Is the U.S. Stand on Israel’s Nukes Changing?

May 6, 2009

The Associated Press wants us to believe that Arabs and Israeli are on one page with regards to Iran:

The concerns being raised [about Iran] by Arab leaders sound strikingly like those coming from the mouths of Israeli officials.

…
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul-Gheit conveyed the concerns this week when U.S. envoy Dennis Ross, who is dealing with Iran, visited Cairo.

"Iran's behavior in the region is negative in many aspects and does not help in advancing security, stability and peace," he told Ross.

The spokesman of the Egypt's foreign ministry as well as the Egyptian president himself recently expressed something very different than what the AP writer tries to disseminate:

Western policies based on pressuring Iran to give up its nuclear program will fail because they disregard Israeli nuclear capabilities, which is "the first and greatest threat to security in the region," an Egyptian Foreign Ministry spokesman said on Monday.

…
In a meeting on Sunday with his Philippine counterpart, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President Hosni Mubarak said Egypt opposed any proliferation in the region and that efforts aimed at shedding light on the Iranian nuclear program must be accompanied by parallel efforts to deal with the Israeli program, according to a report in the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram on Sunday.

The Obama administration seems to have listened to the real concern the Arab countries have, Israel's nukes, not Iran's civil program. At a meeting of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty countries, the Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, responded to the Arab concern:

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

To mention Israel in this context is definitely a change in U.S. policy. Eli Lake in the Washington Times finds more traces of such a change and also some concerned Israel firsters:

For the past 40 years, Israel and the U.S. have kept quiet about an Israeli nuclear arsenal that is now estimated at 80 to 200 weapons. Israel has promised not to test nuclear weapons while the U.S. has not pressed Israel to sign the nuclear NPT, …

The U.S. also has opposed most regional calls for a "nuclear-free Middle East."
…
Mr. Obama has made nuclear disarmament a bigger priority in part to undercut Iran's and North Korea's rationale for proliferation.
…
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."

Some in Israel are worried too:

Former prime minister Ariel Sharon's chief strategist, Dov Weisglass, said Gottemoeller's comments were very alarming.

"If these statements indicate a change in American policy on this issue, I believe this may be the most worrisome development for Israel's security in many years," he told Army Radio.

But later on Wednesday, a Foreign Ministry official was quoted by Israel Radio as saying the statement did not signal a significant policy change from the United States.

We don't know what the Foreign Ministry official knows or not, but I find it indeed possible that Obama is preparing for some 'significant' change in the U.S. stand towards Israel's nukes.

The Saudis and the Egyptians have been quite vocal in making a connection of Israel's nukes and any pressure on Iran program. The Arabs-against-Iran hype the 'west' and one Arab propaganda-shop make is not the reality.

The Obama administration may well have caught up with that and understand that no big move in Middle East is possible without putting a lot of pressure on Israel. Its nukes are certainly a point where such pressure could and should be applied.

What is your take on this?

Posted by b on May 6, 2009 at 15:54 UTC | Permalink

Comments

I think that cracks are appearing in the facade but they will remain only cracks. There is no way that Israel will give up their nukes. The US will admit the nukes grudgingly and try to change the subject. In that way, AIPAC has already failed in one of their main objectives. The hypocrisy of US-Israeli relations compared to demands on other countries is so deep it won’t make that much of a difference.
On a related note, has anyone else noticed how inept Robert Gibbs, Obama’s press secretary, is? Also the State Dept. spokesperson. Maybe they are not lying as much as Bush’s, but I have yet to hear them answer a serious question directly. Most of the time they say they don’t have the details and move on.
I want someone who can spin on the spot!

Posted by: biklett | May 6 2009 16:57 utc | 1

I read the first linked article to try to find out what source(s) the AP writers were using here:

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul-Gheit conveyed the concerns this week when U.S. envoy Dennis Ross, who is dealing with Iran, visited Cairo.
“Iran’s behavior in the region is negative in many aspects and does not help in advancing security, stability and peace,” he told Ross.

How does the writer know the FM said this? Who told the writer that the FM told Dennis Ross this? To me, just not clear, although the quotation marks indicate exact words of the FM. Are we to assume that since the FM’s name appears, it was he who told the reporter this? Or was it Ross? Some anonymous aides of either? Other anonymous sources?
Seems to have been written to create an impression , while leaving room for deniability. Thus, seems untrustworthy to me.

Posted by: jawbone | May 6 2009 17:12 utc | 2

how far away do you guys think we are from a “7 days in may” scenario?

Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 6 2009 17:36 utc | 3

from my conversations with fellow US citizens I find a great deal of support for Israel, no matter what it does. It doesn’t just come from the non stop propaganda and consent manufacturers in corporate media, in fact most of it among non Jews is from the various churches in the US. The Holy Land inspires people to think of Jesus walking around among the olive trees and the thought of smarmy Arabs with their shifty ways and weird customs having control of that area is just too spooky.
in that respect, I believe that you will find very little popular support to dearm Israel. No one wants to leave those poor folks defenseless among all those savages.
for anyone just cruising by, those are not my thoughts or opinions, only what I perceive other people’s to be.

Posted by: dan of steele | May 6 2009 17:53 utc | 4

I imagine Israel could give up most of its nuclear weapons and still have hegemonic military power in the ME. I’ve always felt Israel’s need for these weapons was more about psychological self-assurance than external threat, a reflection of its megalomaniac/insecurity complex.
So the field is wide open for resolutions, negotiations, compromise — which will appease public opinion, without changing anything fundamental.

Posted by: senecal | May 6 2009 17:58 utc | 5

U$-
I’d say we’re a long, long way from a happy ending if that’s what you’re asking… But of course you’re not.
Great piece of cinema; loved the symbolism of how at the end most of the action is taking place in or around the media… even the Joint Chiefs set created the feeling of a studio… the huge loudspeaker in one scene, good feces, but that’s not what we’re really concerned with either.
No, we need to ask how close is America to a military coup? I’d argue it probably has already happened, at least to some degree. Since Reagan (maybe long before) I’d say the military has had far too much power over the government, just look at the military budget as all the proof you need.
When I get really fucked-up I dream of what america could do with all the money we spend on bombs and the geewhizz gear to deliver them. Bombs… things aren’t good for shit; sit around waiting to destroy life and property rather than create something useful, what a waste!
Thanks U$

Posted by: DavidS | May 6 2009 18:15 utc | 6

I imagine the American Power in the form of a cone with the power concentrated at the apex and diffusing all over the world. That power is constantly wasted in quarrels among atheists Christians gays abortionists pro lifers Koreans Chinese, peak oil, dollar weakness and so on. The attention that the American source of power can devote to all these problems is partitioned and fundamentally wasted. On the other hand Zionism forms a cone in which the power, diffuse at the base, becomes more and more concentrated towards the apex where the attention and aim of Zionists is focused. Everything is done on that account so the American government is in a very difficult position because its power diffuses while the opposite power concentrates.
Comparisons must not be squeezed.

Posted by: jlcg | May 6 2009 19:49 utc | 7

I fear for this administration. It’s near political suicide for them to critice Israel and be able to get away with it. But thankfully the recent Gaza war and the AIPAC spy scandal has made it much more difficult for Israel to get away with everything.

Posted by: Anthony | May 6 2009 20:27 utc | 8

Mordechai Vanunu, Mensch, removed all ambiguity about the Israeli nuclear arsenal’s existence 23 years ago and has since been vindictively persecuted by Israel’s childish, decrepit, petulant authorities.
Any NPT regime that includes Israel will be built on foundations laid by Mordechai Vanunu at great ongoing personal sacrifice.
The world owes him.

Posted by: Pvt. Keepout | May 6 2009 20:47 utc | 9

Settlement expansion seeing biggest boost since 2003
By Amos Harel
Tags: settlements, netanyahu, obama
West Bank construction has been accelerating for several months, putting Israel on a collision course with a U.S. administration taking a hard line on settlement expansion.
A new outpost, new roads, and other building projects have raced ahead in and around the settlements, often without legal permits, producing the biggest construction drive since 2003, according to Dror Etkes of the Israeli advocacy group Yesh Din. That group monitors construction in the West Bank.
The construction, which has sped up even more since Benjamin Netanyahu’s government took office this spring, is to be a main issues in U.S. President Barack Obama’s meeting with Netanyahu at mid-month.
Advertisement
Vice President Joe Biden called on Israel on Tuesday to stop building in the settlements and to dismantle existing illegal outposts. However, left-wing groups monitoring events in the territories say the construction has accelerated in recent months, not halted.
Examples include the following:
Construction in outposts: Between Talmon and Nahliel, west of Ramallah, a stone house and another structure have been built without a permit, next to a vineyard set up by settlers a year and a half ago. The Israel Defense Forces’ civil administration has recently issued an order to stop the project.
Illegal construction has been carried out on Palestinian land at the outposts Mitzpeh Ahiya and Adei-Ad, north of Ramallah. A mobile home has been set in an outpost near Susia south of Hebron. An outpost that was vacated near Hebron has been reinstated.
Construction east of the separation fence: New houses have been built in the Eli settlement, Rechelim, Ma’aleh Michmash and Kochav Hashahar (north and east of Ramallah). In addition, a neighborhood has been built in Na’ale, and there are at least 10 houses in Halamish and new houses in Talmon (all west of Ramallah).
Construction west of the planned fence route: Land has been prepared for building in the Kedar settlement, and 30 houses have been built in Ma’aleh Shomron. There is also a new neighborhood in both the Elkana and Zofim settlements.
Road construction and farmland: This has gone on near the Bracha settlement south of Nablus, near Tapuach, in the Eli and Shiloh area and in the Amona and Elazar settlements.
The accelerated construction stems mainly from the reduced supervision of events in the territories in the last stages of the Olmert government, while Netanyahu’s right-wing government, part of which supports the construction, hasn’t begun to address the issue.
The settlers also took advantage of the public and media attention’s focus on Gaza during the IDF offensive in January to continue the settlements and outposts’ expansion in the territories.
Israel is officially committed to the promise made by former prime minister Ariel Sharon to the Bush administration to evacuate all illegal outposts built after March 2001. But evacuations have been carried out languidly and with long intervals.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak recently reached an agreement with the settlers to evacuate the largest outpost, Migron, and transfer it to the nearby settlement Adam. But the agreement has yet to be implemented.
The Mitchell Report of May 2001 and the Bush administration’s road map of 2003 called on Israel to halt all construction in the settlements. This implies stopping construction for natural growth as well. Israel, however, has never stopped this kind of construction.
Sharon’s government reached a tacit agreement with the Bush administration to reduce construction east of the separation fence. Israel kept this promise until recently, when building resumed there as well, mostly without legal permits.
The extensive and often illegal construction west of the fence and in the large settlements has been going on continuously. The authorities have not tried to stop it even in cases of illegal construction, says Etkes.
The defense minister’s bureau said Barak supports evacuating outposts not because of promises to the Americans but to maintain the rule of law. Every new outpost is evacuated immediately, Barak’s aides said. The minister is not under the impression that the construction of illegal outposts and settlements has accelerated, they said.

Posted by: Anthony | May 7 2009 1:20 utc | 10

Seems I heard some talking head accidentally blurt that the Saudis have nukes. Perhaps it was on MorningJoe a couple of days ago. Richard Haas [sic] of CFR I think was on. I don’t recall if he was the one. I wasn’t recording or anything.
It caught me by surprise. It wasn’t a case of confusion with Pakistan I don’t think. It could have been a confusion with Israel as a mental misspeak. It was dropped and never was repeated.
It wouldn’t surprise me to learn the Saudis have nukes. As the idea has sat with me, it seems they must. They do have the clout and have been incredibly good friends with regards to oil.
I haven’t been here long enough to know if you’re all hip to the fact that oil inventories were at record highs during the “peak oil pinch of ’08” whose collapsing prices have certainly exacerbated those hedge fund traders who’d risked $300b. in 2007, from $9b. in 2001.

Posted by: scott | May 7 2009 2:21 utc | 11

let us hope that events will soon prevail upon Israel to acknowledge which is the donor and which is the client state, and that, for once, they might display a little humility and gratitude.

Posted by: dm nolan | May 7 2009 2:45 utc | 12

More rhetoric to appease the Arabs, nothing more. Not much different than Bush’s pledge of a Palestinian state by 2005.

Posted by: Sam | May 7 2009 5:57 utc | 13

@Scott – I discussed Saudi nukes a while ago. I believe they have some.

Posted by: b | May 7 2009 6:12 utc | 14

I think the U.S. electorate has such support for Israel because of the traditional favoring bias that runs through the U.S. legislative branch, mass media (Hollywood, anyone? Madison Avenue, anyone?), the intelligence services (i.e. — CIA), and big parts of the Dept. of State.
Some of those biases are more recently evolved than others, but Israel has made the most of their resources, and pushed hard to expand them all.
Yet nuclear capability is something that could prove an effective wedge against that bloc. Anyone in their right mind knows that any and all arguments in favor of expanding the use of nuclear weaponry is sheer madness; it is an issue that cuts to basic survival instincts, and a good means of separating raving lunatics from humans who actually share humanity, rather than just pretend to.
It’ll be an interesting gambit. I hope it works. Certainly, by calling attention to Israel’s nukes — and its insistence upon their right to use them — this administration will be calling Israeli lobby out to a showdown at high noon.
The key here will be how well Fox News, the WaPo, and the NYTimes coordinate the propaganda, and how much airplay people from the Junta manage to get allocated for their rantings. That’s where the battle’s going to be played out, and it will, at its root, be a single issue:
Will the American people accept the expansion of warfare to include nuclear aggression against another country, or will they reject it?
Lord, i do hope we’ll come together and make the right decision on this one.
Unfortunately, i fear this also means that in a generation or two we’ll be re-visiting this question again.

Posted by: china_hand2 | May 7 2009 6:58 utc | 15

Americans typically support the underdog, and if anybody fit that description, in the postwar years it was the pitiable Jews who survived the camps. For some reason, Americans still see Israel as the home of those same starved, beaten survivors rather than a nation with nukes and an agenda of viciously driving out the Palestinians from their (the Palestinians) homeland.
When you say Israel, you bring up the old image of starved men and women peering through barbed wire. How can you not defend them ….
Surely, after 60 years, it is time to see Israeli Jews as aggressors rather than as victims.

Posted by: Ensley | May 7 2009 14:16 utc | 16

DavidS #6, not the military, the weapons and funds suppliers.
Eisenhower warned correctly, just well after the fact.
Ensley #16, Israelis are victims. The aggression is desired by the leadership, leading as told, not by the majority of the citizenry.

Posted by: plushtown | May 8 2009 1:42 utc | 17

They must be stomping their feet now:

The United States has denied Israel to repair computer systems in the F-35, according to local daily The Jerusalem Post on Friday.
The report said the U.S. refusal to allow Israel to repair computer systems in the F-35, the fifth-generation fighter jet, is at the heart of disagreements between Israeli Defense Ministry and the Pentagon.

http://www.mbtmag.com/articleXml/LN968567797.html

Posted by: m | May 8 2009 15:16 utc | 18

Back to Main