our friends and allies and our own government move toward ridding the world of these terrible weapons.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Thank you for this post.
Perhaps the answer to Peace in the Middle East lies in Global Zero - a global campaign calling for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, i.e. Zero tolerance. And this growing list of ordinary folk, political and military leaders and other famous faces, agree that Zero is not only desirable, it is also achievable.
Global Zero could help bring Peace to the Middle East....eh.. Check out their website:
http://www.globalzero.org/en/sign-declaration
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
Thanks for the link Hellofunny
It would really be lovely if the American Jewish people would take the binders off and stop blindly supporting Israel, because this support is causing the USA to be attacked and could bring an end to all our collective way of life. Why can't they see this? It's really time to wake up people and do what is right. A first step would be to allow the Palestinians a chance at life, and then start working on getting along with your neighbors. Yes the people in the press have got most of the USA brainwashed into thinking Arabs are bad and Jewish people are all good, but gradually as more American boys come home in a box, they will wake up to what is really happening. Our nation's security is at stake and it is time for the people in the American press to start telling the story correctly so America doesn't go down. Our way of life must be protected and continue. All Americans should support this aim above any others.
It is not blind support, but instead veneration of a state. That is the insanity of it.
Maybe the idea of Israel (as Israel veneration is practiced ) is a golden calf.
As I explained to my daughter, age 9, this site offers up lots of examples of why Jews need Israel.
"Israel's nuclear arsenal causes more problems than it solves. It's the driving force behind Iran's desire to acquire its own nuclear weapons as deterrence against possible IDF nuclear attack."
Iran is not worried about Israel dropping a nuke on them. Israel has had years to do that and hasn't. If Iran's president is to be believed, Iran wants nuclear weapons so they can obliterate Israel and finish the final solution.
But why take the man at his word?
The traitor Vanunu said Israel has nukes, maybe we do, poerhaps we don't. But the bottom line is this, if Israel has nukes their use will be as a last ditch method for stopping the destruction of Israel.
Unlike Pakistan and INdia we have never threatened any of our neighbors with a nuclear attack. Unlike North Korea we have never held anyone hostage with our nukes, if we have them. The idea that Iran wants nukes just to counter Israel is nonsense. Iran wants nukes to control the other gulf states as much as any other policy enhancement. Israel may be a factor, but Iran remembers what happened when Iraq took over a neighbor and wants nukes to make certain there will be no US response should Iran decide to do the same thing.
"The traitor Vanunu": he is a hero who exposed the web of li.es....Lie.berman claimed nuclear option is better than occupation...read on it...
Hypocrisy.
Id trust Iran with nukes more than Israel.
Lets not forget whos calling for war every single day
It's a pretty sorry state the world finds itself in if those who expose truths by turning over lies are considered traitors and those that are traitors (Rosen & Weissman), to some, are considered heroes. The Dimona reactor, we all know, actually does produce bomb grade materials and Israel does have nukes unlike Iraq did with Osirak in 1981 or Syria did in 2007. It's simply known and constantly defending the negative mirror image of the known will not change that. We are not stupid. Israel doesn't have to threaten anyone with their nukes, the nukes do that FOR them. Or, better still, feeding false info to the US re: "weapons of mass destruction", will also get the job done and thousands of Iraqis and Americans and potentially, in 2009 and beyond, Iranians, Syrians, Lebanese, Israelis, Pakistanis, Indians, and Russians, dead.
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
Actually, the fact that a country of 7 million people threatens to militarily attack a nation of 70 million people (and possess nuclear weapons) would probably lead any nation to try to create a deterrence -- that's how these weapons proliferated in the first place -- I don't think having the bomb helps any nation, not the US, not Pakistan, not Israel -- they lead to proliferation, read about it.
What would you expect a country of 7 million to do when a country of 70 million is developing nuclear weapons and the leader of that country is promising to wipe the country of 7 million off the planet?
Can you really be that anti-semitic?
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
Israel's bomb leads to proliferation as other nations try to deter its possible use -- we can either move toward a nuclear free world or let every country have its own bomb -- Israel, like Pakistan, is far too unstable and problematic to claim that having a bomb is helpful -- it's certainly not helpful to Obama's goal of promoting nuclear non-proliferation. As for Vanunu being a "traitor" -- Daniel Ellsberg has written some interesting thoughts on that very accusation.
For you to claim Israel is as unstable as Pakistan disqualifies you from joining in a reasonable or reasoned discussion of the region.
"Even now PNAC (which re-branded itself to the more innocuous sounding "Foreign Policy Initiative") is still calling for military action against Iran. "
Thanks, Joe, for the update. The PNACers are an insidious lot, and every American who loves what this country stands for must never take his eyes off of them. They're the sort of "friends" who, in their zeal to protect the country from enemies from without, are more likely through their epic ineptitude, (e.g. Dubya), to destroy it from within.
Excellent article Israel should strive for a nuclear free region.
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
We'll have to see what happens when they go to the press, but I stand by my prediction, tough words against Iran (again) no mention of Israel's nuclear weapons as a possible reason why the Iranians want one. And of course, no progress at all in the "peace process" that can go on forever so long as it doesn't interfere with new settlements.
The latest NEWS on Vanunu is that the 6th year of restrictions that deny him the RIGHT to leave the state and the RIGHT to speak to foreigners have been continued and he is facing 3 months more behind bars for speaking to foreign media in 2004.
Please listen and watch this reporters video interviews with Vanunu from 2005, 2006 and 2008 that are freely streaming @ VANUNU ARCHIVES:
http://www.wearewideawake.org
PS-I have been to occupied Palestine 6 times since June 2005 and am returning June 2009 with HOPE to make it through the Erez Checkpoint and into Gaza for "HOPE has two children. The first is ANGER at the way things are. The second is COURAGE to DO SOMETHING about it."-St. Augustine
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
Thank you Eileen Fleming for the link and info -- you are courageous given what happens sometimes to people like Rachel Corrie.
You don't suppose that Israel's continued existence
depends on their ability to employ 'nuclear options'?
One might suggest that 50 or a 100 so years after the various
Arab factions all agree to peace in the region, acceptance
of the state of Israel, etc., that swords might then become
plowshares. You know, like a 'trial period'?
One recalls that jewish physicists were mostly responsible
for the invention of the technology that produces these peace-
keeping devices in the first place. Their rights are grandfathered in.
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
They threaten Iran all the time with their state of the art air force and having a nuke makes Iran want to get one -- just like US v. USSR v. China v. France and England v, India v. Pakistan, N. Korea --it's a slippery slope that serves no nation, especially Israel.
Since the genie isn't getting back into the bottle,
we all must be exceedingly careful what we ask
of him. It is a somewhat slippery slope, indeed,
but it does also serve many nations, by making
'large-scale' war all but unthinkable.
Your idea on why Iran wants nukes is more than slightly misguided. Iran wnats nukes first and foremost to be able to act in any manner they wish in regard to their neighbors on the gulf. Nukes as a counter to israel is not the first reason Iran wnats them and no one with any sense of the region would believe that fairytale.
Excellent article. You state that " Israel's nuclear arsenal must go the way of South Africa's". You should have added that South Africa's bomb was built by Israel and an ectual test was jointly conducted in the Indian Ocean. By exposing and renouncing his bomb Mandela in fact exposed Israel's nuclear program.
Look our for American interests for once: cut Israel off at the knees. Nothing we can do now will make up for allowing new settlements year after year.
Mr. Palermo,
Thank you for discussing the insidious PNAC. I wish Americans had known about these hegemonious, sociopaths before we went to Iraq. Sadly, the media did not find it. (I did)
Cheney et al wanted to invade Iraq 3 yrs before 9/11 and no one finds that curious?
Bibi is a scary man and will not give up any nuclear power and he does have more power in DC than Obama. The triangulations begin!
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
You mean the "Foreign Policy Initiative" their slogan: Bringing Us World War III on Nation at a Time!
Mr. Obama better not cave to the Moneyed interests of Israel in Washington/NYC/AIPAC or he will NEVER get my vote again. I'm tired of being led around by this supposed ally of ours Israel.
totally agree with you gageeandbaba . . . if our Prez sides with isael and the AIPAC . . he will never get my vote again either . . . no way . . . the illegal invasion of Iraq was instigated by the israelis . . . sanctions should be in place . . not more money and support for this rogue state
I called the WHite House and inquired about how President Obama feels about getting your vote in 2012. He told me not to tell, but I will anyway. He said if you don't like his relationship with Israel to go vote for a duck.
As a professor, I can say this is pitiffully "academic" in the worst sense--ie, being detached from reality. There's no way Israel will give up its nukes as its only final solution to being overrun some day by the Muslim horde. And there's even less change that Pakistan will give up ITS nuclear horde, about to fall into the hands of Bin Laden even as we speak. So let's just forget this nonsense and focus on the only think serious people should now be focused on: How to keep Pakistan's nukes out of the hands of Bin Laden. It may well be far too late. The neocons may have handed him the keys to the nuclear caves by insuring Taliban victory in Pakistan with the idiotic neocon distraction in Iraq. Nonetheless, Pakistan should be everyone's focus (even Netanyahu's), not Iranian centrifuges, much less the fantasy of a "nuclear-free Middle East."
I agree with being alarmed about Pakistan, but I disagree with giving Israel a pass. They haven't even declared their nukes and they're going on about Iran's (which don't exist yet)?!
well said Siberian Rat . . . israel keeps its nuclear arsenal under wraps . . . won't even join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty . . Iran is a member and has been open about its nuclear programme and as you have rightly pointed out doesn't have any nuclear weapons . . . but with a country like israel for a neighbour who can blame Iran for wanting them . . . support for israel is undermining the whole of the Middle East . . it is nuts to support this rogue state . . just plain nuts . . .
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
Muslim horde means you're a racist
You calling anyone else a racist is laughable.
"As a professor":
which university is this please, which gives job to such ra.dicals?
So Professor, who exactly is the "Muslim horde?"
If the "Horde" gets too large, should Israel nuke 'em??
Great article. I've already written to Obama about this--I encourage others to do so too.
I just have SiberianRat . . .
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
