This is the 21st article in a
special series on oil and the Persian Gulf. For
previous articles, please see the foot of the
page.
The nuclear issue in the
Middle East has focused on Iran's enrichment
program, with little attention to Israel's vast
nuclear arsenal and on the likelihood of wider
nuclear proliferation in the region.
A
nuclear Middle East is not only a danger to itself
but also to a much wider region and could even be
the venue for a nuclear World War III, with
catastrophic human losses and the world economy
thrown back to the dark ages. Before we get ahead
of ourselves, some background on the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT),
Israel's position and
Iran's nuclear quest.
One of the two most significant
inducements to signatories under the NPT (Iran is
a signatory and Israel is not) is the promise of
access to peaceful nuclear technology, including
enrichment and heavy water reactors. The
understanding was that signatories would disclose
all their nuclear activities.
Iran failed
to disclose all of its activities, and it claims
that disclosing its peaceful enrichment activities
would have led to the voiding of its rights under
the NPT even earlier. The US argues that because
of the nature of the regime in Tehran and the
failure to disclose all nuclear activities, Iran
has lost its right to enrichment.
From a
legal standpoint, Iran has not violated the NPT
and the nature of the Tehran regime is irrelevant
under the NPT. Countries, not governments, have
rights and obligations, and these are unaffected
by changes in government. Simultaneously under the
NPT, signatories could expect the support of the
International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) for
safeguards and other assistance in their quest for
peaceful reactors. The IAEA's board denied Iran's
request for such assistance for its heavy water
reactor in Arak on November 23, 2006. The key
questions are whether Iran has the legal right to
enrich and to develop heavy water reactors? The
answer is yes to both.
The other major
inducement to signatories of the NPT was that the
then existing nuclear powers would reduce and
eventually eliminate their own nuclear arsenals.
Have the declared nuclear powers, especially the
US, fulfilled their end of the bargain under the
NPT? The answer is no. They have been both slow to
reduce their arsenal or have increased it, the US
is developing new classes of nuclear weapons and
other countries continue to test their nuclear
weapons.
Meanwhile, India and Pakistan
have acquired nuclear weapons outside of the NPT.
Both countries are now given support by the
international community. The US has even embraced
India's nuclear weapons program, signing a nuclear
cooperation and development program that allows
India to accelerate its weapons program. At the
same time, Israel is estimated to have at least
200 nuclear warheads and a multifaceted delivery
system (plane, missile and submarine) and openly
threatens Iran with military action.
Western, and especially US, double
standards have not escaped Iran's or anybody
else's notice.
Even more importantly,
after Saddam Hussein invaded Iran, the United
Nations and the West took no serious diplomatic
action against Iraqi aggression, thereby failing
to uphold the international rule of law. During
the course of this bloody eight-year war, Saddam
used US and European-supplied biological and
chemical weapons to kill and maim Iranians in the
thousands, while the West embargoed the sales of
even conventional weapons to Iran and supplied
Iraq with all its needs, including satellite
intelligence. The result was that more than
500,000 Iranians died and even more were injured,
with many permanently disabled by foreign supplied
weapons of mass destruction. Average Iranians, not
just the mullahs, painfully learned what it was to
be vulnerable to external aggression. The UN and
international agreements did not provide the
needed assurance and peace of mind for Iranians.
The undermining of the international rule of law
has consequences, although not always immediate.
As a result, Iran and Iranians (and not
just those who oppose the regime) feel more
insecure, victimized and bullied than at any time
in recent memory. For these reasons, the nuclear
enrichment program is widely popular in Iran
because an integrated nuclear power (not weapons)
program may be the only way they can get the
security they seek as it affords them the ability
to develop a deterrent in case of imminent threat.
To our mind, Iran will not relinquish its
capability and capacity to enrich uranium to the
20% level; and it may be even reluctant to
handover its stock of 20%, or even 5%, enriched
uranium. To believe otherwise is not realistic.
While nuclear proliferation is to be
avoided at all cost, the dangers of its
proliferation in the Middle East is even more
problematic given the multitude of simmering
conflicts in the region and the importance of oil
to the global economy (the focus of next week's
article).
If Iran's right to enrichment
were fully recognized by the West, China and
Russia, and Iran kept its stockpiles of 5% and 20%
enriched uranium, then it is highly likely that
some countries in the region would also follow
suit, including possibly Egypt, Turkey and Saudi
Arabia (for itself or as a joint venture with the
other countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council -
or GCC); and Saudi Arabia already has medium-range
Chinese missiles that are capable of carrying
nuclear warheads. Given the GCC's vast oil and
financial wealth and the fact that everything is
available at a price, their acquisition of such
capabilities would be more or less immediate.
Such developments would, at least for some
time, spike oil prices to levels never seen
before. The markets would become jittery for fear
of accidental or intentional contamination of oil
fields that could lead a rush to build vast
storage facilities, spiking the demand for oil and
safe storage facilities. The price spike would be
much more significant, of longer term and have the
potential of leading to global economic disaster
never seen before if Iran and other countries in
the region acquired nuclear warheads and the
needed delivery vehicle. Even a whiff of such a
possibility would spike oil prices to
unprecedented levels.
What can be done to
lower the temperature and forestall potential
human and economic catastrophes in the region?
First, let's not forget some horrible mistakes of
the past that must be lessons for the future,
mistakes that must not be repeated.
The
founding principles of the UN must be applied
uniformly, no matter who the aggressor and the
victim. The global powers should not flaunt
international law (supplying Saddam Hussein with
internationally banned chemical and biological
weapons) and expect the victim, Iran, not to take
steps to defend itself. The US should not reward
India, a non-signatory to the NPT, and expect
others to forfeit their full options under the
NPT. In short, when the powerful flaunt
international law as it suits them they cannot
then expect countries to believe to trust them and
put their faith in the just application of
international law.
Given the status quo
and all that has happened in recent years in the
Middle East, what is (are) the best way(s)
forward? The sensible solution is to declare the
whole region a nuclear-free zone. This is
something that Iran and the Arab countries have
all endorsed but Israel has rejected this
solution.
Israel's thinking and reluctance
is difficult to comprehend. Israel is by far the
strongest conventional military power (with the
possible exception of Turkey). Israel enjoys the
full support of the US and could rely on US
support in case of danger to its existence. If
Israel were to use a number of its nuclear
warheads in the region (with the possible
exception of using them on Iran), the fallout
might threaten its own existence. But even more
importantly, if Israel expands its nuclear
arsenal, acquires more and more sophisticated
delivery systems and is at odds with the Arab
world, then it is only a matter of time before
other countries acquire nuclear weaponry.
When and if this happens (as Israel cannot
stop the entire Arab world from acquiring nuclear
weapons, something that may have escaped their
thinking), then Israel, the region and the world
will be threatened as never before.
If
Israel will not succumb to accepting the region as
a nuclear-free zone, then a second-best solution
would be to accept Iran's right to peaceful
nuclear enrichment with the understanding that
Iran will agree to a number of safeguards
(including the most intrusive inspections to date)
to guarantee, as much as humanly possible, that it
will not develop nuclear warheads.
This
contract could serve as a model to safeguard the
future of non-proliferation and is the only
peaceful approach to a resolution of the nuclear
standoff with Iran.
NEXT: Oil -
the fuel for conflicts and wars with economic
fallout far and wide
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
