Hi Roy,

Colin Kahl (see article attached) has shown that nuclear capabilities can have a stabilizing effect but can also have an increased effect on civil or small scale wars within a region. However, I do agree that there needs to be a balance in the Middle East where nuclear capacity is concerned. However, the difference between Israel and the Arab country is very great and the starting point for the development of a NWFZ is far apart. There are other factors to be considered within this context as well. The general unrest within the region produces general distrust, the religious differences and the influence of the US all add to the complexities of the situation.

Over the years there has been different models developed to assist in this endevour. One has been to develop a limited NWFZ that leaves Israel out but of the initial agreement but then develops treaty that is signed by all countries who have nuclear capacity. The treaty states that no nuclear power will use their nuclear weapons again countries and facilities that are part of the NWFZ in the Middle East. This may represent a first step in establishing a NWFZ.

Christine,

What you describe is the stability/instability paradox of international relations theory and although on the surface, as Roy has presented, has some merit. However we must remember that within the paradox there is a general assumption that all actors participating in the paradox are “rational”. Many would argue that the outgoing President of Iran was anything but rational. The same argument could be made against Saddam Hussein prior to his overthrow. You are correct that the civil war in Syria further complicates the issue as the current government is embattled and the jury is out as to the motivations of the opposition forces.

I do not subscribe to the thesis that the presence of weapons of mass destruction secure the peace, as Roy would propose, rather rational leaders do. Although there is an argument for a condition of balance of power as a deterrent, the fact remains that WMD’s are meant only as a deterrent and not a practical weapon to be used. The greatest problem with WMD’s is their potential, not as tools of deterrence, but rather as destructive force in the wrong hands.

But your question is, can there be a NWFZ in the Middle East. To this I would say yes, but only if Israel were to return to a nuclear free state, and unfortunately that condition seems unlikely.

Hi Mark,

Agree re the stability/instability paradox of IR theory. Scholars such as Kenneth Waltz have argued that Iran leadership is rationale and while their practiced inflammatory rhetoric they were very conscious of how far they could push and did not go beyond that point. I have often wondered if the leadership of Israel is rationale with the new settlements and their attacks on installation that they believe threaten their sovereignty of supremacy on the military front. Is this anymore rational than what we hear from Iran?

In considering a NWFZ in the middle East one should also take into account the various players in the debate. It is not only the Arabs and the Israeli but the US and Turkey both have a stake in any discussions and at present they both back different sides in the debate. Turkey has joined with Egypt and other Arab countries to call for the implementation of the NWFZ while the US has sided with Israel. there is a gulf between the two sides with the starting almost in opposite directions. Israel requires peace throughout the region and a recognition of its sovereign status as a starting point where the Arab states are looking to agree on a NWFZ and then work towards peace.

Like you I do not hold out much hope for a NWFZ in the Middle East.

Teena

This i really a complicated (or should I say tricky?) question. I am far from being a Middle East expert but given the asymmetry between Israel and the Arab states, is the Isreali nuclear potential, seen from Tel Aviv, a balancer of a kind, psychologically at last?

A consensus about a NWFZ to be launched is at best little feasible. The one who would seriously suggest it would also signal that he is likely to leg behind with military/defense preparedness, or...?

Hi Pavol

Yes it is a tricky question but I think a rather important one.The gulf between Israel and the Arab countries is very large and even the starting point for negotiation is far apart. Given the unrest and civil war (proxy regional war) that is currently being played out in Syria where we have seen chemical weapons used it is critical that some agreement is developed that holds governments accountable.

In regards to Israel and its nuclear capacity,most Arab countries see this as a threat not an equalizer. Israel has a history of assassinations of other countries nuclear experts and bombing of nuclear facilities in nearby countries when it believes they are reaching a nuclear weapon capacity.

Neorealism practitioners (Waltz) would argue that there needs to a power balance in the middle East and should Iran successful develop a nuclear capacity then the Middle East would be much safer and stable. I don't necessarily agree with this stance,however I do think there is an imbalance not only in the nuclear weapons are but in the conventional weapons arena as well and Israel has used this to their advantage.

Hi Christine,

I agree that gulf between Israel and the Palestinians is even bigger nowdays than we were used to see it in the course of the last decade or two and if some agreement could be brought about soon, even of a minor importance per se, it would render some help so as not to escalete the situation.

It is logical that the Arab states perceive Israeli nuclear potential as a threat. On the other hand, I find it also logical to think of it as a balancer though Israeli lens. Given the quantitative gulf between Israel and her moreless hostile Arab neighbours as far as conventional military capacities are concerned, perhaps the only way how to live with it is to bet on a technological preponderance. There, the nuclear potential is the key.

Now, how much is this a real threat? The entire Cold War did not see an offensive employment of nuclear weapons (the Cuban Missile Crisis was at best a half-step in this direction) whereas they did work as deterrents and later on as bargaining chips in preserving the balance as well as coming to terms about other agenda. Here, I subscribe to a Waltzian view, I think (Note: I have problem with Neorealism relying so much on the assumption of rational policy-making).

Of course, a superpower rivalry is somewhat different from the constellation we have in the Middle East. But the need of an actor which is by all means likely to leg substantially behind his potential enemies to possess a decisive deterrent is evident for me.

The Iran question is serious and I see I opened the door for it to enter this discussion with my yesterday post. However, I would rather come back to your original question, in conclusion. I see chances for a Middle East NWFZ very poor, as it would, in my view, gravely distort the precarious balance, depriving Israel of a working deterrent.

Apparently, the credibility of nuclear deterrence which is promote peace and stability in in nuclear owners region, would rely on rationality factor of different nuclear players. if we are agree with this assumption, in the case Arab region, the likelihood of uncertainty about decision makers rationality is so high, and seems irreducible in short- term future. In short, the applicability of NWFZ in Arab region is quite a utopian dream.

Israel's nuclear weapon arsenal is the least of the problems. They've had these for decades and have never used them, despite being attacked by their neighbors in several full-scale wars and living under a constant insurgent threat.

Ensuring the Islamic nations of the Middle East remain nuclear weapon-free is another matter. Islamic political ideology compels adherents to wage war against those who don't follow Islam (Qur'an 2:190-193, 2:216-218, inter alia). The past 1,400 years of history are replete with examples of this. How seriously a nation takes this ideology directly influences the threat that they will attempt to acquire nuclear weapons. There are of course other factors - the overall wealth and scientific advancement of the nation in question, for example - but the overarching indicators are the ideologies of the governments and their track record in violent acts against their neighbors, their citizens, and against those who don't adhere to their ideology.

A notable exception to this is North Korea, which is neither in the Middle East nor is Islamic. Nonetheless, several distinct parallels exist: a nation compelled to blindly follow an ideology (communism) embodied in one leader (Kim Jong Un), which severely punishes anyone who dissents, which would, if the means were available, attempt to dominate its neighbors.

This then should make those nations that already possess nuclear weapons ask the following: are we overly committed to a dangerous ideology; does power reside in one political leader; do we punish peaceful dissenters; are we attempting to violently subdue our neighbors? If the answer is no, then there shouldn't be a problem. If the answer is yes, others ought to start worrying.

Long story, short answer: change a nation's ideology and you can change how dangerously it would handle its nuclear arsenal.

Hi Timothy,

While I agree ideology does play a role in determining nuclear capabilities there are other factors as well including how secure the nation feels within the international community, the perceived need for a balance of power within the region, the regional support the nation has and the practical ability to actually create a nuclear weapon.

The ideology determines how dangerous a country with nuclear capabilities would be. Not too many countries are worried that France or Israel have them, but world leaders lose sleep thinking about N. Korea, Iran, and Pakistan possessing them.

They certainly do and ideology or politician leanings play a major part. In the Nuclear Free Treaty which countries like France,UK,Russia USA etc signed there is a covenant that acknowledges that five countries have nuclear weapons and these has countries have a certain status within the treaty. officially Israel does not have an nuclear weapons as the country has never declared any and their weapons are behind a veil of secrecy. Iran Pakistan and Nth Korea have never signed the treaty and they countries are a bit unstable.

What a great question. Seeking to find an answer to your question is like trying to win first prize in a lottery where the odds are fantastic. I would like to think that one day that Arab and Jewish peoples will live in peace and harmony by turning their weapons into plowshares. I am dreaming , of course, but the Middle East needs political leaders of good will who are prepared to put their differences aside for the sake of peace. There are no such leaders in the Middle East.

Indeed, given the mutual distrust and animosity between Israel and the other leading states in the region it will be difficult to see how a a nuclear weapon free zone can be possible, particularly in the short term. Certainly, Israel's nuclear capability creates power imbalance and explains, for example, its arch rival, Iran's nuclear weapon project. As Waltz and other realists believe, states engage in balancing acts to counter the military might of the other -- what some call balance of threat. I think , efforts should be made, at the global level, to bring into being a nuclear free planetary order -- that is, the search for a nuclear weapon free middle east begins at the global level.

Yes the is much animosity an mistrust between many different states in the ME and if you ad the religious dimension it makes the region even more volatile. The realists argue very strongly for a balance of power and for sovereignty of all states from interference by other states. The UN Charter is base on the principle of sovereignty for all states. Chapter V1 and V11 of the charter does allow for intervention ordered by the UNSC under exceptional circumstances.

The Russian have strong trade and economic interests throughout the region, the Chinese have natural resource interests an the US has so called strategic interests and as such the ME is in a perpetual state of insecurity.

There is a nonproliferation agreement hosted by the UN that the majority of countries have signed. However it does give certain rights to the five states who already had a nuclear capacity when the treaty was agreed to and ratified. This has been one of the reasons the nonaligned countries like India, Iran, Pakistan and Nth Korea have not ratified the treaty.

One way to minimize the strategic value of the M.E. for the West and simultaneously do something good for the environment would be to develop alternative fuels and energy sources that no longer rely on oil. In the Middle Ages, the Middle East was of strategic importance because all trade from West to East had to go through there, and they thereby had a choke-hold on Europe spanning from Spain to the Bosporus. Once the Spanish and Portuguese discovered sea lanes around Africa and two resource-rich continents, the strategic value and power of countries in the M.E. dropped significantly.

It's time once again to "circumnavigate" most of the M.E. and it's ideological commitment to violence, stop putting our wealth into their oil-rich hands, and start developing solar power, biofuels/ethanol, geothermal energy, fusion, thorium nuclear reactors, and so on.

If Iran can't afford nuclear weapons because nobody's buying their oil, they can't build them.

While I agree with your sentiments I think they will be a long while happening.We are see some progress between Iran and the US with the election of a moderate President however this has a long way to go.

Israel will be a thorn in the side of any nuclear agreement as the Arabs and Israel are unable to agree on a starting point for discussions while the nuclear power states are .divided on the issue. As Timothy has indicated there are strong economic and religious issues that drive this agenda not only regionally but also internationally.

This brings us back to the fact (or assumption) that prospects of a NWFZ in the Middle East are, at present or, if you prefer, in a foreseenable future, extremely low, if any.

Yes. With the gulf between Israel and the Arab countries even on the agenda is seems unlikely that a NWFZ will come about. America has other things on their minds at present.

The short answer, as you have already arrived at, is: No.

The long answer is that a NWFZ would require credible guarantees from powerful outsiders, like the "extended deterrence" provided by the US to its allies (like Japan, South Korea, and Germany). Probably the only state in the ME that would trust the US to provide such a guarantee is Israel. Due to the inherent credibility issues involved in extended deterrence, however (see Schelling's "Arms and Influence" or, for a short cut, Morgan's "Deterrence Now" or (really short!) Freedman's "Deterrence"), even Israel does not feel safe enough for someone else to guarantee its security. The only other possibility is Russia, but Iran has plenty of historical reasons not to trust Russia and anyway the same credibility issues that apply intrinsically to extended nuclear deterrence also apply here.

The only reason no other state in the ME has yet developed nuclear weapons is because of US guarantees (and occasional attacks on nuclear facilities), but these are conventional rather than nuclear guarantees. The fear is that once Iran has a bomb, all the credibility issues with US deterrence will be intensified, and states like Saudi Arabia will feel obliged to develop nukes of their own to feel secure. The US's "rebalancing" towards the Pacific and apparent lack of commitment to punishing Syria for using chemical weapons exacerbate this situation.

And by the way, this is a moot point, but do you really believe that if the world stopped buying Middle Eastern oil, the rivalries between all the countries there would suddenly disappear? In fact, the decay of oil-based economies as oil exports slumped would be more likely to increase instability than decrease it. Sure, they'd have less money to buy weapons (a key impact of oil exports so far), but to see what happens when poor states harbor deeply ingrained hostility towards one another, one only has to look towards Africa... Or is that more desirable because we could then just ignore the Middle East the same way we ignore Africans killing each other?

Of course the rivalries won't disappear until people's ideologies and prejudices in that region change. The killings in Africa aren't exactly ignored, either. Sure, they don't get the immediate response that unrest in countries with strategic resources get, but nations eventually respond. We'd also have more resources to combat human rights violations in Africa if we didn't need to spend billions on stabilizing the even more chaotic Middle East. Furthermore, much of the killing in Africa stems from violent Islamic groups coming out of N. Africa and the Middle East (al Shabaab, Boko Haram, AQIM, etc.), who are funded by charitable, oil-rich nations such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar. We'll have better success developing alternate energy sources so that we can ignore Middle East oil than we will have changing their ideologies, which means they'll have to resort to sticks and stones to do their killings, rather than bombs and tanks (or, God forbid, nukes), and they won't really have the means to export their terror to the West, East, or sub-Saharan Africa. The quickest way to defeat an enemy in combat is to cut off his resupply lines (i.e. funding), which Middle Eastern oil and the drug trade in Afghanistan and N. Africa richly provide.

You are right about those issues in particular, Timothy, and I admit that my answer is guilty of some hyperbole. But your comment "We'd also have more resources to combat human rights violations in Africa if we didn't need to spend billions on stabilizing the even more chaotic Middle East" says it all because, for the foreseeable future, we will not be able to avoid the Middle East. Let's get to work on alternative energy in the meantime for other reasons. Part of this approach ought also to be alternative sources of energy, like getting it from stable countries' shale oil and gas reserves! (Bet I've opened a can of worms there!)

Shale oil will soon remove our dependency on M.E. oil, but it leads to environmental concerns. It would be a good stop-gap solution until other technologies are viable. Thorium nuclear reactors, solar and wind power, electrical vehicles, even possibly LENR could all resolve the issue without environmental concerns.

I think this is a complex issue with many variables. Oil does play a role in facilitating the the buying of weapons and the support of terrorist organisations but an equally important issue in the safety of the ME is religion. Yes it would be good to see alternative energy sources but would this really make a great difference in the ME. The split between the Sunni and the Shites is a complication that can not be ignored and is at the heart of the instability in the ME. Throw in Israel's concerns and land grabs in the Gaza and you have a mixture for disaster. There is one recognized nuclear power that of Israel although this has never been acknowledged by Israel and one country with potential which is Iran and given their rhetoric and religious/philosophical difference it is not a good situation.

Guarantees by the US or the five powers that are members of international convention and inspection organisation would not work due to mistrust across the region.

In regards to Africa in many ways the world has become African out due to the continued problems including poverty, civil war, corruption etc. Huge amount of resource have already been ploughed into the region by governments and many would ask for what gain. I am not sure that even if the ME was a stable region then additional resources would be directed at Africa. In financial terms the most likely sponsor of Africa at least for infrastructure and resource development is China although this comes with many strings attached and further complications

i think you can study on strategic stability and instability to find out your answer.in this issue you can find a model to understand how risks of escalation and costs of arms race plus regional instability can reach to choosing nuclear weapon as a stabilizer tools.

Thats for your answer I will have a look for a relevant model.