If you ask anyone, they'll tell you that while I am personally a realist, I am ideologically an optimist. However, there is one prospect on which I have misplaced my rose-tinted glasses, and that is on the trite, cliche, and utterly relevant issue of peace in the Middle East. I therefore submit that the most vital issue the world faces today is Israel's nuclear weapons, because if they are not reduced in number or eliminated, the volatile nature of the Middle East and the vulnerable nature of Israel's location will eventually result in a nuclear holocaust.
This, of course, is not a fresh issue. That said, the issue takes on new legs now that Israel's Ancient Enemies (read: Iran) have made inroads on Israel's WMD turf. It's never really LOST its legs, given that the basic nature of Israel has not changed in half a century: it's a tiny nation-state with a Napoleonic complex which will do anything to survive, surrounded by hostile countries that will do anything to see it gone. On Israel's part, "do anything to survive" could include a preemptive strike of 100-300 nuclear weapons (Jane's Defense Weekly, 2010); Kenneth Brower suggests Israel controls 400 warheads ("A Propensity for Conflict: Potential Scenarios and Outcomes of War in the Middle East," Jane's Intelligence Review, Special Report no. 14, 14-15). Yes, Israel may have 400 nuclear missiles.
Israel is the size of New Hampshire.
Imagine a war-torn New Hampshire, desperate, needing to strike in order to prevent being consumed by voracious New York and Pennsylvania, which would like nothing more than to crush New Hampshire out of existence. This New Hampshire has 400 nuclear missiles. Raise your hand if the prospect scares you - not so much for any of the states in question, but for the nation as a whole.
(My hand is raised.)
If Israel feels as if it is being compromised, it may unleash the "Samson option" a massive retaliatory strike involving all of its missiles. However, more worrisome is not how Israel might respond to threat, but when - according to GlobalSecurity.org, Israel's size and myriad enemies means that a preemptive nuclear attack is now considered the nation-state's best DEFENSE against any potential attack ("Strategic Options", Globalsecurity.org). That's right, potential.
It is important to note that I am not suggesting that Israel should somehow not have the right to defend itself from enemies. From the start, Israel was placed in an unusual and precarious position, and it has had to fight for its life since inception. However, this position has made Israel into something of a reactionary state; it mobilized nuclear arms during the 1993 Gulf War and during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example. This may have been a necessary adaption - without this hardnosed approach, perhaps Israel would not exist today - but eventually Israel will be pushed a bit too hard. In a world where a single lost world may mean elimination, and as belligerents get ever-closer to matching Israel's military might, missiles will eventually fall.
It is up to the global community - especially the United States, which gave more foreign aid to Israel between 1976 and 2004 than to any other nation - to work with Israel into first admitting and then reducing its nuclear capacity. Really, nuclear weapons should be eliminated altogether, but that's for another post. There are some who will say that the USA should not meddle in the affairs of other nations; however, this is not some mere foreign trifle. We are not in a huff about an economic sanction, or even a humans rights record. The problem we face is the potential for the world as we know it. Eventually, an explosive conflict will occur in the Middle East, and although Israel may have just cause to resort to nuclear force, it would be better for everyone else if they didn't have that option to fall back on. And for those who doubt that Israel would ever go that far, I leave you with this quote by Israeli military historian Martin Van Creveld (Hirst, 'The Gun and the Olive Branch", 2003):
"I consider it all hopeless at this point...We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under...Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Gulp.
Perhaps, sir, you are ignoring the fact that before the end of our generation's lifetime, the Islamo-Fascist state of Iran will possess nuclear weapons. I do believe it would be best if a nuclear deterrent is right next door, which of course is Israel.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Iran-Israel, I don't believe there will ever be any sort of nuclear deterrent. I don't believe Iran is deterred by Israel's nukes, or else Iran would not be building them right now. With a history as poisonous as that of Israel and Iran, one of those two countries is going to take a first strike - and, as I noted above, Israel's first line of defense will be a strike with nuclear weapons if it even SUSPECTS an attack may be coming. Plus, there is a nuclear deterrent to Israel - it's called the United States of America, except America will not attack in a nuclear fashion except if we are attacked first, unlike Israel. The danger of a nuclear holocaust is much greater from a loose-cannon like Israel than if the only deterring state is a steady father figure like America.
ReplyDelete