Israel must not forget the price of nuclear war
Israel's image as having nuclear weapons makes it easier for countries like Iran to make progress in that respect.
By Uri Bar-Yosef Tags: Israel newsIn 1987, Politika, the Israeli journal of political science, issued a special edition under the title "Israel's Nuclear Policy: The Intolerable Weakness of the Debate." Since then, the nuclear issue has become more acute while discussion of the question has totally disappeared.
This is a dangerous situation. The experience gathered during the Cold War, particularly in the United States, shows that while the generals who were entrusted with the new weapon considered it a more effective way to destroy the enemy, civilian experts understood its true significance and developed strategies that prevented it from being used.
The lack of public debate on the most important issue for Israel's security leads to a lack of information that encourages a baseless approach under which there are no differences of opinion on Israel's nuclear policy, nor should there be. This is because the policy is a success story and there is someone to rely on.
This kind of public consensus can be costly; the price of a mistake could be high. That's why it is important to ask questions about the accepted wisdom. Beyond a basic issue like the relevance of the ambiguity policy, the following are examples of reservations about the consensus.
The indispensability of Dimona for Israel's security. In the accepted narrative, Israel's nuclear image has convinced the Arab states not to pose existential threats. But from what is known of the Arabs' concepts about Israel's strength, it turns out that this image has played a marginal role, if any, in shaping their hesitation to threaten Israel's existence. What deterred them, including during the Yom Kippur War, was Israel's conventional military superiority and its strategic alliance with the United States.
On that basis, one can ask a basic but skeptical question: Did Israel even need the bomb that foreign reports attribute to it? Because Israel's image as having nuclear weapons makes it easier for countries like Iran (and Iraq in the past) to make progress in that respect - with the excuse that if Israel is allowed, why aren't they? - one can also ask whether the means designed to prevent an existential threat against Israel (as foreign reports say) makes it possible to create such a threat. Under these circumstances, the theoretical question arises - what is preferable, a regional balance of fear, or removing the nonconventional capability of all countries in the region (including Israel)?
The bombing of the Iraqi nuclear facility was a story of success and salvation. This statement is based on the assumption that the bombing in 1981 did indeed destroy the Iraqi nuclear project. But today, from the testimony of the Iraqi scientists who conducted the project, we know that the opposite was true. The bombing blocked the cautious and slow processing of plutonium, which may or may not have led Iraq to a bomb, and rerouted it to the faster track of enrichment, which was less public but more efficient. It was only Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent war that quelled the effort that could have turned Iraq into a nuclear state within a year or a little more.
It is worth asking what one can learn from this. Did the Begin Doctrine prove itself? Is the best way to deal with the Iranian initiative something similar to that doctrine? What might be the ramifications of an Israeli attempt to destroy the Iranian project with regard to Iran's ability to achieve nuclear weapons and its readiness to use them when it gets them?
Military superiority is a condition for deterring a nuclear Iran. The head of the air force says Israel needs stealth planes to deter Iran. That's a mistaken statement. World history has proved that in a nuclear world, the price of a war is mutual destruction, so the aim is not to achieve military victory but to prevent war. This means that the most important objective is not military supremacy but rather strategic stability. Precisely because the stealth can evade radar, it could make Iran fear a surprise attack; a new dimension of instability would be created in the two countries' relations. In a situation like that, the chance increases that Iranian nuclear weapons would be used by mistake against Israel.
Theoretically the opposite is also true. Since the capability of a second strike, which foreign publications attribute to Israel, contributes to nuclear stability, and since Israel supposedly has such a capability, the Israeli interest must be that Iran also has such a capability. Therefore, no matter how absurd it sounds, the most reasonable thing Israel could do with the submarines Germany is building for it - and which, according to foreign reports, are to serve as platforms for a second strike - is to deliver them to Iran so that, like their counterparts already in service in Israel (as foreign sources report), they will calm Iran's fears about losing its nuclear capability after a surprise Israeli attack. This will contribute to stability.
This logic, of course, is totally contrary to the accepted military logic that Israeli officers and shapers of Israeli policy are used to. That's why the subject must be opened to a public debate in which other voices can be heard.
The writer is a member of the International Relations department at the University of Haifa.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
Now you know how the Iranians feel, as they desire to have as big a fly swatter as Israel does. Peace respects power. And the flies are pretty big in this neighborhood. x
Study the pictures. Plenty are available on the web. That is what is threatened and what you'd be responsible for if you launch. Multiply that by each launch. Then think about the tens of millions of downwinders in India and Pakistan and China.
If the author is right in his assumption that diosarming oneself and arming one's enemies is enhancing one's security, why don't you try iy yourself? Disarm the Swiss Guard, abolish the Vatican security system, get rid of the armed poe's vehicle and supply arms to various looneys. Let's see how well the pope does with this. Once we see it works for you, I promise we will follow suit.
It is meaningless to sign treaties? A signature on a contract doesn't mean anything? This is a revolutionary concept in contract law and international treaties. It is shared between you and the also Revolutionary Guards who believe you can benefit from a treaty and not respecting it at the same time.
The same CANNOT be said of Muslims between Gaza and Lahore (a large spread of territory which includes cent-percent of Iran)--who oft call for "1000-year wars" against non-Muslims (most prominently Jews, Hindus, Christians) in contrast to the ABSENCE of such calls from ANY of the non-Muslim groups mentioned!
Israel is not the aim for Iran's nuke, it is all the region of the m.E they want to control, Even if there was no Israel they would have proceeded to get the bomb anf nothing will or would or will stop them. When people and countrie will wake up it will be too late like before the 2WW
An exceptionally good article, which naturally does not go well with 'one eyed' war mongers. There are only two ways to the middle east conflict. Either perpetual conflict and when there is a conflict everyone suffers either physically or mentally. Or at least peaceful co-existence, without any one dictating to the other.
All need to remember Israel is standing on its feet and capable affording one of the world most expensive military program is because of unlimited support from USA. This will not last forever. America is no longer the same and those who are familiar with the accumulating internal American problems predict the big fall anytime! Printing cash is not going to save USA and a massive inflation is around the corner. Having said all that. A wise move by Israel is to give Palastinians their rights and seek stability in the region through sincere negotiations. Atomic bombs will bring the end of all, negotiations will bring a better future and hapiness.
The article is a very good one. The two countries with the most to fear from nuclear weapons today are Israel and the United States. Israel would be well advised to advocate the denuclearization, under very thorough safeguards, of the whole region.
at first I thought you were speaking of Haredistan... pardon again, Israel....
israel needs to be strong in all areas and is. that's it..that's all...iran can do as it wishes and so can israel. see you all in nuclear hell.
The original point of the NPT was to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. There are no "benefits" other than this for the signatories. If the worst enemy of the Arab states, Israel, obtains nuclear weapons outside the treaty, then there is no point to the treaty. The fact that there are two other nuclear armed nations that are not signatories to the treaty makes the NPT a joke and a sham. It is a meaningless thing to have signed or not signed this treaty.
"Israel`s alleged possesion of nuclear weapons is just an excuse. Israel never used them, never threatened to use them first" Israel and her Samson option.1973 Seymour Hersh wrote about this years ago. In 1973 Israel readied its nuclear weapons for launch. Days later a weapons airlift from the US placated the Israelis. The premise of your argument is badly flawed. Based on false assumptions about Israel "never threatened to use them first" when they readied them for use already and mealy mouthed nonsense like "alleged" in reference to the most poorly kept secret in modern history that is Israeli development of and possession of nuclear weapons.
Were Israel never to have developed nuclear weapons then it is highly unlikely that Iran would have attempted to do so (as they did up til 2003)knowing all the attendant costs.
What prove have you that Iran would sell any nuclear weapons technology it may or may not possess. Of course, Israel recognised as a nuclear armed state does not have an arms industry selling weapons abroad to pay for it's nuclear ambitions either? I believe this is the double standards that people refer to.
As long as you have an expasnionist Zionist state there can never be peace; it is like a human being trying to have peaceful relations with a cancer in its stomach. If the world wants to survive a nuclear holocaust it should disarm Israel and return the settlers to where they came from.
the question that evades so many of the braindead posters is simple! TELL US ALL HOW????????
the thinking in iran is equivilent to that of the kaiser wilhelm , hitler, stalin and mussolini,pol pot and ho chi minh etc. the death of millions has no meaning whatsoever! iran should have been taken out 5 years back and it might be too late now to so do ! armageddon is the next step !
The Arab countries are signatories to the NPT and benefited from being signatories. Thus they are obligated to observe the treaty that they freely entered into. Israel did not and thus has zero obligations to the NPT. It is typical Leftist double talk where Jews are obligated to treaties they did not sign while Arabs are free to ignore treaties that they did sign.
Hope they come to their senses!
The author explains what seems blindingly obvious to the rest of the world; but for some reason is not immediately apparent in Israeli popular opinion: Namley the huge hypocrisy in blathering on about the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons, when the clear reason for those weapons is the assumed existence of Israeli ones. Add in the murderous (and according to the UN, criminal) ruthlessness of the IDF, and surely Iran would want defensive nukes. Where I differ is on the solution: Israel should destroy any nukes it has- as surely it does- and open itself to very transparent nuclear checks by reputable third parties- admittedly hard to find,from Iran's point of view. Israel'sconventional weapons will remain the most powerful in the region for many years- noone else is anywhere near so militaristic. And the US' nuke shield stands behind it anyway. Won't hold my breath; but at least understand the hypocrisy.
Israel is far more likely to act irrationally than Iran. Iran has time on its side because there is no possibility at all that their many nuclear sites could be obliterated. Isn't it time that Israel thought this through rationally and did things for peace, rather than always be threatening war? Always acting big and the bully rather than realising it is small and a conventional bomb on Tel Aviv would end its arrogance.
This article make the assumption that Iran as a state acts rational - and this assumption is not true.
Illusion, such as that of U 235 is a wonderful human virtuality. In the world of dreams.
iran would have made every attempt to develop nuclear weapons regardless of israel. iran seeks regional hegemony. iran also aims to become a world player. nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles would allow iran to become an exporter and proliferator of these weapons. hence iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs are a major threat to world peace. israel's strategic posture depends on her combined conventional and non-conventional weapons. israel's conventional weapons have allowed her thus far to win all wars waged against her. israel's ability to develop her own weapons systems have played an increasing role as have her superb training and innovations including in electronic and cyberwarfare. any non-conventional weapons that israel possesses serve only as a massada option. such option is one of last resort, but one which cannot be taken off the table.
It isn't MAD (the premise of the cold war) that will work against Iran, nor is it likely that a state to state nuclear war would break out (even with Ahmadinejad in charge). The reality is that a terrorist acquiring a bomb from any number of sources (Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, Iran, etc.) and driving it into the center of a large town is the most likely scenario. Know one would know for certain where it came from. Who do you attack? The world (west) has foolishly failed to control WMD proliferation. It's simply a matter of time before one of us is hit, and it will be crippling for the whole world.
Without Israel even having stealth tech, Iran already fears a Pearl Harbor. Don't you read what is printed in this newspaper? Every other story about Iran is about they promise to strike back if struck. And Olmert bragged about Israel's nukes two years ago. The cat is out of the bag. You can stop pretending.
Totalitarian ideologies as incarnated by the Ayatollah regime will always strive to as much power as they can. Israel is a handy excuse. They would have strived for atomic power anyhow to increase their influence and make them 'safe'.
enough oil to generate electricity sans U235. The model could next be expanded to Venezuela.
History has shown us that in the instance the bomb was used successfully the target enemy (Japan) did not posses it nor did Nazi Germany which if either did have the bomb first the outcome of the WWII would have been altered. Russia was a Ally during WWII while Iran was Axis. Israel cannot allow Iran to be a nuclear nation and nor can the US afford nuclear weapons getting to the hands of the taliban, Hamas, Hizbollah, Al Queda and other terrorist organizations actively supported, armed and backed by the Iranian regime. What is needed is a regime change in Iran and a massive bombing might cause that once the public grows tired of Iran's failed leadership and oppressive regime.
"Israel's image as having nuclear weapons makes it easier for countries like Iran ... to make progress in that respect" If Israel wouldn't be thought of having nuclear weapons, the situation with Iran would be EXACTLY THE SAME. They would still want to acquire nuclear weapons, and the West and Esat would be exactly as Chamberlanian as they are towards it. Israel's alleged possesion of nuclear weapons is just an excuse. Israel never used them, never threatened to use them first, never threatened any country with "erasing it off the face of the earth" etc. The premise is really ridiculous.
An "outside the box" thinker, but he's got it 100% right - I hope they will listen to him...
"Israel must not forget the price of nuclear war" Hey, Israel's not the country that has the short memory!
If it is accepted that countries got nuclear capability to have MAD with their opponents, is it surprising that Iran wants the protection of MAD against Israeli nuclear blackmail?
what text book ivory tower lala land gibberish..... let me guess, Uri is left of left of left and has never run a business. what a great thing to debate....we have excellent submarines, why dont we give same to iran for stability..... i guess businesses should think same way.....w ehave a huge competitive advantage with this technology, let us share this secret with our competitors for the sake of stability.
The writer concludes that deterrent capability will not help prevent attack but rather we should make Iran feel secure by disarming. Has this person EVER picked up a history book?