Nuclear Guarantee for Israel?
Brookings came out with a big report on Middle East strategy that contains an awful lot of conventional wisdom, much of it even correct conventional wisdom. And also this bad idea explained by CAP’s Peter Juul at the Wonk Room:
In a recent Brookings Institution report on Middle East strategy for the new administration, editors Richard Haass and Martin Indyk propose extending a nuclear guarantee to Israel in order to buy that country’s acquiescence for a lengthy period of engagement with Iran to bring Tehran’s nuclear program under international control. Along with Haass and Indyk, Bruce Reidel and Gary Samore, authors of the report’s chapter on non-proliferation, posit that Israel cannot abide by a nuclear Iran despite having adequate deterrent forces. Setting aside this debatable assumption about Israel’s own internal foreign and nuclear policy debate, there is little rational reason to believe that a U.S. nuclear guarantee would prove more reassuring to Israel than its own nuclear deterrent.
The United States has extended nuclear deterrent guarantees to other states — most notably NATO members and Japan — but these commitments existed in most cases to discourage allies from developing their own nuclear weapons programs. This is hardly the case with Israel, which it has its own highly developed, if undeclared, nuclear weapons program. A United States nuclear deterrent guarantee to Israel would be irrelevant to Israel’s overall strategic situation, and would likely have negative political repercussions for the United States in the region.
Read Peter’s post for more on this. I’d like to add two branching points. One is that this is a weird nukes-only subset of the idea you hear floated now and again for Israel to be admitted to NATO, or for the US to extend a general bilateral security agreement to Israel. The problem with both of these ideas is that Israel doesn’t have internationally recognized borders. In particular, not only does Israel have an ongoing military occupation of Palestinian-inhabited territories, but it claims sovereignty over areas in-and-around Jerusalem that are not recognized as Israeli by either the United States of America or any other country. You can’t extend explicit security guarantees to a country in that situation.
Somewhat similarly, I don’t see how you could possibly reach an explicit agreement on nuclear military cooperation with a country that that’s not in the Non-Proliferation Treaty specifically because it wants a secret, prohibited nuclear military program. Certainly taking that step as part of an effort to secure international pressure to get Iran to abide by the spirit of its NPT commitments would be . . . strange. In general, offering Israel carrots in order to allow us to hold diplomatic talks with Iran is a weird idea. If talk with Iran serve our interests, they should be engaged in. If Brookings Middle East scholars feel they need domestic political cover to propose talks with Iran, then that’s an interesting development, but probably shouldn’t guide our nuclear posture.
Put in a different context, though, all this works perfectly well. Extending explicit security guarantees to Israel — both nuclear and non-nuclear — could and should be on the table as part of a package that would lead to things like peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors and Israel deciding to join the global non-proliferation regime. In general, a longstanding ally and democracy is exactly the sort of country to which we would offer explicit security guarantees. And offering Israel carrots to encourage them to take steps — peace with its neighbors and the establishment of a Palestinain state — that would improve America’s political position in the region is exactly the sort of thing diplomatic bargaining is all about.
36 Responses to “Nuclear Guarantee for Israel?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 4th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
So their idea is to offer Israel something that they already have?
The only way extending that level of protection to Israel even starts to make sense is if we do it as part of a deal to get rid of Israels nukes. I’m not holding my breath.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
If Israel wants a US security guarantee (as well as the billions in yearly aid), they should be conditional on ABSOLUTELY stopping settlement expansion, stopping its foot-dragging in peace negotiations with the Palestinians and stopping its incursions into Gaza.
it will never happen.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
An Israeli-Palestinian agreement: Forget about it
Nov. 23, 2008
AARON DAVID MILLER , THE JERUSALEM POST
I’ve been a Palestinian firster for most of my professional life. I believe that the Palestinian issue is the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the key to regional peace, and the sine qua non for preserving Israel as a Jewish democratic state.
These arguments remain valid. What’s changed is that a conflict-ending agreement between Israelis and Palestinians may no longer be possible. I choose my words carefully here. Varying kinds of accommodations cease fires, informal cooperation and temporary arrangements may still be possible. But an agreement now or perhaps for the foreseeable future that revolves conclusively the four core issues (borders, Jerusalem, refugees and security) isn’t.
Three realities drive my pessimism and should force experts, politicians and
would be mediators to keep their enthusiasm for quick or easy solutions under control.
First, there are the issues. There is a myth out there driven by the Clinton parameters of December 2000, the Taba talks in 2001, the Geneva accord a year later, and the hundreds of hours of post Annapolis talks between Israelis and Palestinians that the two sides are “this close” (thumb and index finger a sixteenth of an inch apart) to an agreement. The gaps have now narrowed, perhaps impressively, but closing them, particularly on the identity issues such as Jerusalem and refugees, is still beyond the reach of negotiators and leaders.
It’s not that there are metaphysical or magical reasons why these core issues can’t be resolved; it’s that the political will is lacking among leaders to reach an agreement and that the current situation on the ground between Israelis and Palestinians makes it impossible for them to do to. That everyone knows what the ultimate solution will look like (an intriguing notion that is supposed to make people feel better) is irrelevant if the circumstances for an agreement don’t exist.
THIS BRINGS me to my second point. The dysfunction and confusion in Palestine make a conflict-ending agreement almost impossible. The divisions between Hamas (itself divided) and Fatah (even more divided) are now geographic, political and hard to bridge. Until the Palestinian national movement finds a way to impose a monopoly over the forces of violence in Palestinian society, it cannot move to statehood. The hallmark of any state’s credibility (from Sweden, to Egypt, to Poland) is its control over all the guns. Criminal activity is one thing; allowing political groups to challenge the state, or its neighbors, with violence is quite another. What Palestinian leader can claim to speak for all Palestinians or negotiate an agreement against the backdrop of a separate entity which controls 1.3 million Palestinians, possesses a different view of governance and nation-building and often attacks its neighbor? And what Israeli prime minister could ever make concessions to a Palestinian leader who doesn’t control all of the guns? There is no solution to this problem now. Only by restoring unity to the Palestinian house will a conflict-ending agreement be possible. And that agreement will have to take into account the needs of both Israel and a unified Fatah-Hamas negotiating position which doesn’t reflect Hamas’s extreme views and irredentism.
Third, there is serious dysfunction at the political level in Israel as well. Israel has its own leadership crisis. The state is in transition from a generation of founding leaders with moral authority, historic legitimacy and competency to a younger generation of middle age pols who have not quite measured up to their predecessors or to the challenges their nation faces. The leadership deficit is a global phenomenon, but not all states are sitting in a dangerous neighborhood on top of a political volcano. Is there an Israeli leader today who has the authority and skill to make and sell the tough choices required for Israeli-Palestinian peace?
So what to do? My days of giving advice to Israelis and Palestinians are over. I would, however, respectfully suggest to President-elect Barck Obama, in my capacity as an American who doesn’t want to see America fail again, that he recognize there’s no deal in this negotiation now. Manage it as best you can: help support an Israeli-Hamas ceasefire, train PA security forces, pour economic aid into the West Bank and Gaza, even nurture Israeli-Palestinian negotiations on the big issues, but don’t think you can solve it; you can’t.
Instead, go all-out for an Israeli-Syrian agreement which is doable and will enhance American credibility to confront Hamas, Hizbullah and Iran over time with tough choices, and improve America’s regional standing. Then, perhaps, your chances on the Israeli-Palestinian track may be better. In the interim, I’m afraid sadly that the bottom line for Israelis and Palestinians is not a good one: Israelis will have their state, but Palestinians will never let them completely enjoy it.
The writer, a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, worked as an advisor on the Middle East for six Democratic and Republican secretaries of State. He is the author of The Much Too Promised Land: America’s Elusive search for Arab-Israeli Peace.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
A U.S. security guarantee for a state with undeclared nuclear weapons, and treating Iran as a threat for having a nuclear energy program under the supervision of the IAEA. Has Brookings gone mad?
Is the problem really that Israel doesn’t have internationally recognized borders? Or is the problem Israel’s refusal to recognize international borders?
December 4th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Why not add an additional tax called *Israel tax* to both private and coroporate earnings? We CANNOT possibly let our “ally” go undefended, can we? The only “democracy” in the region needs our help. let’s roll up our sleeves.
Brookings folks are AIPAC bribed tools.
December 4th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
The problem with both of these ideas is that Israel doesn’t have internationally recognized borders.
This is true only relative to the border between Israel and the Palestinian territories and Syria. Israel has internationally recognized borders with Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan.
Re Farid
I have a better idea. Mr. Farid is cordially invited to shove his comment up his fucking ass.
December 4th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
On a more pragmatic side, extending a security guarantee means that the US might have to go to war against one of Israel’s neighbours. Imagine the consequences of yet another Middle Eastern war involving the US.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
The option to commit the ultimate war crime with the ultimate weapons should be examined closely.
This guy needs to get his head examined.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
SLC
Civility, just like your AIPAC masters, is not your cup of tea, is it?
December 4th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
It would certainly make sense, from an American point of view, for the US to offer a security guarantee to Israel as one of several carrots in exchange for Israel tearing down its settlements, negotiating and respecting internationally-recognized borders with Syria and Palestine, joining the NPT and submitting to inspections… in other words, joining the international community and ceasing to be a rogue state.
Unfortunately, this would require the US to start treating Israel as a rogue state, which ranks somewhere below gay marriage in Arkansas and a full-scale alien invasion on the list of events likely to happen in our lifetimes. Judging by events in Hebron, Israel would also have to fight a civil war against its own nutbar contingent just to achieve half of those goals.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
“…propose extending a nuclear guarantee to Israel in order to buy that country’s acquiescence for a lengthy period of engagement with Iran…”
Here’s how you “buy that country’s acquiescence”: tell ‘em if they don’t “acquiesce” then they won’t get their usual welfare from U.S. taxpayers. If they raise a stink, tell ‘em to go phuck themselves.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Re Farid
1. Just for the information of fuckface Farid, I have no connection whatsoever with AIPAC and I never have had.
2. Also for the information of fuckface Farid, I am on record on this blog as favoring the phaseout of aid to Israel. Since the 3 billion/year aid now amounts to less then 3@ of Israels’ Gross National Product, it would seem that it is superfluous. Of course, phasing out the aid would then free the Government of Israel to stop pissing around with its Palestinian neighbors and apply Hama Rules without asking for US permission.
December 4th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
That’s symmetrical at least. You’re for the phaseout of aid, and the phaseout of the Palestinians.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
SLC: Just remember that for actual Israelis, unlike you, “Hama Rules!” is an actual policy with consequences, not a sexual fetish used for nightly relief. Few actual Israelis are stupid enough to attempt to cause their own nightmare refugee crisis.
December 5th, 2008 at 12:12 am
I was right about SLC. His IQ is equivalent to a 5 year old with a massive temper tantrum.
Good luck defending your idiotic stance on any issues.
Honestly, you don’t deserve that 99 cents AIPAC is paying per post.
December 5th, 2008 at 3:00 am
Giving security guarantees to Israel is a joke.
The country that NEEDS security guarantees is Iran. The US should tell Israel that any attack on Iran absent absolute internationally confirmed proof of the actual existence of nuclear weapons on Iranian soil will result in an attack by the US on Israel’s military capability to carry out such an attack. Meaning, you send planes to Iran, we’ll make sure you can’t send planes ANYWHERE because you will have no planes and no airfields left to send them from.
Then the US should follow that up by writing and agreeing to a treaty with Iran that says, absent any attack by Iran on Israel (unless attacked first by Israel) or the US or its stated allies like Britain, the US will guarantee that it will neither engage in military action against Iran, nor will it seek regime change in the country by any means whatsoever.
Next, the US should haul Israel before NATO as part of a plan to secure a Middle Easy nuclear free zone, requiring Israel to unilaterally and totally disarm its nuclear weapons arsenal. That would prove to the Iranians that the US is serious about its treaty.
In return, Iran would agree to ratifying the NPT Additional Protocol, and eliminating financial or military support of Hizballah, and cooperating in turning over any Al Qaeda personnel found in or transiting its territory. All of which Iran was prepared to negotiate and probably agree to in 2003.
December 5th, 2008 at 3:48 am
I think that many in the Israeli lobby are afraid that they will be neglected if the United States recognizes Iran, much like the old China lobby was ignored after Nixon’s visit to China. This is nothing more than an attempt to chain American foreign policy to Israels security concerns. But if Obama ignores this proposal than the United States will have an independent Middle Eastern foreign policy for the first time since the seventies.
December 5th, 2008 at 6:52 am
Re Farid
Apparently, Mr. Farid has a reading comprehension problem. I have repeatedly stated that I have no connection to AIPAC and have never received so much as a Kopek from then, nor would I accept such remuneration if offered.
Re daveNYC
Unfortunately, as the late and unlamented dictator of Syria Hafaz Assad proved in 1982, the only language that Islamic extremists like Hamas understand is overwhelming force. His application of Hama rules has stood the test of time as the terrorists in Hama who were conducting their activities all over Syria have, from 1982 onwards, ceased such activities.
December 5th, 2008 at 7:20 am
My longterm plan for peace in the middle east is for someone to produce grandchildren for SLC so he find some other way to occupy the autumn of his life.
December 5th, 2008 at 7:24 am
His application of Hama rules has stood the test of time as the terrorists in Hama who were conducting their activities all over Syria have, from 1982 onwards, ceased such activities.
Yes, thank god that strategy was a success, and there are no longer terrorist bombings in Damascus.
Someone out there, I beg you, produce grandchildren for SLC!
December 5th, 2008 at 7:32 am
Re rfv
The terrorists which are referred to in the Times article are based in Lebanon, not Hama. Given the fact that the Syrian Army has withdrawn from Lebanon, and is under pressure from the US, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia to stay out of Lebanon, it cannot act with the same impunity as it did in Hama in 1982.
December 5th, 2008 at 7:46 am
Excellent point, SLC — it certainly demonstrates how incredibly promising a “Hama Rules” strategy would be for Israel, given that the IDF can act with impunity throughout the entire world.
How’s the grandchildren gambit coming along?
December 5th, 2008 at 8:01 am
So, the “Hama Rules!” fetish is for Israel to drive the Palestinians of the Gaza strip into Egypt, because leveling Hama drove a population out of the city.
In Israel’s case, you have over a million people in a tiny strip of land, and it’s Gaza, there’s not a whole bunch of other Palestinian cities surrounding — and so if you begin leveling Gaza, they either head into Israel, into the sea, or Egypt.
That is why SLC is discussing “Hama Rules!” Because it is essentially meaningless, an empty signifier of toughness and macho bloody action on the Ay-rabs.
Of course Israel is not going to propose wiping out over a million people, nor of destroying their peace agreement with Egypt, so that American fans of hawkish Israeli military action can obtain sexual release.
But someone like SLC doesn’t care. People like that don’t care one bit about Israel, or Israelis, or Palestinians, or anyone, really, it’s all just proxies for talk of toughness and other weird psychological motivators.
December 5th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Re rfv
Excellent point, SLC — it certainly demonstrates how incredibly promising a “Hama Rules” strategy would be for Israel, given that the IDF can act with impunity throughout the entire world.
Mr. rfv has to be kidding me. The Prime Minister of Israel can’t go to the can without getting permission from the President of the United States.
December 5th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Mr. rfv has to be kidding me.
Well, if by “kidding me” you mean “ridiculing me,” then yes.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Stop bullshitting. You don’t really mean it when you say “Unfortunately”.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:47 am
I dont usually comment, but after reading through so much info I had to say thanks
March 12th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 14th, 2009 at 5:06 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:00 am
tramadol
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!