I am sitting in a workshop at the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non- Proliferation. The meeting is taking place a few days after the after the annual meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In the room are some of the people who negotiated arms control and disarmament treaties between the United States and the Soviet Union. There are several Arab ambassadors who represent their governments to the IAEA and were present at the annual meeting in which Shaul Horev, the Israeli head of the Israeli Atomic Energy Authority, spoke.
The meeting’s purpose is to look at what was called the Helsinki process, implemented during the Cold War, to determine if lessons learned from it could be adapted to the Middle East of 2012. In the background is the call to convene the Conference on the Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone which is planned to take place in Helsinki in December 2012. That conference will only take place, apparently, if both Iran and Israel agree to attend.
As Iran and Israel are both posturing now at high levels of readiness for attack, with daily statements from each side on its ability to inflict serious pain from the other, the publics of both societies need to know that there are alternatives to attack and mutual destruction. Israel must ensure that Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon. Iran is convinced that Israel possesses a nuclear arsenal already which is pointed at Iran. The December conference is supposed to take place under United Nations auspices and does not assume from the outset that Israel must join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or to even declare its nuclear status.
Iran is a signatory of NPT, unlike Israel, but has continually violated its treaty obligations and has consistently lied to the international community about the scope of its nuclear program. On this issue, like on other issues of acute conflict, but even more so, declarations are far below what is necessary to ensure compliance with treaty obligations.
The international community has decades of experience in developing verification regimes on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation. The international community falls short on enforcement. The roots of the current crisis with Iran are found in this problem of getting Iran to comply with what it has itself declared regarding uranium enrichment. Iran continues to deceive the international community, yet there is agreement among experts in Israel and around the world that Iran has not yet made the decision to construct a nuclear bomb.
AN ISRAEL-Iran war would be devastating to the security of the region and the world. At this time, the damage to property and infrastructure that both sides would inflict on each other and the loss of innocent life in both countries is unimaginable. The Israeli army is very well equipped and could direct massive amounts of firepower toward Iran. However, is Israel equally equipped to protect its people against the tens of thousands of rockets pointed at us? Is Israel equipped to confront global wrath when oil prices rise, forcing Americans and Europeans and others filling their cars at the gasoline pumps to pay double what they are paying now, when the international community is struggling to save the global economy from a crash?
Will the West forgive Israel if it is dragged into another Middle East war that it does not want to fight? Will the Iranian people, a majority of whom are believed to be in opposition to the regime of the ayatollahs, continue to oppose the mullahs if Iran falls under Israeli attack? The world will surely say “a plague on both your houses.” The regime of the ayatollahs will be further entrenched and only God knows how long Israel will be forced to defend itself from Iran and its clients in the region and the world.
On this Yom Kippur, as we all conduct our heshbon nefesh, our individual and national soul searching, we must all ask ourselves if an Israeli attack against Iran is the only way to prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb. Perhaps many of us do not have the tools to fully answer that question, so perhaps the question needs to be directed by us to our leaders. In the face of so many former security officials in Israel speaking against the attack, we must assume that there are alternatives, as we can assume that none of them want Iran to have the bomb.
One of the options on the table is the Conference on the Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone. This may not be the mechanism that has the power to prevent an Iranian bomb, but it is a global international effort at reaching toward what should be an Israeli goal for security of itself and the region: a zone free of weapons of mass destruction. This will not happen overnight and will not happen as the result of a conference in December 2012, but it is part of a process that Israel must be part of.
This issue is not on the agenda of public discourse in Israel, but it must be. How can we accept that our government refuses to attend an international conference, proposed by the United States, convened by the Finnish government under UN auspices, including the five permanent members of the Security Council, aimed at creating a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction? Can we allow ourselves the luxury of not participating? Can we allow ourselves the possibility that Iran will be there and we will not be there? Can we allow ourselves the possibility that Iran will not be there, but we could be there? Can we allow ourselves the possibility of missing an opportunity to speak directly to the Iranians if they will be there and we will also be there? As we constantly tell the Palestinians, you cannot end a conflict by not talking.
Front Page Features