May 6, 2009

US To Israel: No Nukes For Iran? You First!

Eli Lake, reporting for The Washington Times, has an exclusive:
EXCLUSIVE: Secret U.S.-Israel nuclear accord in jeopardy

President Obama's efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons threaten to expose and derail a 40-year-old secret U.S. agreement to shield Israel's nuclear weapons from international scrutiny, former and current U.S. and Israeli officials and nuclear specialists say.

The issue will likely come to a head when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Mr. Obama on May 18 in Washington. Mr. Netanyahu is expected to seek assurances from Mr. Obama that he will uphold the U.S. commitment and will not trade Israeli nuclear concessions for Iranian ones.

Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, speaking Tuesday at a U.N. meeting on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), said Israel should join the treaty, which would require Israel to declare and relinquish its nuclear arsenal.

"Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea, ... remains a fundamental objective of the United States," Ms. Gottemoeller told the meeting, according to Reuters.

She declined to say, however, whether the Obama administration would press Israel to join the treaty.

A senior White House official said the administration considered the nuclear programs of Israel and Iran to be unrelated "apples and oranges."

Asked by The Washington Times whether the administration would press Israel to join the NPT, the official said, "We support universal adherence to the NPT. [It] remains a long-term goal."

The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. [emphasis added]
Read the whole thing.

On the one hand, based on the article there seems to be no concensus on demanding that Israel join the NPT and get rid of its nuclear weapons. On the other hand, there are people suggesting that such a demand is in the air and backing such a move:
"What the Israelis sense, rightly, is that Obama wants to do something new on Iran and this may very well involve doing something new about Israel's program," said Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, a Washington think tank.

Bruce Riedel, a former senior director for the Middle East and South Asia on the White House National Security Council, said, "If you're really serious about a deal with Iran, Israel has to come out of the closet. A policy based on fiction and double standards is bound to fail sooner or later. What's remarkable is that it's lasted so long." Mr. Riedel headed the Obama administration's review of strategy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan but does not hold a permanent administration position and has returned to private life as a scholar at the Brookings Institution.
It is difficult to believe though that such a suggestion is a purely humanitarian one that does not have Israel in mind at all:
John R. Bolton, a former U.N. ambassador and undersecretary of state, said Israel was right to be concerned.

"If I were the Israeli government, I would be very worried about the Obama administration's attitude on their nuclear deterrent," he said. "You can barely raise the subject of nuclear weapons in the Middle East without someone saying: 'What about Israel?' If Israel's opponents put it on the table, it is entirely possible Obama will pick it up."
Among those raising the subject are Arab countries in the region who, though they may be 'allies' of the US, definitely do not have Israel's interests at heart.
U.S. allies Egypt and Saudi Arabia also have pressed the U.S. to link Israel's weapons to Iran's as part of a plan to implement a nuclear-free Middle East.

A proposal to introduce a Security Council resolution declaring the Middle East a nuclear-free zone and calling for sanctions against those countries that did not comply was broached in a 2006 strategic dialogue between Saudi Arabia and the United States, said Turki al-Faisal, who was Saudi ambassador to the U.S.

"When I talked to American officials about that when I was ambassador here, and before that to British officials in the U.K., the immediate response was, 'Israel is not going to accept,' " Prince Turki told editors and reporters of The Washington Times last month. "And my immediate response was, 'So what?' If Israel doesn't accept, it doesnt mean its a bad idea."
The point is that Israel has never used its nuclear weapons as a club to threaten its Arab neighbors and has never used the kind of language that Ahmadinejad has used regularly in reference to Israel. Nuclear weapons for Israel have always been for defensive purposes.

Unfortunately, when it comes to making demands on nuclear arms, Israel is the one that gets the pressure. Unlike Iran, North Korea and Pakistan, Israel is the one considered most receptive to that pressure--as opposed to the cajoling that other nuclear or wannabe nuclear powers get.

Ed Morrissey notes the implications behind Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller statements on Israel's nuclear disarmament:
The Obama administration appointed Gottemoeller, fully cognizant of her thinking on this issue. One has to assume that her appointment to the senior position at State constitutes an endorsement of those positions. It wouldn't be the most radical thinking about Israel from this administration; Samantha Powers, who works between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice, once called for a Western occupation of Israel and forced disarmament of their entire army.

Gottemoeller's speech had to have been cleared by the Obama administration, and so appears to represent their foreign-policy position.
While Israel has still not signed the NPT--and this angers the treaty's supporters, who want the treaty "universal"--as with all treaties, governments are free not to sign. What governments are not free to do is sign, receive the foreign (civilian) nuclear help to which signing entitles them, and then try to build a bomb secretly, as Iraq under Saddam Hussein tried to do. Israel may very well possess a large nuclear arsenal, but being a nuclear-armed power is not, by itself, a breach of international law and it has been doing nothing wrong. In light of what is going on in the region, Israel should  not be penalized and deprived of its defensive capabilities.

More at Memeorandum

by Daled Amos
Posted by daledamos at May 6, 2009 11:01 AM
Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us
  • digg
  • Furl
  • Spurl
  • YahooMyWeb
  • co.mments
  • Ma.gnolia
  • De.lirio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlinkList
  • NewsVine
  • scuttle
  • Fark
  • Shadows
Add this blog to my Technorati Favorites!
Comments

ooo my God....... I think we will talk about Premiere League.......

Posted by: hendy hendarto at May 6, 2009 11:20 AM

A policy based on fiction and double standards is bound to fail sooner or later. What's remarkable is that it's lasted so long."
....................................
What a xxx obama is. Such a scenario was predicted. Of course there should be a double standard because Israel and Iran are not on the same moral plain. While Israel is a responsible free, democratic nation which has never made threats to wipe out its neighbors, Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism which has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. For that matter India also should not be equated with Pakistan. There is a difference between India having nukes and an islamic state like Pakistan where the taliban can take over at any moment, having a nuclear arsenal.

This is the danger of having morally ambigious people in charge in Washington. Because Obama doesn't have the guts to confront Iran, he is throwing Israel under the bus because its easier and without risk. We are a superpower which can easily take out Iran's nuclear facilities. It's only a matter of our leadership lacking the political will.

Posted by: Laura at May 6, 2009 11:36 AM

I didn't realize that word was a taboo. It's not even censored on TV these days.

Posted by: Laura at May 6, 2009 12:03 PM

Laura...I'm shocked.

You would actually compare this blog with...television!?

Ugh.

For shame!

Posted by: Daled Amos at May 6, 2009 12:19 PM

There is NO chance Israel will sign the NPT. Israel is not about to allow the Jew-hating UN to inspect its nuclear arsenal. That has about as much chance of happening as Hamas recognizing Israel when the sun rises in the morning.

Posted by: NormanF at May 6, 2009 2:46 PM

There is NO chance Israel will sign the NPT. Israel is not about to allow the Jew-hating UN to inspect its nuclear arsenal. That has about as much chance of happening as Hamas recognizing Israel when the sun rises in the morning.

Posted by: NormanF at May 6, 2009 2:48 PM

What is Israel afraid of? Why can't we have a Nuclear-free Middle east. Israel justs want an excuse to keep killing Palestinians (yes, they don't make threats, they just kill and bulldoze homes). We finally have a President who has the guts to say it the way it is and not be afraid of AIPAC. We the American people knew what Obama stood for and we voted him in. Now he is delivering for the American people.

Posted by: Hassuneh at May 6, 2009 3:04 PM

Why can't we have a nuclear-free Middle East?
Ask Iran.

Posted by: Daled Amos at May 6, 2009 3:21 PM

"We finally have a President who has the guts to say it the way it is and not be afraid of AIPAC".
..............................................
Oh yeah it really takes alot of guts to stand up to Israel because we know that Jewish terrorists might strike us at any moment. If Obama truly had guts he would confront Iran and the muslim world. Pushing Israel around comes with no risks. Standing in defiance of a billion muslims does come with considerable risks.

Posted by: Laura at May 6, 2009 4:22 PM

The problem is that Americans didn't actually know what obama stood for since he told disparate groups what they wanted to hear during the campaign and stated contradictory views. It was the magic word "change" which captured their imagination. Of course they never really considered just what kind of change that would be.

Posted by: Laura at May 6, 2009 5:06 PM

Whether or not Israel has used its nuclear weapons, the majority of military intelligence analysis is indicating that Israel is considering using it against Iran. The state dept's own reports indicate that if Israel were to face off against Iran, its first action would be a nuclear blast off, something which would cause the deaths of at least 5 million people.

Nuclear disarmament is much more important than people realize.

Posted by: Cicero at May 6, 2009 9:48 PM

The state dept's own reports indicate that if Israel were to face off against Iran, its first action would be a nuclear blast off, something which would cause the deaths of at least 5 million people.

Really? If that is so well known, could you supply a link to a source?

Posted by: Daled Amos at May 6, 2009 10:45 PM

I take State Department projections with a grain of salt. As Iran nears completion of nuclear war capability, and if Ahmadinejad or his ilk are still in power, their target will be Israel for starters.
At that point, Israeli intelligence being alerted, I think Israel will have no other option but to preempt the announced intentions of Iran. The Israelis will use deep penetration nuclear bombs against what they know to be Iranian nuke centers. Unless Iran will locate nuke launchers in heavy population centers, I doubt the State Dept.'s estimate of 5 million Iranian casualties. However,if Iran hits Israel first, Israeli casualties could approach much of its population since Israel's population is concentrated in congested areas. Israel's entire population is between 5-6 million. Iran about 75 million.

Posted by: Stan S at May 6, 2009 11:43 PM

Laura comments that Americans didn't actually know what Obama stood for. How true! Some may have thought they knew.
The answer is simple after 100+ days; Obama stands for whatever Axelrod loads into BHO's teleprompter.

Posted by: Stan S at May 7, 2009 12:00 AM

Pax passim.human life should be preserved at all costs. however this should not mean that we entertain warmongers bent on "wiping" off others. Whether a person is a jew or an arab, he/she has a right to live. after all they all suffer tha same misfortunes, all bleed blood, all have feelings for brothers and sisters and so many other things.

Posted by: Lordashley at May 7, 2009 12:39 AM

Israel has a nuclear arsenal because it is in a singular position, as far as countries go. It is virtually surrounded with enemy nations, and has been since its inception. The only thing that keeps those countries on their side of the borders is the fact that Israel has one of the most powerful militaries in the world, and that they are a nuclear power. I would be curious to know how long it would be before Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, et al. attacked Israel if the threat of being made to glow in the dark wasn't there. The NPT is a joke, and always has been. I hope Israel tells BHO to blow it out his tailpipe if he brings up signing it.

Posted by: Cable at May 7, 2009 1:11 AM

Nice to see that there are a few who understand deterence vs aggression. If the Palestinians do what Gandi did then they would get what they want. Instead they choose to target kids and other civilians; crying when their "civilians" are killed. Stones, firebombs, knives, rockets, and AK-47s kill too.

While modern Israel was put where others were, the Jewish people have had roots to the land for 3000+ years. That is much longer than the few hundred the current Palestinians claim. Note that this is just one of the many arguements that goes around this sad drama. While Israel has fought its neighbors, it has done so to prevent is demise. Take away its deterance and there may be a second holocost.

Israel wishes to live in a demacratic peace while most of the Arab/Muslim world is under the dictorial rule of one person or a small group. The result of this can be seen in the standard of living for their socities in most of the nations. Oil wealth considered too.

Israel should agree to a Palestinian state or states who agree to accept Israel. Instead the Palestinians make unreasonable demands and try or aspire to destroy Israel. With Iran developing nukes why should Israel give up it defense? Will the USA defend Israel? I do not want to place any nation's existance in another's hands. That always seems to fail in the long run.

Posted by: Allen at May 7, 2009 1:24 AM

Let me get this straight, AIPAC and israeli jews and american-jews, spy and steal american secrets, sell american aid (weapons) to american enemies, receive billions in american aid, was granted by the United Nations jordanian territory, killed unarmed palestian children, is ran by a bunch of right-wing nuts that think they can just kill every palestian.

Oh, I forgot, the choosen people, live their life according to god. The israeli government is no different then Iran, they just had behind a different religion and so called democracy. As two israeli's their views on the middleEast and you will get three different answers.

So I don't want to hear any of this crap about America not supporting Israel, the mere fact that Israel exist is a testament to the United States and no one else... Period!!

Posted by: John at May 7, 2009 1:35 AM

Obama just lost my vote, and I will tell thousands of people I know. I think I am voting Republican now.

Posted by: Marcus at May 7, 2009 2:28 AM

The current political situation in the middle east has long been foretold by prophet Zachariah in the old testament of the holy bible. Someday all nations of the earth (including the U.S.) will unleash their hatred against Israel and will wage war against it. The reason, Jesus will come again to save his choosen people.. God will never forget the covenant he made with Abraham.

Posted by: bong at May 7, 2009 2:29 AM

john is a testament to how morally depraved and Nazi-like the left truly is.

Israel was given Jordanian territory? There was no such thing as Jordan until the British gave that land to the Hashemite kingdom, land which was originally meant to be set aside for a Jewish state. You have it backwards, scumbag. The British took away territory from the Jews to give to the arabs when transjordan was created. So john crawl back into the hole from which you came, you mutant, and stop soiling Soccerdad with your presence.

Posted by: Laura at May 7, 2009 3:35 AM

Laura,

First of all I am a independent and I think democrats and republicans and AIPAC are nuts! You seem to correct point and that is Israels establishment, but you don't deny any of the other points. You choose to label that which you don't know or agree with, true ignorance comes from narrow beliefs. I know many israeli jews who do not agree with AIPAC, oh let me see 50% and even more jewish americans, it's primarily the older jewish community (god bless the few that have not kept their old racist ways).

When it comes to america, I will and can critise it's positives and negative, but I have never never ever heard a an AIPAC supporter ever critise israel, that is the worst kind of support, because it breeds, ignorance, racism, narrow-mindedness and everything else that's detrimental to a health society.

I have the upmost support, for israel, but I will critise it when I think it's doing something wrong and stealing U.S. secrets is one of them.

Posted by: john at May 11, 2009 2:21 AM

Laura you have no credibility, because you know so much about isreal, yet you can't tell me 3 things that israel is wrong on or is guilty of.

I dare you to discuss in a single paragraph the bad side of israel .... You can't and you won't because you are biased and a follower, you lack the ability to think for yourself....Even bibi acknowledges his previous failures as the previous leader of the country.

Posted by: john at May 11, 2009 2:27 AM

I have the upmost support, for israel, but I will critise it when I think it's doing something wrong and stealing U.S. secrets is one of them.

John,

That is absurd.

Rachel Neuwirth wrote in December 2006, in an article entitled A National Disgrace:

Neither Keith Weissman nor Steven Weissman was ever an Israeli spy. Neither was recruited by Israeli agents. Neither received a cent from Israel. Neither gave classified documents to Israel. They never even saw such documents; rather they are accused of having passed on information that they had heard by word of mouth that their informants allegedly learned from such documents. In effect, they are charged with gossiping and trading in rumors!

In fact, they are not even technically accused of espionage, but only of giving "national security information" (a vague phrase that can refer to unclassified as well as classified information, not necessarily in writing) to "persons not entitled to receive it." These individuals, according to the indictment, included not only Israeli diplomats, but also unnamed American journalists and other American citizens not connected with Israel . The indictment thus criminalizes the widespread practice in Washington of leaking classified information to the press...

The Wall Street Journal featured an editorial in April 2007 noting the absurdity of the charge:
The consequences of this spectacle--the indictment of two citizens for activities that go on every day in Washington, and that are clearly protected under the First Amendment--far exceed any other in the now long list of non-crimes from which government attorneys have constructed major cases, or more precisely, show trials. A category in which we can include the mad prosecutorial pursuit of Mr. Libby.

The charge itself did not entail stealing secrets.

As far as your 'test' of openmindedness being that one should publicly list negatives about Israel--that is just plain silly.

Save that for your next job interview when your potential employer asks you to name your biggest fault.

Posted by: Daled Amos at May 11, 2009 9:19 AM

John do you have any idea what AIPAC believes? Are you aware that they are currently lobbying in SUPPORT OF A TWO-STATE SOLUTION? So yes, I would have to agree that AIPAC is nuts. They are nuts in wanting the establishment of an islamic terror state adjacent to Israel. AIPAC has also lobbied congress to provide money for fatah. So again, yes they are nuts. john, you and those of your ilk who have this knee-jerk reaction to AIPAC as "right wing" have not bothered to actually find out what the group has actually done.
===============================================
"The israeli government is no different then Iran, they just had behind a different religion and so called democracy".
.............................................
Why would I even dignify with a response a statement as absurd as this? This shows that you have absolutely no credibility john. As one example, Iran executes people for being homosexual, Israel doesn't even have the death penalty for terrorists and murderers. Yet you see no distinction between these countries. This is how convoluted the left is.

Posted by: Laura at May 11, 2009 12:21 PM

The idea of Iran nuking Israel is crazy. Israel is tiny and the initial blast and resulting fallout would kill as many Muslim Arabs as Jews. Think, people!

Posted by: Sid at May 20, 2009 3:40 PM

"The idea of Iran nuking Israel is crazy. Israel is tiny and the initial blast and resulting fallout would kill as many Muslim Arabs as Jews. Think, people!
...........................................
You need to think. They don't care about what happens to their own. I've stated this the other day that the Iranian rulers are fanatical muslims who are willing to sacrifice millions of their own in order to destroy Israel. Loyalty to the islamic caliphate supercedes loyalty to nation. Rafsanjani who the west refers to as "moderate" has said a first strike on Israel will only do damage to the islamic world but will destroy Israel. And here is what the ayahtollah khomeini said:

“We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.”

Posted by: Laura at May 20, 2009 7:06 PM

Besides the fact that Iran is Persian and shiite and would have no qualms about also killing Arab sunnis along with Jews. Sid, you need to get a clue.

Posted by: Laura at May 20, 2009 7:09 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?