Iran's Disarmement via Tel Aviv
Roger Cohen wrote today in the NY Times about an ordinary Israel, as opposed to an exceptional Israel.
I found this column significant in many ways. It captured something that had been the subtext of almost every international discussion of Israel and its actions beyond its legal borders in the last few years.
As human beings, we usually have clearly defined perceptions of ourselves. In most cases, we are unaware or choose to be unaware of how we are perceived by the world around us. So unfortunately, we end up interacting with the world on the basis of how we see ourselves or how we wish to be seen. Nations do the same. They have national narratives that are sometimes manufactured for social cohesion, sometimes over-idealized versions of real events, sometimes just plain bogus. And unfortunately any external messages directed at them have to get through the thick fabricated glass windows.
Israel, Roger Cohen says in his piece "does not see itself as normal. Rather it lives in a perpetual state of exceptionalism". So it can have nuclear weapons while demanding that the US help prevent Iran from getting them. It can refrain from signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) while demanding that NPT signatories like Iran live up to their obligations. Basic notions such as fairness do not factor in these types of talks because there is the view of "we are rational, THEY are not!" and therefore it follows that "we can be allowed to do things THEY can never be forgiven for doing." Now, Israel unlike many other nations on this earth was born out of a tragedy. A great tragedy. But as Cohen rightfully observes, that does not mean it should refrain from "deal[ing] with the world as it is, however discomfiting, not the world of yesterday."
As Cohen quotes in the piece, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has often said that the only way to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons is "for the Iranian government to decide that their security is diminished by having those weapons as opposed to strengthened ." So what if the US as part of its Iran Strategy tried to convince Israel to go the way of South Africa and get rid of its nuclear weapons as a way of persuading the iranians that their security will not be compromised by not developing a bomb?
Because one important way and I believe the most important way to look at this Iran-Nukes Conundrum is through the lens of regional control and regional security. Israel has been the "Big Boy" of the Middle-East for the past forty years or so. Egypt reared its head for a bit in the days of Nasser and Sadat. But they were quickly smacked in the Six-Day War and in the Yom Kippur War. They then decided it was best to sign a peace treaty, get a Nobel Peace Prize for Sadat in the bargain and move on. Then Iraq rose slightly with a little help from the Reagan and George H. Bush administrations. They quickly lost their power when Saddam picked a fight with the Ayatollas to start the 8-year long Iran-Iraq war that drained them financially and otherwise. The American invasion of 2003 took care of whatever power was not erased by the UN sanctions that preceded it. The Gulf states (Bahrain, Koweit, Qatar, UAE, Oman) have as much military strength as five African bees. Yet Israel with a lot of US financial and military help has remained strong.
So now the Iranians look to be on the rise again, paranoid and fearful. They do have valid reasons to be fearful. From Tehran, the Mullahs look to the east and they see NATO troops in Afghanistan (including nuclear armed nations like the US and the UK) and further east, they see Pakistanis with nukes. Indians with nukes. Further west, they see Israelis with nukes. In addition to being in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US has a presence in the Gulf States. If you couple this with the constant threats of bombardments as enunciated by both US and Israeli officials, no wonder the Iranians want to get nuclear weapons as a way of preventing an externally-imposed "regime change".
Some will argue that Iran is not governed by "rational leaders" and therefore cannot be held to the same standard as other nations. I disagree. And I am not alone in this view. Many decades of Iranian peaceful co-existence with its neighbours back me up on this. So does the NY Times' Roger Cohen in the piece I quoted at the start of this post. "Iran makes rational decisions," he writes. "Rather than invoking the Holocaust -- a distraction -- Israel should view Iran coolly [and] understand the hesitancy of Tehran's nuclear brinksmanship."
So in many ways, the road towards Obama's nuclear-free world and therefrore a nuclear-free Middle-East, goes through Tehran as much as it goes through Tel Aviv.
Highly rec'd. I have often wondered why any intelligent person would believe that it is in Iran's interest NOT to have nukes when Israel does. And who are we to tell them what to do?
That said, good luck on getting Israel to give up anything. Feelings of entitlement generally don't make good relationships, and that is true globally as well as on a personal level. The only way to get Iran to stop; and to get Israel to give up its nukes is to make them realize that they will be better off.
Not likely.
October 17, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Israel is unwilling to stop buliding in Gaza, it does make the picture of giving up its nukes almost impossible to picture. Recent polls among Israelis seem to indicate that there is less support than a year ago for making concessions for possible peace. The peace/pragmatic movement had been growing for so long. What do you make of that?
October 17, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wendy,
I think you're right. Netanyahu has basically ignored everything that both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have said about settlements. And he's been dictating his own terms of a possible peace deal, such as demanding that Palestinians & Arab States recognize Israel as a Jewish State,etc,...
I would be a very rich man if I knew what would transpire in the coming months and years. But one thing to keep in mind is that because Israel is perpetually governed by coalitions, the Right or Left slant of the members of the coalition almost always dictate how the government will act. So right now with Liebermann and Netanyahu at the diplomatic helm, it doesn't look like any peace deal is forthcoming. But then again, Likud under Menachem Begin signed a peace deal with Egypt. So who knows...
October 17, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I liked Cohen's column a lot. Knowing Israelis like I do, I would say that the feeling of entitlement is more the operative motivation than exceptionalism. Whenever I am in Israel, I still hear about the 2000 years of persecution and the Holocaust as justification for everything - wars, settlements, occupation etc etc. Since the entire world hates us anyway, it doesn't matter what we do espcially since we are only making up for what the world took from us.
October 17, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hesitate to wander into a discussion of a topic that is so ideologically driven, but I'll make a tentative stab at it. Even since before its actual inception, Israel has been the avowed target for elimination by its neighbors. Without nuclear weapons, it might already have been destroyed. One needn't sympathize with the Netanyahu government (I don't) to realize that it would be foolish for Israel to relinquish its nucler capability until that threat is dramatically reduced, should that time ever arrive.
Although Ahmadinejad and others have spoken of eliminating Israel, Israel has not evinced any desire to eliminate the nation of Iran.
As to why Iran wants nuclear weapons (which they vehemently deny wanting), there are many forces in the region they might perceive as potential threats, including those driven by Shia/Sunni conflicts involving Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. On the other hand, if Iran has no hostile intentions toward Israel, the latter's nuclear weapons should pose no existential threat to Iran - at least as judged on a rational basis. The Iranian theocracy, while not reckless, is however not always completely rational in the way it assesses its situation, or at least in the way it announces its assessments.
The Iranian nuclear threat is not imminent, but it is not illusory either, and a nuclear-armed Iran would greatly increase instability in this volatile part of the world. It may or may not be possible to persuade the Iranians to give up their nuclear program through a mix of incentives and pressures (primarily sanctions), but if and when Iran decides it's in its interest to abandon nuclear ambitions, I doubt that Israel's nuclear weapons will stand in the way.
October 17, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred,
Let me unpack your argument a bit:
1-"Israel has been the avowed target for elimination by its neighbours. Without nuclear weapons, it might already have been destroyed, " you write. Well, not really because the threats of its neighbours only have as much weight as the power of those neighbours to act on those threats. As I indicated in my piece, most of those neighbours have been powerless for the last 40 years which explains why Israel has walked all over them in the past wars. So to say empty threats justify Israelis nukes is a bit of a stretch. In additon, even if we accept this poition, then it means you are acknowledging that having nuclear weapons is a deterrent against external aggresion. So given Iran's situation that I detailed in my piece, it follows that they are equally entitled to want to get nukes.
2-"As to why Iran wants nuclear weapons (which they vehemently deny wanting), there are many forces in the region they might perceive as potential threats, including those driven by Shia/Sunni conflicts involving Saudi Arabia and other Arab states."
I am sorry, but I just don't buy this line of argument at all. Saudi Arabia was barely able to protect itself against a decrepit Iraqi army in 1991. They still need thousands of Americans to protect their oilfields. I don't think Iran is looking at acquiring nuclear weapons because of any current and future threats from the Saudis.
3-"The Iranian theocracy, while not reckless, is however not always completely rational in the way it assesses its situation, or at least in the way it announces its assessments."
So because the Iranians in your view are not rational in the way they "announce their assessments" it follows that we can impute motives to them? Image if anybody said that about the US or the West in general after that pre-Iraq invasion presentation at the UN and the debacle that followed.
All in all, what I hoped to affirm in my piece is that Israel, Iran and others in the region are mere regional powers jockeying for command. The moment we start looking at things that way without creating exceptions for some, the clearer the situation will be.
October 18, 2009 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Barack08. I tend to disagree with what I interpret as your perception of a substantial degree of motivational and moral equivalence between Iran and Israel. I won't repeat all the points I made above, but Israel has been in danger of extinction since the moment of its existence, and can't be expected to abandon its nuclear arsenal until the elementary school children in neighboring Arab societies and Iran are no longer taught that Israelis (and in some cases Jews in general) are evil and must be exterminated. Certainly, recent Iranian blustering about wiping Israel off the map has not assuaged their fears.
Iran probably wants nuclear weapons for many reasons, but not the fear of extinction, and certainly not because it fears that Israel would attack it unprovoked if it had no nuclear ambitions; in fact, the danger from Israel exists almost exclusively because of the Iranian nuclear threat. Iran, however, probably does see having a nuclear arsenal as a means of deterring other nations from resisting its ambitions in the Middle East in terms of supporting Shiite forces in conflict with Sunnis in other nations. There may also be motivations involving national pride and a desire to be recognized as a dominant power in the region, not to be trifled with. Agreeing with you, I don't pretend to read the minds of the ayatollahs, but their ruthlessness in oppressing their own people when those people threaten their dictatorial powers already provides ample evidence that nuclear weapons in their hands would be perceived by others as a tool they might be willing to use, and therefore a threat capable of sparking a nuclear arms race.
I can't agree, however, that Israel is among powers "jockeying for command". To equate Israeli and Iranian leaders in terms of a willingness to destroy others for non-defensive reasons is, in my view, to assume a false equivalence that makes it difficult to view the Middle East realistically. This is not to justify Israeli wrongdoings in the Palestinian conflict, but to emphasize the distinction between totalitarian theocracies and democracies, however flawed the latter. Whatever their personal or political inclinations, Israeli leaders are not unlimited in their power to ignore the forces within their society who condemn excesses in the use of power. Totalitarian rulers are not similarly constrained. It's a difference in degree sufficient to constitute a difference in kind.
I believe Iran will proceed to develop nuclear weapons as long as it views that accomplishment as in its best interest, and will continue to deceive and delay as much as it sees necessary. It may be possible to persuade Iran that it will ultimately be in its best interest to pursue a different path. One must hope so, because a nuclear armed Iran would be a serious danger. If Iran is in fact persuadable to abandon its nuclear weapons ambition by a combination of incentives and penalties, Israeli nuclear weapons are very unlikely to discourage that step. If the ayatollahs are not completely irrational, and I agree they are not, they will certainly know that Israel's nuclear weapons threaten Iran only if Iran pursues the same, and would cease to be a threat if Iran desisted from that pursuit.
October 18, 2009 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fred: To equate Israeli and Iranian leaders in terms of a willingness to destroy others for non-defensive reasons is, in my view, to assume a false equivalence that makes it difficult to view the Middle East realistically. This is not to justify Israeli wrongdoings in the Palestinian conflict, but to emphasize the distinction between totalitarian theocracies and democracies, however flawed the latter.
The willingness of Israeli leaders is documented. As befits a democracy, this willingness is supported by the majority of voters. Of course, whatever "Defense Forces" do is for "defensive reasons", while "Revolutionary Guard" is, well, by its very name, opposing the existing order, so there is that.
"If ayatollahs are not completely irrational...."
and how rational is Israeli clergy? Like those who distributed leaflets among IDF soldiers with claims that Pope is instructing Hezbollah how to organize death camps by inviting them on a trip to Auschwitz? Or those who exhorted soldiers during Gaza campaign to show no mercy to the enemy? Or who foment riots for quite incomprehensive reasons? Mind you, Israel is somewhat theocratic as well, clergy determines who deserves new citizenship, who can legally marry etc.
October 18, 2009 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
piotr - See my comments above. One doesn't need to defend every action by the Israeli government, some of which are indefensible, to recognize that there is no moral equivalence between Israel and Iran. In both nations, forces operate that violate norms of civilized behavior. In Israel, as in other democracies, these are constrained by the resistance from those who object. In Iran, as in other oppressive dictatorships, the power of the theocrats to kill, torture, and crush political opponents is largely unrestrained, as demonstrated recently in the streets of Tehran.
What I worry about are the ideological blinders that lead some to equate democracies that sometimes engage in wrongful actions with dictatorships that are repressive down to the core, and ruthless in their hold on power. This is true for many regions of the world, but the hold of ideology strikes me as particularly pervasive when it comes to the Middle East. Although ideologically based entrenched opinions are largely intractable, my hope lies in a willingness to engage in rational discussion with anyone who tries to set aside ideology and view each circumstance on the basis of objective evidence. When it comes to the threat of a nuclear armed Iran, it is not only the U.S., but much of the world, including Europe, Russia, China, Israel (and probably some Arab states) that have expressed alarm at tbis prospect. Some of these nations have expressed disapproval of Israeli actions, but none that I'm aware of has claimed that it is accepable for Iran to develop nuclear weapons capability as long as Israel maintains its nuclear arsenal.
The danger from Iran is real, even if it is not imminent, and that's why I see nations who disagree about many other issues striving to reach consensus as to how to address that danger. For Iran to acquire nuclear weapons threatens to destabilize not only the Middle East and spur a nuclear arms race in the region, but also to seriously undermine any international attempt to be taken seriously when it announces to would-be nuclear powers that if they defy the non-proliferation principle, they will suffer some consequences, including economic pressures but hopefully not military action.
October 18, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink