BEIRUT: Libya’s agreement last month to dismantle its clandestine nuclear arms program, along with other plans to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD), was a landmark breakthrough in US-led efforts to halt proliferation in the volatile Middle East. It raised hopes that with Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs apparently abandoned even before the US invasion of Iraq and Iran’s secret uranium enrichment efforts over two decades finally exposed that Israel would be inclined to consider surrendering the nuclear weapons monopoly it has held in the region since the 1960s. Not so.
Even though the military threat to Israel has been unquestionably and significantly reduced, Israel is showing no sign of compromising on its nuclear arsenal. And Washington, despite qualms about the nuclear power held by an ally that considers itself under existential threat, will not lean on Israel to do so as long as its existence is in question.
Indeed, Israel is busy negotiating with Germany for two more Dolphin-class submarines to add to the three it already has in service. These have reportedly been armed with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles to give the Jewish state an immensely greater pre-emptive nuclear reach and a guaranteed second-strike capability in the event of a regional nuclear exchange. In fact, Israel has threatened to attack Iran if it continues its efforts to develop nuclear weapons, long denied by Tehran but now increasingly apparent as firm evidence of Iranian skullduggery comes to light.
And to temper the optimism engendered by Moammar Gadhafi’s decision to turn his back on WMDs ­ no doubt heavily influenced by US moves against Iraq, Iran and North Korea aimed at eliminating their nuclear ambitions ­ Pakistan’s grudging admission that some of its nuclear scientists had helped Iran’s clandestine program, and probably North Korea’s as well, underlined the complexities the Americans and their friends are having to grapple with in combating the efforts of so-called rogue states to acquire such weapons.
Israel, like the US, remains acutely concerned about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. This has heightened considerably in recent days following two attempts to assassinate President Pervez Musharraf in as many weeks, both bomb ambushes in which he escaped by the skin of his teeth. If Musharraf, who has antagonized Pakistan’s Islamic activists by backing the US war against terror, is eliminated, the fear is that Islamic zealots could seize power and get their hands on Islamabad’s nuclear weapons.
The attempts to kill Musharraf showed clearly that his inner security circle had been breached, and thus, it was reasoned, the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal could also be penetrated. Two years ago, soon after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, when there were deep suspicions Pakistani scientists were helping Al-Qaeda, Seymour Hersh reported in The New Yorker that elite US and Israeli commandos were preparing plans to sweep into Pakistan in just such an eventuality to seize and disarm the country’s nuclear weapons. In the early 1980s, the Mossad allegedly assassinated several European middlemen supplying Pakistan with nuclear know-how and equipment.
The Americans have always been uneasy about Israel’s nuclear capabilities, even while they tolerated it. The Bush administration, like its predecessors, is to some extent held hostage by Israel’s nuclear arsenal. At least since the 1973 war, when the Israelis reportedly assembled 13 20-kiloton weapons,and readied Jericho missiles in their underground chambers at Hirbat Zacharaiah in the Judaean Hills and F-4 Phantoms of the “Black Squadrons” at the old British air base at Tel Nof, south of Tel Aviv, the Israelis have brandished their nuclear arms to ensure that the US keeps its pledge to maintain the Jewish state’s conventional weapons supremacy over its adversaries, and though it has never been openly stated, to ensure that the Americans do not desert Israel because of Arab pressure, such as an oil embargo. This policy will continue.
Recent events have resulted in renewed efforts by Arab states and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to mobilize diplomatic pressure on Israel to sign onto the 1972 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and dismantle its nuclear arsenal. But the Americans are unlikely to change their position unless a cataclysmic rift develops between them and Israel, and even Israeli Premier Ariel Sharon, impulsive and reckless as he is, is not stupid enough to do that.
The success of the US-led coalition in curbing nuclear proliferation in traditionally radical Middle Eastern states ­ Iraq, Iran and Libya, long deemed an “over the horizon threat” by the Israelis ­ has profoundly altered the strategic balance of power in the Middle East in Israel’s favor. Indeed, there remains only one front-line Arab state, Syria, that has the means, though probably not the political will, to strike at Israel.
Syria’s offensive capabilities are limited. Its conventional military forces are in abysmal shape after years of neglect because of economic constraints and the absence of Soviet support for over a decade. But Damascus has Scud missiles with chemical warheads. While these do not pose an existential threat, they are dangerous enough to cause some concern.
But Syria, impoverished, politically isolated and under mounting pressure from Washington to abandon its support for radical Palestinian groups, and its weapons of mass destruction and domination of Lebanon, realizes that taking on Israel would be nothing short of national suicide.
The Israelis and the Americans remain skeptical Tehran will abandon its nuclear ambitions, particularly if the reformists led by President Mohammad Khatami fare badly against the hard-liners in forthcoming parliamentary elections in Iran.
If recent statements by Israel’s political and military leaders are anything to go by, they are not prepared to concede that the strategic threat to Israel has been diminished. “Most of Israel’s economic and intellectual assets are located in a narrow coastal strip between Haifa Bay and Ashkelon,” says former Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh, who is now chairman of the Knesset’s Subcommittee on Defense Planning and Policy. “Two nuclear bombs could render Israel a burned-out Third World state.”
After 55 years of constant conflict with the Arab world, the perceptions of Israel’s leadership remain locked in the past. Sharon declared in an interview with Maariv recently that Israel can’t afford to cut back development of “special measures,” an Israeli euphemism for independent deterrence capabilities.
Sharon’s hawkish defense minister, former Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz, has warned that Israel was prepared to take unilateral military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities if Tehran persists in trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani retorted that his country would retaliate with its Shehab-3 intermediate-range ballistic missiles if Israel attacked.
Mossad director Meir Dagan, a close associate of Sharon, said in a rare public appearance before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in November that nuclear weapons in Iran were “an existential threat” to Israel, the gravest since the state was founded in 1948.
“These and other recent remarks testify to the stultified thinking at the official decision-making level and among those who shape Israel’s security perceptions,” intelligence specialist Yossi Melman wrote in Haaretz. The statements of Israeli leaders cited above, he said, “are a typical reflection of the doggedly security-minded worldview of decision-makers in Israel, the constant search for enemies and their increasing capabilities.”
Israel is going ahead with plans to acquire three multi-mission corvettes, funded by US military aid, and by 2009 to bolster its shield against missile attacks. The corvettes would be armed with vertical-launch systems capable of firing Arrow-2 anti-missile missiles, providing a flexible seaborne dimension to Israel’s missile defenses, particularly on its western flank in the Mediterranean.
The corvette program is part of Israel’s new doctrine of transforming its naval forces into a strategic arm, and was designed to counter potential threats from Libya and Egypt’s expanding navy. Israeli military leaders see Egypt, midway through a modernization program in which it is phasing out Soviet-era systems for US weaponry and doctrine, as a possible adversary despite their 1979 peace treaty. That’s an unlikely prospect since Cairo is now totally dependent on US military aid.
Melman quoted a senior official ­ “a former head of one of Israel’s security branches” ­ as saying following Libya’s decision to abandon WMD programs “it’s still too early to celebrate. The era of threats against Israel has not yet ended.” He noted that Algeria had “achieved nuclear progress in recent years” and that “it is not exactly clear what Saudi Arabia has, and with respect to Syria there are quite a few question marks” regarding its nonconventional capabilities.
“It is necessary to assume the worst and not the best. Not to mention Iran and Syria, which are allies of Hizbullah and allow it to maintain a balance of threat against Israel in the north of the country,” he said, the general consensus in the region being that the Israelis significantly exaggerate the Hizbullah threat.
Melman concluded: “Libya’s dramatic announcement should impel Israel to recognize the fact that the strategic threats ‘beyond the horizon’ have decreased immeasurably and have perhaps even disappeared, whereas the real threats are at its gates here and now.”
The Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University declared in September that the conventional military gap between Israel and the Arab armies has never been so great, particularly since the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s military forces. This, it argued, will probably mean that some Arab states will gradually lower their military procurement programs.
But the bottom line is that while the Bush administration systematically eliminates the WMD capabilities of Israel’s adversaries and topples hostile regimes, it will continue to turn a blind eye to Israel’s nuclear arsenal, weakening international efforts to dismantle it. This will tilt the regional military balance even heavier in Israel’s favor, fueling Arab and Muslim hostility toward the US and the Jewish state and heightening the prospect of potentially horrendous terrorist attacks.

Ed Blanche, a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, has covered Middle Eastern affairs for over 30 years and contributes regularly to The Daily Star