Israeli nukes are legal and pro-peace

 
fresnozionism.org

George Jahn of the AP writes,

VIENNA — Israel’s secretive nuclear activities may undergo unprecedented scrutiny next month, with a key meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency tentatively set to focus on the topic for the first time, according to documents shared Friday with The Associated Press.

A copy of the restricted provisional agenda of the IAEA’s June 7 board meeting lists “Israeli nuclear capabilities” as the eighth item — the first time that that the agency’s decision-making body is being asked to deal with the issue in its 52 years of existence…

The 35-nation IAEA board is the agency’s decision making body and can refer proliferation concerns to the U.N. Security Council — as it did with Iran in 2006 after Tehran resumed uranium enrichment, a potential pathway to nuclear weapons…

The latest pressure is putting the Jewish state in an uncomfortable position. It wants the international community to take stern action to prevent Iran from getting atomic weapons but at the same time brushes off calls to come clean about its own nuclear capabilities.

This article obscures an important point, which is that the IAEA — and the UN — have no authority over Israel’s nuclear capability. And it gives the impression that Iran and Israel’s nuclear programs are both in some way in violation of international law, and that if action is taken regarding Iran it should also be taken toward Israel. This is entirely false.

The IAEA was created in 1957 as “the world’s ‘Atoms for Peace’ agency.” The idea was that the IAEA would supply fissionable material and know-how to countries that wanted to use atomic energy for peaceful purposes in return for strict controls over how these would be used. To that end it set up a system of inspections; if a country was found to be using IAEA-provided materials for military purposes, the information would be passed to the Security Council for action.

The IAEA’s authorized functions are listed in its founding Statute. They do not include interference in nuclear activities that are not related to material supplied by the IAEA, unless the parties involved have voluntarily agreed to involve the IAEA, as was done with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

In 1970 the NPT came into being. It recognized that five nations already had nuclear weapons — the US, Soviet Union, UK, France, and China — and in effect granted them a monopoly. Signatories on the treaty agreed that they would not develop nuclear weapons themselves or contribute to the proliferation thereof and would accept IAEA supervision over their peaceful use of atomic energy.

Israel already had several weapons in 1970 and chose not to sign the NPT. So it is not in violation of it. And it is not subject to IAEA inspection.

Indeed, Israel’s nuclear weapons are exactly as legal under international law as those of the US.

Iran, on the other hand, did sign the NPT. It is required to permit IAEA inspections of its nuclear installations, and the IAEA has determined that Iran is probably developing weapons in violation of the treaty, but Iran insists that its project is entirely for peaceful purposes. Nobody honestly believes that.

North Korea, which has tested (it’s not clear how successfully) a weapon was a party to the NPT, but withdrew from it. Two other nuclear states — India and Pakistan — did not sign the treaty and so are not bound by it.

Israel has always suggested — but not stated explicitly, since it has never admitted to possessing nuclear weapons — that they would only be used defensively and only when there was no alternative. The closest it may have come to doing so was in the early stages of the 1973 war, when there was a possibility of enemy penetration into Israel beyond the pre-1967 borders. Some believe that Israel armed some weapons in the knowledge that the US and USSR would detect this, both as a deterrent to intervention by the USSR and a spur to the US to resupply Israel with conventional weapons.

In 1991, it’s said that weapons were put on alert in the event that Saddam would fire Scuds with chemical warheads at Israel (he did not). Syria also has a large quantity of chemical warheads which have not been used, probably from fear of nuclear retaliation.

The IDF has multiple delivery systems, which include submarine-launched cruise missiles and IRBM/ICBM’s in hardened land installations, giving it a second-strike capability. As I wrote yesterday, an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel, no matter how ’successful’, would trigger a response that would in essence eliminate Iran as a modern state. Israel’s missiles can also reach far beyond the Middle East, a fact which was highly relevant during the period that the USSR was supporting the Arab nations.

One might say that the form that the Mideast conflict has taken since 1973 — a low-intensity war involving non-state proxies and terrorism combined with stepped-up political and economic pressure — has been determined by the presence of Israel’s nuclear deterrent. Not good, but better than the alternative.

So it’s not surprising that Israel’s enemies have recently begun a diplomatic campaign for Israel to sign the NPT, to declare the Mideast a ‘nuclear-free zone’, etc.

Bad idea. Israel’s nuclear weapons are probably the most ‘pro-peace’ factor in the entire Mideast equation. Probably the best policy for Israel is to continue its policy of official ambiguity along with continued development of low-fallout nuclear weapons technology — i.e., neutron weapons, electromagnetic pulse weapons, etc.

Jericho III ICBM

US paper: 'At least 18 months until Iran has bomb'

Jan 3, 2010 6:43 | Updated Jan 3, 2010 15:47
By JPOST.COM STAFF

White House officials say that current conditions in Iran make the country especially vulnerable to targeted sanctions, according to a report Sunday in The New York Times.

Uranium enrichment centrifuges at Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant.
Photo: AP [file

Also, Iran specialists in the US assess that for technical and other reasons Iran will only be able to produce a weapon in 18 months or longer.

Domestic unrest not abating since the disputed elections that gave incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad another term, together with technical difficulties Iran is facing in its nuclear program present the West with an opportunity to significantly weaken the country's powerful Revolutionary Guards, directing sanctions specifically at the Guards, the instrument of the regime responsible for the program, said the Times

Strategists working for US President Barack Obama are quoted by the paper as saying that while Iran's top political and military leaders are insistent on producing a nuclear military option, turmoil in the streets is distracting them and the drive to produce nuclear fuel remains only partially successful.

Teheran's current troubles "give us a window to impose the first sanctions that may make the Iranians think the nuclear program isn't worth the price tag," an official involved in setting the White House's Iran policy is quoted by the Times as saying.

The paper cites the exposure of the facility at Qom late last year as foiling Iran's best chance of producing nuclear fuel away from Western eyes.

Additionally, it said that the number of uranium-churning centrifuges at the Natanz facility had dropped by 20 percent since the summer, a decline nuclear experts attribute to technical problems.

"For now, the Iranians don't have a credible breakout option, and we don't think they will have one for at least 18 months, maybe two or three years," a senior administration official at the center of the White House's Iran strategy told the paper. The US reportedly convinced its Western allies - primarily Israel - that the new time frame estimates would allow the sanctions to be effective.

Israeli officials "now feel that what's happening in Iran makes the country vulnerable to real sanctions," and might give Obama more time to persuade China and Russia to go along, another US official told the Times. An unnamed Israeli diplomat in Washington told the paper that in private conversations "Obama has convinced us that it's worth trying the sanctions, at least for a few months."

A US ultimatum on the diplomatic approach toward Iran ended on December 31, 2009. Israel Radio reported that Israeli officials in Jerusalem expect sanctions, however, not to be imposed in the coming month while China still heads the UN Security Council, but only when France assumes the rotating leadership next month.

China, together with Russia, has so far blocked attempts to toughen international sanctions against the Islamic republic.

Israel seeks 'crippling' Iran sanctions

By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER IN WASHINGTON AND HAVIV RETTIG GUR

As the deadline for Iran to respond to the international community's offer regarding its nuclear program passed Thursday, the US has toughened its rhetoric and is looking increasingly to sanctions rather than diplomacy.

That has pleased Israel, which wants strong action against the Islamic Republic as it continues to enrich uranium in defiance of international demands and has rejected US President Barack Obama's outstretched hand.

The next step, according to Ambassador to the US Michael Oren, should be "imposing crippling sanctions" on the Teheran regime, which is in keeping with the pledge Oren said Obama made to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in May that the US would end the engagement phase toward Iran if it were unsuccessful by year's end.

Oren told The Jerusalem Post that "there isn't an Israeli view and an American view" on the Iranian question, but rather "one view."

However, the Obama administration is showing signs that its approach to sanctions might not be in line with the "crippling" measures that Israel is expecting. Instead, a more calibrated approach has been emerging in which the US would press for another UN Security Council resolution this month and look at targeted sanctions rather than at disrupting Iran's energy markets and other more broad-based moves.

In addition, the US has repeatedly stressed that the door to diplomatic engagement remains open, notwithstanding Obama's pledge to review the process at the end of the year.

"The United States remains committed to a diplomatic resolution to the international community's concerns regarding Iran's nuclear program," a State Department official told the Post Thursday, though he added, "Unfortunately, thus far, our efforts have been rebuffed."

He also said, "We would welcome Iran taking concrete steps to build confidence in the peaceful nature of its nuclear program," particularly by "Iranian acceptance of the IAEA's standing Teheran Research Reactor refueling proposal."

That deal - in which Teheran would have sent most of its enriched uranium abroad for processing so that Iran could then use it for medical purposes - was worked out by global leaders in October, who gave Iran until Thursday to accept the deal. There have been reports, however, that Turkey is working to provide a compromise proposal even though the US has in the past ruled out any modification to the offer, which Iran has not approved.

American officials have several times referred to "consequences" Iran would face for rejecting the efforts at diplomatic solutions, and in recent days have spoken increasingly about the option of sanctions.

Along with the track of ongoing diplomatic efforts, "we are moving on the pressure track in consultation with others," an administration official told the Post Thursday. "The United States will continue to implement its dual-track strategy to achieve its goal of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. We continue to consult with our partners on how we will give full meaning to the dual tracks."

He added that "a variety of options are being explored" on implementing the latter track and that "the discussions are continuing."

Earlier in the week, a senior US official fleshed out some of the approach on the pressure track, telling The Washington Post that the administration would like to use fine-tuned measures. "We have never been attracted to the idea of trying to get the whole world to cordon off their economy," he said. "We have to be deft at this, because it matters how the Iranian people interpret their isolation - whether they fault the regime or are fooled into thinking we are to blame."

Though Obama has been more forceful in his criticism of the Iranian regime as the crackdown on opposition forces has turned bloodier in recent days, the administration doesn't want to see sanctions policy hurt average Iranians or fuel the government's anti-Western charges.

"There's strong support for sanctions on regime figures. Beyond that it gets to be more complicated," Iran expert Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy said of popular Iranian attitudes toward such measures.

More targeted restrictions - on the Revolutionary Guard Corps and its economic enterprises in addition to the Iranian leadership - could also be an easier sell with many of the international countries that have at time been wary of sanctions.

The US is looking at leading another sanctions resolution through the UN Security Council once it reconvenes in the new year, a process that could take weeks or even months and in the past has resulted only in weak measures due largely to Russian and Chinese opposition.

Oren, speaking to the Post, expressed optimism over the possibility of such a resolution getting through. "All the indications we have are that the Russians are more cooperative now" on possible sanctions, though he indicated it wasn't clear whether China, which imports a large quantity of Iranian oil, would also cooperate.

Oren also referred to several other paths that could be taken, including targeting the financial activities of the government, curbing the import of refined petroleum and limiting the ability of Iranian leaders to travel around the world.

The US Treasury has already been going after some financial companies that work with Iran, including winning a $217 million settlement with Lloyds TSB Bank and a $536m. global settlement with Credit Suisse in December because of prohibited dealings with Iran. And designating leaders as personae non grata would be in line with a more focused approach.

But stemming refined petroleum imports is the kind of measure that the White House and international community might balk at. Though bills to do just that have been wending their way through Congress, some legislators have privately said they would prefer measures more focused on the regime than the people. In addition, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman, who sponsored the House bill, said he wanted to give time for theSecurity Council process to work before passing any law.