Israel’s Nuclear Power: A graver issue than Iran’s nuclear potential

As Israeli ‘Agent 83’ hogs for a million dollar applause after predicting the intricate details of Iranian nuclear bomb, it seems quite reasonable to smirk at the imbalance in Middle Eastern politics. While Iran is being criticized by IAEA Chief Yukiya Amano for not being transparent enough about its nuclear programme, no one is questioning Israel for its ‘Policy of Nuclear ambiguity’. Right from 1948, this nuclear opacity, that has been intelligently social engineered by Israel. It provides political investments, existential deterrence benefits, immunity and monetary advantages to Israel to secure more modernised nuclear arsenals.

‘If Arabs have oil, we have the matches.’

When Mordechai Vanunu, a technician who worked at the Dimona Nuclear Facility disclosed the details of Israel’s nuclear capacity on 5th October 1986 to London Sunday Times, he mentioned that at that particular time, Israel already had 200 bombs, F-16 deliverable warheads, Jericho warheads, neutron bombs and boosted devices. Over the past years, Israel has developed low yield Neutron bombs which would destroy troops with minimal destruction caused to nearby property. They also have ‘tiny-nukes’ and ‘micro-nukes’ for attacking point targets. Their sea launch capability is secured through submarine launched nuclear missiles which operate in 350 km range. Oman, with its past record of unofficial relationship with Israel is the perfect option for carrying out second strikes of ‘Nuclear missile capable submarines‘ against Iran. Also, the 1994 Accord with Jordan grants limited Israeli military presence in the country. Taking into consideration Ariel Sharon, perhaps rightly said ‘If Arabs have oil, we have the matches.’

‘Nuclear power: Crusade Against Holocaust’

Israel’s struggle for nuclear capability started right from 1948. Ben Guiron believed that ‘Science would compensate Israel for what nature had denied‘, referring to the Holocaust and massive manslaughter of Jews by the Nazi regime. He was helped by his two close associates, namely, Professor Ernst Bergmann and Simon Peres. Professor Bergman founded the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission and as a scientific advisor, had close relations with Francis Perrin, who himself was a member of French Atomic Energy Commission. Israel would gather French support in terms of nuclear reactors and repossessing plant. Simon Peres played an integral role in strengthening the French-Israeli Nuclear deal as the young director General of Ministry of Defense. This deal had initiated even before the 1956 Suez Canal campaign started. In fact, it was secretly signed on 3rd October 1957.

‘Strengthening of the French Connection’

Well both, Israel and France had their own selfish reasons for developing their embryonic relationship. The nuclear research capability to France had been limited after Second World War. It found itself behind US, USSR, UK and even Canada. When President Nasser of Egypt had closed the Straits of Tiran, Ben Gurion got worried and ordered the development of nuclear and chemical weapons. Gurion had started growing skeptical of Czech-Egyptian arms agreement of 1955.  So, Israel needed a political/economic saviour and France readily became one. After all, France wanted to use Israel as its asset against its fight in Algeria. Though, in 1958, when French President de Gaulle came to power, he terminated the French participation in Israel’s nuclear empowerment.

After the sudden stoppage of French supply, Israel had to import Uranium oxide from Belgium. It utilised the West German Front Company for this purpose under the ‘Operation Plumbat‘. This covert operation undertaken by Mossad violated the Euratom control of nuclear materials. Norway, later, sold 20 tons of heavy water to Israel in 1959.

‘Assasination of Kennedy: End of Questioning Israel’

It was on 23rd December 1960, under US pressure, when Ben Gurion was forced to reveal to the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) that 24 megawatt research reactor that it used was meant for peaceful purpose. It was perhaps the last time an official statement regarding Israel’s nuclear capability was made.

May 1961, President Kennedy had started threatening Israel for not being more transparent and that he would be sending US Scientists to Israel.  But his assassination proved to be the last honest attempt of US against Israel. President Johnson was pro-Zionist, had suffered bitter memories of the holocaust himself during the second world war and did not really care about Israel’s nuclear power. It was later in 1968 when the Nuclear Non proliferation treaty was formed with the co-sponsorship of US.

Initially, Israel was pressurized to sign up for NPT and only then it would receive Phantom aircraft from America. Later, this mandatory demand was wiped out. In return, on 11th March 1965, a cable was sent from the US embassy in Tel Aviv to Washington stating that PM Levi Eshkol has declared that ‘Israel would not the the first to introduce nuclear power in the Middle East’. This declaration has become like a mantra, repeated on and on by Israeli Prime Ministers, the latest being PM Netanyahu.

The secret meeting of Israeli PM Golda Meir with US president Nixon in 1969 further made sure that world politics obliterated the evidence of Israel’s nuclear power. In Middle East, it was Egypt that first initiated this process. When the David Camp Accords were signed on 17th September 1978, President Sadat never questioned Israel’s nuclear capability in those 13 days of negotiation.

Conclusion

The entire fallacy becomes evident when Israel can develop its nuclear power under ‘activist defense policy‘ but Iran can not. This political tendency supports the realists and their ravenousness for power rather than security or trade. Over the years, AIPAC has grown as strong as the loopholes in Israel’s nuclear ambiguity, hence, dodging Israel away from sanctions, isolation or political containment.

Also, it is unfair that spy satellites are being used to keep an eye on Iranian military facility and they are being suspected of cleaning up radioactive evidence. But the world forgot about 22nd September 1979 when Israel carried out a testing of neutron bomb in the South Indian Ocean.

In the end, there is no guarantee that Israel, that has threatened for a war against Iran, will not use its nuclear power. Already during the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Defense Minister Moshe Dayan had put Jericho Missiles on high alert, so that they could be used as a last resort against Egypt and Syria. Then, Golda Meir declined its usage. But would Benjamin Netanyahu do the same? Well, the answer remains abstract and uncontrolled.

Netanyahu and Obama’s stand on Iran; release of an Israeli spy still ignored.

For the past 27 years, Israel has been trying to free Jonathan Pollard, a civilian American Naval intelligence Analyst.  Both US and Israel have kept him under a plea agreement. Years back, Jonathan found out about an undeclared intelligence embargo continuing in US under which Israel was not provided information regarding vital details about Syrian, Iraqi, Libyan and Iranian nuclear weapons/ capabilities. Under his ideological sense, Jonathan felt it was his prime duty to deliver these vital informations to Israel that granted him citizenship later in 1995. But he had to pay a huge price for it. He still suffers life sentence as has become another abstract and unheard demand for Israeli PM Netanyahu.

Benjamin Netanyahu, who still awaits a response from Obama administration, however understands that US can not be considered ‘ignorant’ or pressurized by Israel. For the past several months, both these political leaders have been going through a bind. The tension between them became clearer when US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta disclosed the nascent plans of Israel regarding an attack on Iran in April. In a quite intelligent manner, Netanyahu has shifted the entire focus of Israel’s concern from Palestine to Iran. He wants US to start the war as America leads in terms of weapons, ballistic missiles, grenades and of course, nuclear power. That is exactly why Netanyahu is more concerned of destroying Iran’s nuclear ‘capability’ rather than its ‘intentions‘. Israeli leaders want to operate a unilateral military action against Iran, which perhaps would not include alarming US before they do attack.

“Iran and IAEA’

Currently, Iran, like other countries, eg- Brazil, Japan, Argentina does have a right to enrich uranium as the NPT signatory. Under the IAEA scrutiny, Tehran needs to be transparent about its experiments and once it satisfies IAEA, it can enrich uranium and follow the peaceful fuel cycle nuclear energy programme. In spite of knowing all of this, Israel is threatened that Iran aims to wipe it out from the world’s map, as Iranian President had once confessed. President Ahmedanijad does not even accept that Holocaust under Hitler ever happened in world’s history and literally loathes the entire ‘Zionist identity’. Though, Ayatollah Khameini, the Supreme Leader continues to state that having nuclear power is a sin and non-Islamic, at the end of the day, he has the power to operate them.

‘Parliamentary elections in Iran’

In the meanwhile, 9th Majlis (Parliamentary elections) took place last Friday in Iran. US and Israel had believed that the ‘crippling sanctions’ would frustrate the Iranian citizens against thire government and the elections would not be able to preserve its sanctity. Interestingly, 65% of the 48 million people came to cast their vote. Hence, it definitely comes as a slap for the Zionist controlled governments (ZGOs) who are suspected to cause  protests against the President in 2009 Green Revolution. Iran also suffers from fractured political presentation. Firstly, it does not have political parties and secondly, the distance between President Ahmedanijad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini is increasing day by day, as they both see each other with mutual distrust and suspicion. But that does not pose a lot of threat because the values of kinship in Middle East are different. The famous saying , ‘ Me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousin, me and my brother and my cousin against the outsider.’

‘Obama’s dilemma’

In any case, when President Obama addressed the AIPAC annual convention yesterday, he said exactly what any diplomatic leader would utter. He talked about ‘loose talk of war’,  did not define the ‘red lines‘ and declared that US would not follow the policy of ‘containment.’ Before the entire political drama was unfolding, it was definitely expected that whatever Obama would say, might make a point, a difference. Unfortunately, it did not. Everything from praising Israeli President Simon Peres and his Jewish identity to claiming that ‘Israel’s security is sacrosanct and non-negotiable’, felt like a well mugged speech. In fact, President Obama called President Peres for receiving the ‘Presidential Medal of Freedom’ which is the highest Civilian honour by the White House.

Undoubtedly, President Obama is acting as a ‘duck President‘ right now. The reason is, he wants to secure his second term. In 2008, he won by 78% of Jewish votes. Thus, this year, he is trying his level best to secure votes from Jewish populations in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Nevada. Though, as the US president and Commander in Chief of the army, he is the strongest man, in fact, a dictator in his own merit. But he cannot take a nasty stand with AIPAC, the pro Israel lobby in America. Well, not only would his presidency be threatened, he can even be assassinated.

Thus, as President Obama still states that any war on Iran would be a mere distraction and exploit the peace, Israel definitely has other plans. But it needs to remember that its not Syria or Iraq that are developing nuclear power and hence, it can easily destroy it. Its Iran and definitely, whatever might be the pattern of bombardment used, a huge price would have to be paid by both these three countries.