Israeli officials were shocked by Robert Gates' statement to Congress that Israel has nuclear weapons, and they are worrying over why the U.S. secretary of defense-designate made this statement.

In particular, they want to know two things: First, whether this statement was a private initiative by Gates, or whether he coordinated it with the top levels of the American administration. And second, whether he was implying that since Israel has nuclear weapons, it can deal with any nuclear threat from Iran on its own.

If this was his intention, it would contradict what Prime Minister Ehud Olmert heard from U.S. President George W. Bush at their recent meeting. But Gates has had extensive experience in intelligence and diplomacy, and he does not have a reputation for slips of the tongue on sensitive issues. And while he is not one of Israel's fans, he is also not anti-Israel, and in the past, he has been understanding of Israel's security problems.

	Advertisement

Israeli officials were also shocked by Gates' expression of understanding for Iran's desire to obtain nuclear weapons: He listed all the states near Iran that do have nuclear weapons - Pakistan, India and Israel - and noted that not long ago, Saddam Hussein's Iraq also attempted to acquire the bomb. Furthermore, he said, the United States is a nuclear power, and its forces are deployed in Iran's vicinity throughout the Middle East, and Russia, another nuclear power, is also nearby.

It could be that Gates, a former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, was simply analyzing the situation like an intelligence officer. However, he was not testifying to Congress as an intelligence officer, but rather as a candidate for defense secretary - in which capacity he is supposed to adopt policy positions.

Moreover, Gates said nothing about Iran's other possible reasons for wanting nuclear weapons - a desire for regional influence and prestige and to bolster its ability to foment terrorism. Nor did he stress the fact that Iran's quest for nuclear weapons has been accompanied by repeated threats to eradicate another Middle Eastern country - a fact that gives this quest an offensive rather than a defensive character, and thus makes it unique in nuclear history. And he essentially equated Iran with Israel, albeit indirectly: The former wants nuclear weapons, and the latter already has them.

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney has also made remarks about Israel's nuclear capabilities in the past, but these were indirect and cautious statements. Gates, in contrast, ended Israel's policy of nuclear ambiguity in one fell swoop - even though Washington has always supported this policy. Indeed, successive U.S. presidents actively pressured Israel to refrain from any action that might result in it being perceived as a nuclear threat, and successive Israeli prime ministers always acceded to this request.

Now, the question is how to respond to Gates' statement. The prevailing view in Jerusalem is that Israel should nevertheless continue its policy of nuclear ambiguity, though in academia and elsewhere there are dissenters who argue that this policy should be discarded. Should Israel publicly confirm Gates' statement, supporters of ambiguity argue, this could send shock waves through the Middle East, and particularly through Sunni Arab states that oppose Iran.