JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RICE UNIVERSITY

Weapons of Mass Destruction and the : The View from

By Ze’ev Schiff

The Isaac and Mildred Brochstein Fellow in Peace and Security James A. Baker III, Institute for Public Policy Rice University

in Honor of Yitzak Rabin

MARCH 2003 JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RICE UNIVERSITY

Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Middle East: The View from Israel

By Ze’ev Schiff

The Isaac and Mildred Brochstein Fellow in Peace and Security James A. Baker III, Institute for Public Policy Rice University

in Honor of Yitzak Rabin

MARCH 2003

© 2003 by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy. Biography Ze’ev Schiff

Ze’ev Schiff is the Isaac and Mildred Brochstein Fellow in Peace and Security at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University.

The defense editor of the leading Israeli daily, Ha’aretz, Mr. Schiff is the author of several books and numerous articles on strategic and military subjects. His books include A History of the Israeli Defense Forces, Earthquake in October, Israel’s Lebanon War, and The Intifida (with Ehud Ya’ari). His articles have been published in magazines and newspapers such as Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The National Interest, The New York Times, The International Herald Tribune, and The Los Angeles Times.

Mr. Schiff has received a number of Israeli awards for journalism, including the prestigious Sokolov Prize. He is also the recipient of the President Haim Herzog Prize, awarded for special contribution to the State of Israel.

Mr. Schiff has been a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment and fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He also has served on the council of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.

Mr. Schiff is married with two children and resides in Tel Aviv, Israel. INTRODUCTION threat. If successfully devel- ops nuclear weapons, he and his regime would The most important objective of the confronta- threaten and imperil Israel’s very existence. tion with Iraq is the elimination of weapons of Because of Israel’s small geographic dimen- mass destruction (WMD). It is a strategic objec- sions and the concentration of its population tive that takes precedence over everything else in a narrow strip, that danger is greatly magni- and that, in certain circumstances, would con- fied. The threat to Israel will become many stitute a casus belli. All other goals of the con- times more intense if other countries in the frontation with Iraq are either secondary or a area, such as , are armed with nuclear function of the chief objective. The demand to weapons. overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime is based We need to bear in mind that of the coun- primarily on the assumption that as long as it is tries invading Israel during the 1948 war for in power, it would not be possible to eliminate independence, Iraq was the only one that did the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq be- not sign the armistice agreements with the cause Saddam Hussein would either prevent it newly established state. Iraqi leaders have de- or resume developing such weapons once the clared over and over again that they were at weapons inspectors accomplish their mission war with Israel. Saddam has called for the de- and leave Iraq. The planned overthrow of the struction of the Jewish State. In addition to the regime is also based on the assumption that 1948 war, Iraqi forces took part in the 1967 Six with weapons of mass destruction in his posses- Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur (October) sion, Saddam Hussein would ultimately use War. During the 1991 , Israel was the them against his neighbors. Saddam Hussein target of Saddam Hussein’s missiles, some 40 already has used these weapons twice. In the of which, launched from western Iraq, were Iraq–Iran war, he ordered the use of chemical aimed at its population. For fear that Saddam weapons against the Iranians. His brutality Hussein might use chemical weapons against reached its peak when, doubting their loyalty, Israel, gas masks were issued to the entire he used chemical weapons again against Kurds population. Iraq has also extended consider- in the Halabja region—his own citizens. able support to a number of terrorist organiza- The danger posed by weapons of mass tions operating against Israel. Saddam Hussein destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is makes a special point of donating large sums not restricted to the Middle East. Such weap- of money to families of Palestinian suicide ons could well reach radical terrorist organiza- bombers. tions that have absolutely no political or moral It is only natural that the Israeli intelli- restraints. They are liable to use WMD any- gence services should attach special impor- where in the world, against American, British, tance to all information concerning Iraqi Israeli or other targets—anyone, in fact, stand- efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. ing in their way. Clearly, the finger of Saddam However, Iraq is not the only intelligence tar- Hussein on the nuclear trigger could pose a get. Every other country in the region seeking serious threat to regional as well as interna- to make or obtain weapons of mass destruction tional stability. awakens Israel’s curiosity. Israel also keeps That can be said to be Israel’s official posi- track of other countries, often geographically tion, and its position on this issue is unequivo- remote, that are potential suppliers of weapons cal. Being on the front line facing Iraq, Israel of mass destruction. The basic assumption is considers the present situation to be a strategic that the production of WMD must be stopped; otherwise the region, and especially Israel, Should the war fail to eliminate the men- would be in a most precarious situation. ace of WMD from Iraq, other Middle East The Iraqi issue must not be treated as an iso- countries are likely to develop or try to obtain lated, self-contained problem. The fate of Iraq them. It is also possible that a number of Arab will profoundly affect the strategic picture of countries would one day form a coalition the whole Middle East and far beyond. In the aimed at obtaining nuclear weapons. Members region, a swift and smashing victory in Iraq of such a coalition might imagine that they would create many opportunities. A slow, lame, could resist international pressure and the and inconclusive victory that leaves WMD in threat of sanctions more effectively together the hands of Iraq could undermine regional rather than alone. If Saddam Hussein has suc- stability. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, ceeded in obtaining nuclear weapons, why not Bahrain, Qatar and Oman, and would do likewise? Some would call it a defensive face growing threats. Much of Israel’s deter- necessity. rence capacity would be blunted, and the The possibility that in addition to Iraq, temptation to attack Israel by various means, other Middle Eastern countries (like Iran or including WMD, would grow. Consideration of Libya) would become armed with nuclear benefits and risks of a war against Iraq, there- weapons could induce a change in Israel’s fore, requires the broadest possible strategic nuclear policy. So far, Israel has been firm in context. upholding its image as an undeclared nuclear Defeat of Saddam Hussein and the re- country. It neither confirms nor denies posses- moval of WMD from Iraq could, for example, sion of nuclear weapons. This obviously in- offer an excellent opportunity to address the volves avoiding any nuclear tests. If the Middle conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. East slips into multipolar nuclear arming, Is- Failure to exploit this opportunity would only rael could conceivably change its attitude and invite the Israeli Right and settlers to stick to its policy. Such a change might result from their settlement project in the territories. It security concerns, the hawkish political posi- would imply a continued Israeli occupation—a tions of an elected Israeli government, or the sure recipe for ongoing . It could end pressure of public opinion and the desire to in a military confrontation with Hezbollah and pacify such pressures. Israel could, for in- , which backs it. To miss another such stance, decide on a nuclear test. It could give opportunity would cause endless trouble. An up its nuclear ambiguity and declare that it is a opportunity presented itself in 1991 when the nuclear country. It could decide to produce Bush Administration and Secretary James A. tactical nuclear weapons and reject the idea Baker, III set up the Madrid peace conference. that nuclear weapons are intended solely for Direct negotiations between Israel and some the case of a genuine threat to survival. With Arab delegations took place for the first time, Iran moving to achieve nuclear weapons, more resulting in the mutual recognition of Israel and more Israelis claim the need to build ca- and the PLO. Peace was signed between Israel pacity for a second strike, despite the vast in- and Jordan, and direct talks began between vestment this would require. Israel and Syria. Because of mistakes made by However, successful liquidation of WMD in both parties, some of these opportunities were Iraq would be a warning to whoever may be not properly utilized. Defeat of Saddam might planning to follow Saddam’s example in devel- offer the opportunity to resume the peace pro- oping such weapons. We intend to prove that cess. the development of nuclear and other WMD is already on its way. At all events, successful threatened military action. All reports submit- liquidation of WMD in Iraq would offer a ted by Iraq have either been incomplete or chance to delay and slow down the false. In fact, it is rather doubtful that weapons nuclearization process. It might be a chance of mass destruction could be spotted effectively to set new regional restrictions for arms con- under UNMOVIC inspection rules. UNSCOM trol and inspection arrangements. inspection veterans (i.e. Stephen Black, Robert The problem of nuclear proliferation in Gallucci, David Kay, David Kelly, and John the Middle East involves countries outside the Larrabee) told a roundtable on the control of region. North Korea is an outstanding nuclear weapons, held in Washington on No- examp1e. Though situated at the other end of vember 6, 2002, that they doubted the efficacy Asia, it is deeply and directly active in a num- of the organization under the rules, which ber of Middle East countries in the produc- UNMOVIC itself has set. tion of missiles and enriching uranium for At the same time, UNMOVIC chairman nuclear arms. Hans Blix believes that his organization stands Pakistan also cannot be overlooked. A a very good chance of success in Iraq. Speaking Muslim country, Pakistan possesses nuclear in Ottawa on August 28, 2001, where he ad- weapons and is under military rule following a dressed an UNMOVIC inspectors training coup d’etat. It received generous Saudi finan- course, Blix said that the most important point cial aid for the development of its nuclear to keep in mind was that more weapons of project. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have both mass destruction have been destroyed in Iraq wholeheartedly supported the Taliban regime thanks to UNSCOM than had been destroyed in Afghanistan, which in turn extended its during the Gulf War. Blix ignores the fact that patronage to Bin Laden and Al Qaida. but for the war, Iraq would not have agreed to admit UNSCOM inspectors and would have continued to keep information from the Inter- national Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which IRAQ Blix headed. Blix pointed out that “a failure to ensure the eradication of Iraq’s program of Iraq is rated as the most dangerous Middle weapons of mass destruction would be a seri- East country today in all that concerns weap- ous setback and would send the wrong signal ons of mass destruction. Though it is not the in the global issue of nonproliferation and only country to possess such weapons, Iraq is concerning the future effort to achieve re- the only country to have used them since gional arms control in the Middle East.” World War II and the only country to block Many experts agree that of all the Arab UN inspectors from accomplishing their mis- countries, Iraq now has the most advanced sion to dispose of them. In 1998, Saddam infrastructure, mainly in human resources, for Hussein forced an end to UNSCOM, the UN the development of nuclear weapons. That Special Commission, which had been operat- explains British prime minister Tony Blair’s ing for seven years. In late 1999, the UN re- assertion that if Iraq obtains fissile material, it placed UNSCOM by another organization— could produce nuclear weapons within a year UNMOVIC—UN Monitoring, Verification, or two. President Bush has spoken of six and Inspection Commission. Baghdad’s objec- months, if Iraq acquires fissile material. In his tions made it impossible for UNMOVIC to Ottawa address, Hans Blix said that informa- begin work, until President George W. Bush tion had emerged after the Gulf War that Iraq was perhaps a year away from obtaining ons project had progressed, it began extending nuclear weapons without being exposed by the nuclear aid to Middle East countries. IAEA. Here, North Korea created a very danger- Before the Gulf War, Iraq received aid for ous precedent. To conceal nuclear activity at its nuclear project when nobody suspected the home—especially after having reached agree- military nature of the Iraqi nuclear project— ment with the in 1994 to replace that is, nobody except Israel, which smashed its nuclear reactors with reactors operated by the Iraqi atomic reactor in 1981. Later on, an light water, which does not produce pluto- extensive enquiry revealed that aid had come nium—North Korea moved part of its nuclear from companies as well as the governments of operation to Iran. Thus, two countries of the , Switzerland, Belgium, Brazil, Swe- “axis of evil” cooperate in the nuclear field. It den, , and Nigeria. Surprisingly enough, is not unlikely that a similarly secret partner- aid also came from the United States, which, at ship has been concluded between North Korea the time, regarded Iraq as the “good guy” in and Libya. In Iran, North Korea has focused the Iraq–Iran war. In its continuing quest for on setting up uranium-enriching centrifuges; nuclear weapons since the Gulf War, Iraqis in return, Iran receives a part of the produce have turned to South Africa and other coun- of that device, which almost has become opera- tries for uranium ore and other dubious acqui- tional. The North Koreans also have been sitions. Before the arrival of the present given the go-ahead from Tehran to experiment delegation of inspectors headed by Blix, in Iran with their Taepo Dong, an advanced Saddam demonstrated his resolve by announc- missile engine with a range of up to kms 5000. ing that he had instructed the head of the Here again, the Iranians are getting something atomic energy commission of Iraq to step up for their pains. The Iranian Shihab-3 missile is its activities. practically a carbon copy of the North Korean No Dong. The conclusion is that in the field of WMD, the Middle East cannot be viewed as a NORTH KOREA separate geographical region. To hinder the development of WMD in the Middle East, it is Of the countries now promoting nuclear pro- necessary to deal simultaneously and vigor- liferation, the most prominent is North Korea, ously with countries like North Korea, which labeled by President Bush as one of the three consistently violate their commitments. countries forming an “axis of evil.” North The problem with North Korea took a turn for Korea’s military activity in the Middle East has the worse on January 10, 2003, when been growing, beginning with missile develop- Pyongyang announced its immediate break ment aid to Pakistan and then to Syria, Iran, with Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). North Libya, and . North Korea supplies missile Korea’s representatives had previously admit- engines and parts and assists construction of ted that their country had a nuclear weapons missile production lines. In the early ’90s, in program and had expelled IAEA inspectors. return for such aid, Pakistan supplied North All this happened in defiance of the North Korea with nuclear technology. Pakistan’s Korean agreement with the United States nuclear aid included development of centri- signed in Geneva in 1994; its agreements with fuges for the production of enriched uranium. KEDO, the international organization incorpo- Years later, after North Korea’s nuclear weap- rating Japan and South Korea; and the agree- ment signed with South Korea in December not that North Korea will launch a nuclear 1991. Under these agreements, Pyongyang is strike against the South or against other of its bound to discontinue its plutonium and neighbors. The North Korean danger is global nuclear weapons production programs in re- and that is how it should be seen. turn for the construction of light water reac- In recent years, North Korea has contrib- tors in North Korea and the supply of heavy uted to the destabilization of the Middle East, fuel (financed by the U.S., South Korea, Japan, more so, perhaps, than any other country. It and the European Union.) has been supplying ground-to-ground missiles The violation of agreements concerning to a number of countries in the region. It has the nuclear issue has become a regular North started setting up missile production lines in a Korean practice. The implementation of al- number of countries such as Syria and Libya. It most every clause signed by Pyongyang always has extended the range of the missiles, im- has been fraught with delays and blackmail. proved their precision and increased the carry- Demands often are for money, food, fuel, or ing capacity of their warheads. North Korea “compensation” for alleged damages. In most signed an agreement with Egypt for the deliv- cases, Pyongyang manages to have its way. For ery of 50 No Dong missile engines (medium every North Korean compromise, some sort of range), but this agreement was canceled under remuneration needs to be made. Various me- pressure from Washington. At the height of diation efforts by former president Jimmy the Iraqi crisis, North Korea sold Scud Missiles Carter and former defense secretary William to Yemen. That consignment was intercepted Perry have been temporarily successful, but on its way from North Korea by Spanish and only in return for more concessions to North American naval forces. Various intelligence Korea. Various politicians in South Korea services are convinced that Yemen has pro- maintain that nuclear weapons provide cured these missiles in N. Korea for Iraq. Pyongyang with a means to extort funds to ease Israel fears that if the North Korean crisis is North Korea’s difficult economic situation. not settled, Pyongyang would try to form an This may be true, but it also proves that if that anti-American coalition in the Middle East practice works, North Korea would not be in a comprising Iran, Syria, and Libya. Ten years hurry to give it up. It would hold on to it as ago, Korea held informal negotiations with long as possible, just as it has been doing for Israel on a possible deal. In return for discon- years, and would resort to it regularly in other tinuing the export of ground-to-ground mis- regions the world over. The North Korean pre- siles to the Middle East, Pyongyang demanded cedent in breaking with the NPT treaty neces- a billion dollars to cover the various losses in- sarily affects the future of that international curred by the cancelled sales. When Washing- treaty as well as the proliferation of nuclear ton told Israel to leave the problem to the U.S., weapons. Prime Minister Rabin complied, placing Israel The North Korean nuclear problem esca- in a silent subordinate position. Now, 10 years lated into a full-blown crisis with Saddam later, it has become quite clear that the prob- Hussein’s refusal to reveal and remove his lem of the North Korean missiles in the Middle weapons of mass destruction, making the dan- East and elsewhere has worsened. Now that a ger of war in Iraq more acute. Pyongyang obvi- North Korean danger to Israel has grown, Is- ously views the preoccupation of the United rael might seek its own direct contacts, in coor- States and the international community with dination with Washington, of course. It has Iraq as a window of opportunity. The danger is done so in its contacts with Russia regarding the latter’s ties with Iran and has done the last remaining NPT signatory that has yet to same in contacts with China. agree to the special clauses of the additional What Israel fears most is that having al- protocol allowing inspectors of the interna- ready sold missile technology, North Korea tional nuclear agency to carry out more me- would sell nuclear technology as well. If the ticulous inspection operations. These clauses North Korean crisis deepens, North Korea would allow inspection in places not listed might be willing to sell fissionable material and among the locations specified by the inspected parts for the production of nuclear weapons or country. Because of the delay in signing, Iran its expertise in building the kind of subterra- has twice been cited in internal reports of the nean sites it has built at home. A study by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Presum- Congressional Reference Service of the Library ably, Iran is “working to obtain nuclear weap- of Congress (August 2002) states the U.S. per- ons, and unless its efforts are thwarted, it will ception of the danger succinctly: “The become nuclear. If Iran chooses to embark on Administration’s fear was that North Korea a nuclear weapons program, it will avoid sign- would have the means to export atomic bombs ing the Additional Protocol as long as it can to other states and possess a nuclear missile resist the consequent political and technologi- capability that would threaten Japan and U.S. cal pressure, which is currently limited. More- territories in the Pacific Ocean.” over, it will most likely sign [but not ratify] the Additional Protocol only after it overcomes all technical obstacles to the production of a , obtains all the necessary re- IRAN—The Growing Nuclear Threat sources, and, most likely, begins to produce fissile material” (Chen Zak, Iran’s Nuclear Policy Iran’s place in a nuclear-armed Middle East is and the IAEA, The Washington Institute for central. Because of the ideology dominating its Near East Policy, 2001). radical Islamic regime and its relentless call for Iran’s secret endeavors to obtain nuclear the destruction of Israel, Iran may well become weapons are quite extensive and proceed on a a very dangerous player. number of concurrent tracks, starting with the procurement of uranium (UF6) from China to The following outlines the contributing factors to operate the centrifuge to enrich uranium and Iran’s nuclear activity: ending with an agreement with North Korea to produce enriched uranium on Iranian soil and Iran has a secret plan to obtain nuclear weap- perform tests with the engine of a long-range ons and is busy putting it into practice. To that missile. The agreement guarantees Iran an end, Iran obtains know-how, technology, and allocation of North Korean enriched uranium. equipment from Russia, North Korea, and Most significant is the extensive construction China or other sources. This is something on in of the nuclear fuel production which a number of central intelligence services project. Activity there is shrouded in consider- agree. A signatory to the Non-Proliferation able mystery and is, so far, off limits to IAEA Treaty, Iran is nevertheless engaged in under- inspectors. At a press conference in Washing- handed activities in defiance of the treaty and ton on August 14, 2002, Alireza Jafarzadeh, a its Safeguards appendix. The most glaring vio- leading figure of the Mujahedin in Iran, said lation is a large nuclear fuel project in Natanz, that construction in Natanz began some two being constructed north of Isfahan. Iran is the years ago. To conceal the operation, the project was described as intended to revive the would be felt in neighboring Turkey, a NATO desert. According to Jafarzadeh, the main con- member. It would certainly shake Israel’s self- struction work is nearing conclusion and will confidence in the face of what it regards as a cost $300 million. strategic threat that needs to be neutralized. Iran will step up its nuclear activity if it Having relinquished weapons of mass destruc- turns out that the weapons of mass destruction tion, a new, post-Saddam Iraq would rightly ask in Iraqi hands are not totally eliminated. How- whether Iranian nuclear arming did not pose a ever, if the weapons of mass destruction in threat. In Saudi Arabia there is sure to be a Iraqi hands are eliminated, it may have a re- growing desire to buy nuclear capability. In straining effect on the Iranians. Egypt there would probably be a rise in voices Top Iranian officials, including President claiming that there is no alternative to acquir- Khatami’s entourage, are unanimous on the ing nuclear weapons. need for a nuclear-armed Iran to effectively deter potential enemies. During the Gulf War, Iran became the only country since World War PAKISTAN, LIBYA and II to suffer attack by WMD, when Iraqi forces SAUDI ARABIA deployed poison gas. The international com- munity was notably indifferent. That indiffer- When Benazir Bhutto came into power in Paki- ence sustains the predominant Iranian view stan in 1988, she first heard about her that Iran is fully justified to arm itself with country’s nuclear arsenal, not from the officers nuclear weapons for defense and deterrence. in charge of Pakistan’s nuclear activities, but To achieve deterrence in the Middle East, con- from American representatives. From its early ventional military capabilities are not enough. stages the nuclear weapons project in Pakistan It would appear that one of the main lessons has been in the hands of the military and un- Iran has learned from the Gulf War is that care der their control, free of any practical involve- should be taken not to repeat Saddam’s mis- ment of the political leadership. Political takes. Tehran will take care not to be caught leadership in Pakistan is shaky. Owing to mili- violating the NPT and will try to avoid an ex- tary pressure, not one of Pakistan’s elected cuse for military force against it because of its prime ministers has been able to complete his nuclear project. or her term of office. Since the foundation of One may reasonably assume that Iran Pakistan, there have been four military coups would adopt a policy of nuclear ambiguity if d’etat. Adding to the instability, Pakistan has and when it obtains nuclear weapons. Iran been embroiled in three wars with its neighbor would probably prefer to take this line rather India—another nuclear state. Pakistan also has than quit the NPT. It is doubtful that Iran been involved in guerilla warfare and terror- would follow the example of India and Paki- ism. Unlike democratic countries where the stan, which carried out nuclear tests. Iran’s military are subordinate to the elected govern- deterrence would have to be achieved by subtle ment, in Pakistan, control of nuclear weapons means. The nuclear ambiguity adopted by Is- and the decision to use them have always been rael could provide a model, though unlike in the hands of the military. Iran. Israel has not signed the NPT and is not Neither Pakistan nor India has signed the violating any international convention. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty nor the Com- A nuclear-armed Iran would create a stra- prehensive Test Ban Treaty. Both countries tegic upheaval in the area. Its repercussions have carried out nuclear tests, including hydro- gen power. After India’s and Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, which had originally come from Paki- tests in 1998, the U.S. imposed sanctions on stan. both countries. These sanctions were lifted According to intelligence reports, part of when Pakistani leader General Musharraf sided the funds needed to develop Pakistan’s nuclear with the United States in the war against Al project came from Saudi Arabia. Islamabad Qaida and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, had very close connections with Saudi Arabia, which provided Al Qaida with a base. Together including military cooperation. In the past, the with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan had formerly culti- Saudis invited Pakistan to deploy forces in vated the Taliban regime. When sanctions were Saudi Arabia, apparently with the object of lifted, Pakistan actually became, if not formally protecting the regime. Two Pakistani brigades so, a nuclear power recognized by Washington. were deployed in Saudi Arabia for an extended Is Pakistan liable to pass on nuclear technology period. In return, Islamabad was granted con- to other countries in the Middle East or else- siderable financial aid, probably as convenient where? And how safe are the nuclear weapons cover for the transfer of funds for the Pakistani in its possession? nuclear project. Cooperation between In January 1999, after Pakistan had performed Islamabad and Riyadh also included an under- nuclear tests, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said standing to support Afghanistan’s Taliban re- that his country would reinforce the rules ban- gime. ning the export of nuclear technology. The Quite unexpectedly, Saudi Arabia has been army deposed Sharif. General Musharraf, his showing an interest in nuclear cooperation successor, reiterated Sharif’s promise, empha- with the Pakistanis. Saudi representatives have sizing that he was aware of the sensitivity to actually been granted a rare visit to Pakistani global nonproliferation and disarmament. Life nuclear installations. Saudi Arabia’s interest has taught us that political promises are not recently has been reported in a State Depart- always kept. The short history of Pakistan’s ment journal. In the past, Saudi Arabia had development of missiles and nuclear weapons shown no interest in weapons of mass destruc- has taught us the same lesson. tion, although it suspected that Iraq and Iran In the early ’90s, Pakistan concluded a posed a threat. Riyadh always had solid deal with North Korea for the exchange of grounds to count on Washington’s backing missile and nuclear technology. Islamabad against these threats. All the same, many com- obtained from North Korea parts of missiles mentators agree with Richard Russell (“A that, among other things, would help produce Saudi Nuclear Option.” Survival, Summer its Ghauri ground-to-ground missile, capable of 2001) that Saudi Arabia now considers it a carrying a nuclear warhead and identical to mistake to count exclusively on American de- attributes of the North Korean No Dong and fense in light of Iranian and Iraqi nuclear re- the Iranian missiles developed subsequently, solve and is considering building its own the Shihab-3. In return, Pakistan passed on deterrent force. know-how and technology for the construction If the Saudis do acquire nuclear weapons, of the uranium-enriching centrifuge. Years they have missiles to deliver them. In the mid- later, North Korea passed on this information ’80s Saudi Arabia unexpectedly obtained from to Iran and probably to other countries in the China ground-to-ground missiles known as Middle East. North Korea and Iran traded in CSS-2, missiles with a range of kms 3000 or technology for the production of nuclear more, capable of carrying a 2.5-ton warhead. The Saudis never told Washington in advance about this $3.5 billion deal. Saudi prestige sanctions in 1999, the regime of Moammar rather than strategic necessity played the deci- Qaddafi has been able to increase his access to sive role. Saudi Arabia currently is negotiating dual-use technology,” Bolton said. These par- with China on upgrading of the old CSS-2. In ticulars also have been passed on to a number November 2000, when China signed an agree- of European countries bordering on the Medi- ment with Washington, undertaking to refrain terranean interested in developments in Libya. from the sale of missiles and their spare parts Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon has made to other countries, it surprised the Americans the surprising statement that Libya is liable to by requesting the exclusion of Saudi Arabia precede Iran in developing a working nuclear from the agreement, arguing that the deal in device. question was of long standing. Missile experts Iraqi and North Korean experts have been believe that the chances of improving the old assisting Libya. Experts from Pakistan also have CSS-2 missiles are slender. If, as seems likely, been seen in Libya. The question is what do the Chinese try to sell the Saudis new missiles the Egyptians know about Libya’s activities. instead, they will be in violation of their agree- Like Sudan, Libya is seen as Egypt’s backyard. ment with the United States. The Saudi mis- Unusual initiatives in these countries would be siles affair proves yet again that the problem of seen in Cairo as a threat to Egypt’s vital inter- WMD cannot be confined to any single region. ests. It is most unlikely that a Libyan initiative Reports recently have been spreading about to arm itself with WMD would be treated with Pakistani cooperation with Libya. Relations equanimity by the Egyptians, and it is doubtful between Pakistan and Libya always have been that Egyptian intelligence would not know good. For years, Libya has been showing great what John Bolton had reported. interest in chemical, biological, as well as Naturally enough, Pakistan’s nuclear weap- nuclear weapons of mass destruction. It has ons cache excites great interest and much con- invested a lot of money in the construction of a cern beyond its immediate neighbors. That chemical weapons project and has offered also goes for the question of command and large sums of money to various countries in control of these weapons. The proximity of return for assistance in these areas. At a time Pakistan to Afghanistan and the presence of when sanctions were imposed on Libya be- terrorist elements in that country aggravate the cause of its terrorist activity and the involve- question of nuclear security. It stands to reason ment of Libyan intelligence in the Pan Am that the Americans and the British have given crash, there was a lull in Moammar Qaddafi’s some thought to various related scenarios. efforts to obtain WMD. When the sanctions These scenarios could include control gained were lifted in January 2003, Libya renewed its by insurgent units of the Pakistani army, a mili- efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction. tary coup d’etat, and the subsequent capture A country with a poor scientific and techno- of all or part of the nuclear weapons. Most logical infrastructure, Libya is willing to pay illuminating is the following expert conclusion large sums of money in return for scientific of Gaurav Kampani, of the Center for Nonpro- and technological assistance and technological liferation Studies in Monterey, Ca.: acquisitions. U.S. undersecretary of state for “In the near term, there is little danger to either arms control and international security affairs the security of Pakistan’s fissile material installations John Bolton has noted Libya’s activities. “The or the safety of its nuclear command and control. U.S. suspects Libya has a longstanding pursuit Fears of domestic instability and factional infighting of nuclear weapons, and since the lifting of UN within the military are exaggerated. Although a rogue military commander or unit could in theory hard military line in Kashmir. This, in turn, is gain control over a cache of fission bombs, their leading to a mounting confrontation with In- unconstituted nature, the enormous interorgani- dia and to fear of a nuclear confrontation be- zational effort required to reconstitute them, and the tween the two countries. In order to ensure the dense opacity surrounding the location of their con- military support of his rule, Musharraf needs stituent parts make that possibility remote. The small to secure the support of the radicals who de- number of nuclear warheads in Pakistan’s inventory mand a hard line in Kashmir. General and still smaller number of facilities used to produce Musharraf refuses to label the Islamic fighters fissile material also give national command authori- in Kashmir as terrorists. What is happening in ties considerable advantages in protecting them Kashmir, he calls Indian State terrorism (Inter- against potential attacks by terrorists. To be sure, view in Middle East Insight, Apri1 2002). local hot spots and political instability could result in “Pakistan today is the most dangerous a temporary loss of control over some storage sites. place on earth.” That is veteran commentator However, the secrecy of the nuclear storage bunkers, Jim Hoagland’s view of that country (Herald the separation of military cantonments from civilian Tribune–Washington Post, October 25, 2002). population centers, and the presumed military con- The question is not how nuclear weapons are tingency planning, mitigate the dangers of that likeli- kept safe in that country, but whether a mili- hood.” tary coup d’etat is possible there. It has hap- Pakistani commentators assert that the nuclear pened several times in the past, when an material is safe also because its main parts are anonymous and irresponsible group of men distributed around the country, in secure mili- took control of the nuclear weapons. Another tary camps, and there is a plan to remove the question is whether the radical Islamic forces material by air away from danger spots. Ac- in Pakistan could grow steadily stronger, even cording to these commentators, the allegedly within the framework of a democratic process. radical Islamization process in Pakistan is exag- Both prospects would have appalling global gerated. But the recent general elections indi- repercussions. cate that the Islamic organizations opposed to Pakistani support of the U.S. war against terror are powerful and could become even stronger. Qazi Hussein Ahmed, head of the Jamaat-e- THE ISRAELI STRATEGY Islami, a leading group in the Islamist union, has declared that the election results demon- Neither Israel nor its strategy can be over- strate that Musharraf’s support of the United looked when discussing weapons of mass de- States is “a one-man move and does not follow struction in the Middle East. For many years the resolution of representatives elected by the Israel was regarded as an undeclared nuclear people” (The Wall Street Journal Europe, October state, having neither confirmed nor formally 14, 2002). Whereas General Musharraf has and publicly denied possession of nuclear ca- taken a step forward with the democratic elec- pacity. On a number of occasions its leaders tions, the results have caused him serious said Israel would not be the first to introduce doubt about opening the new parliament. nuclear weapons into the region. Israel has not It is most likely that the Islamic bodies signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. exert appreciable influence on Pakistani mili- At the same time, it has declared itself willing tary forces. That probably explains why Gen- to sign the treaty against nuclear tests (CTBT), eral Musharraf supports militants calling for a to which end it has carried out tests on its own territory of detonation for calibration pur- mands that Israel put all her cards on the poses. In all matters concerning its nuclear table. It is doubtful that this is what the Egyp- capability, Israel is conducting a deliberate tians really want because it might generate policy of ambiguity, which it regards as best internal pressure in Egypt and other Arab possible deterrence against its enemies, some countries to produce their own nuclear weap- of whom actually call for the destruction of the ons. From Egypt’s point of view, Israel’s nuclear Jewish state. The governments of Israel have ambiguity seems to be the lesser evil. credited the policy of nuclear ambiguity as The American administrations are well successful from every point of view. So long as aware of Israel’s unique security situation. They the present strategic situation lasts with no admit that as long as there are serious threats unexpected changes, the policy will prevail. to its existence, Israel must maintain strategic Israel insists that, unlike India and Paki- deterrence. “Strategic deterrence” in Israeli stan, it has never performed a nuclear test and terms means nuclear deterrence. At present, strongly denies having any hand in what the there is no American pressure on Israel to sub- press described as “a detonation, which was in scribe to the NPT without delay. fact a nuclear test” in the Indian Ocean facing Israel, on its part, has treated its nuclear the South African coast. India carried out its capability with the utmost discretion. It has first nuclear test in 1974. Both India and Paki- never threatened any of its enemies with stan carried out tests in 1998. About these tests, nuclear weapons. On the eve of the 1991 Gulf Israel has remained silent. Moreover, while War, when there was a chance that Saddam India objects to the NPT treaty because the Hussein would use weapons of mass destruc- treaty allegedly discriminates in favor of tions against it, Israel did not threaten Iraq nuclear states over non-nuclear states, Israel is with a nuclear counterattack. It was U.S. de- not opposed to that treaty, in principle. Israel fense secretary Dick Cheney who told a CNN argues that the treaty is not well-constructed interviewer that Israel could strike back with regarding methods of supervision and control great force and that Israel might possess and fails to protect Israel from actual nuclear nuclear weapons. Cheney was issuing Iraq the threats. nuclear warning that Israel refused to issue. At the Madrid conference after the Gulf When, in the late ’70s, it became clear to Is- War, in deliberations with Egypt and other raeli intelligence that Iraq was very busy devel- Arab countries at the Arms Control and Re- oping nuclear weapons, the government of gional Security Committee (ACRS) chaired by Israel resolved to take strong measures to pre- the United States, Israel announced that it vent it. When all Israel’s political initiatives would be prepared to discuss joining the NPT failed, including appeals to governments di- two years after peace is reached with the re- rectly involved in supplying Iraq with reactors maining Arab countries and Iran. Egypt re- and other technological equipment for devel- jected Israel’s proposal and walked out on the oping nuclear energy, Israel commenced ef- ACRS talks. Even if WMD in Iraq are elimi- forts on its own to restrain Iraq’s nuclear nated, Israel’s basic approach is unlikely to enterprise. In a successful operation in 1981, change, especially if countries such as Iran and the Israeli Air Force destroyed Osirak Libya continue developing nuclear and other (Tammuz), the nuclear reactor located near weapons of mass destruction. Baghdad. Israel was condemned for its military Israel’s nuclear ambiguity has a disquieting operation, but the destruction of the reactor effect on the Arabs. Egypt, for instance, de- had obviously suspended Iraq’s nuclear enter- prise. Proceeding with greater secrecy after the One way to draw back form the abyss Israeli attack, Saddam spread his nuclear would be the elimination of Iraq’s WMD and project to different parts of the country to pro- the facilities that are developing them. If Iraqi tect installations and weapons projects against weapons of mass destruction are totally elimi- total destruction. There is no doubt whatever nated, the possibility opens for a thorough and that had Israel not destroyed the Iraqi reactor, comprehensive international supervision sys- the Gulf War would have been a much differ- tem in cooperation with the Iraqi regime. ent war. Without such cooperation—as in when the The question that Israel faced in 1981 South African government decided to give up could arise again if it turns out that Iran or its nuclear weapons—it might not be possible Libya has been or is going to be armed with to discover all the hiding places where missiles nuclear weapons, or it turns out that the UN and weapons of mass destruction have been inspectors have failed to rid Iraq of its weapons concealed. We already have seen that Security of mass destruction. There is also the question Council sanctions alone will not hinder Iraq of what Israel should do if, in a war against from continuing its plans to produce weapons Iraq, Saddam Hussein attacks Israel with weap- of mass destruction. There is some doubt that ons of mass destruction and causes massive loss the present inspection, though theoretically of Israeli life. Would it be reasonable to expect extended after the Gulf War thanks to the ad- a country such as Israel to sit back and leave it ditional IAEA protocol, could overcome the to other countries—the United States, in par- obstacles posed by a country determined to ticular —to retaliate? conceal its activities. The only effective means of disarming Iraq appears to be war. It would be war with aims that are totally different from all past wars, because its central objective CONCLUSION would be the elimination of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of an extreme and The countries of the Middle East now find dangerous regime. Elimination of weapons of themselves at the edge of an abyss. It is not mass destruction cannot be achieved by army only their mutual animosities that have units alone. Professional inspectors selected brought them there but also the intrusion of and trained for their mission must accompany powers from outside the region. Many of the them. countries that stand at the abyss are at the The successful removal of the weapons of point of arming themselves with nuclear weap- mass destruction in Iraq will be a clear warning ons and other weapons of mass destruction. to other countries in the process of becoming Each has its particular explanations and ex- nuclear. It probably will not alter the nuclear cuses. Every one of them leans on what it be- reality in countries such as India or Pakistan, lieves to be threats to its security, though rarely but it could draw a border, which says that Pa- is the alleged threat genuine. Every one of kistan and India do not represent a precedent them believes that weapons of mass destruction to be adopted and followed. A successful re- are the best deterrent against close or distant moval of the weapons of mass destruction from rivals, small powers and great. Every one wants Iraq could pave the way for a revival of regional the prestige that nuclear weaponry brings to talks in the Middle East on arms control and the state. None of them says it want these weap- regional security. These talks have been inter- ons to threaten, intimidate, or crush a rival. rupted because of differences between Egypt and Israel. If these talks are revived after the , Russia has, in the past, manifested war in Iraq, the way will be clear for discussions caution in transmitting nuclear technologies. on a Middle East free of weapons of mass de- In the case of Iran, that caution is no longer struction and threats of any kind. practiced. Progress toward international con- Failure to eliminate Iraq’s WMD could trol is quite slow; apprehension of the future is have disastrous consequences. Egypt, Libya, becoming acute. The threat of a new military and Saudi Arabia would have new incentives to coup in Pakistan with radical Islamic forces in acquire nuclear weapons. Iran would feel power only aggravates that fear. newly threatened. A multipolar nuclear-armed Some argue that the international commu- Middle East would be dangerous for all coun- nity has missed its chance, that the battle is lost tries, especially Israel. Opportunities for terror- because more and more countries are moving ist groups to obtain WMD would increase. toward nuclear arming and cannot be stopped Stability and American leadership would suffer. and that countries like North Korea and Iran Deterrence against terrorist organizations and already have crossed the point of no return. It rogue states would weaken. Their boldness follows that the object of the struggle now can would grow. America’s regional friends would only be to slow down the process of nuclear lose faith in its will to protect them. Radical arming. This pessimistic view is not accepted states and organizations like Iran, Iraq, and the universally. According to Israeli intelligence, Hezbollah would be emboldened to operate for instance, there still is a chance of arresting against Israel or against American interests in the nuclearization of the Middle East; the door the Middle East. Future efforts to eliminate has not been shut on that struggle. It all de- weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or else- pends on the course of events in Iraq. The where would be a far more arduous and intri- struggle includes a variety of means, ranging cate undertaking. from economic inducements and political The struggle will not end with Iraq or the pressure, regional settlements and sanctions, other aspiring nuclear powers of the Middle all the way to war when all else fails—war with East. A forgiving attitude toward the nuclear the mission of taking the weapons of mass de- violations of North Korea or any other coun- struction out of the hands of a country that tries supplying banned nuclear technology to threatens its neighbors as well as international the Middle East would only increase the appe- stability. Action should be timely and swift in tite of the countries of the region to continue order to prevent the enemy from using the developing their nuclear projects. Israel will very weapons that it is the purpose of the war maintain its refusal to sign the Nuclear Non- to eliminate once and for all. Proliferation and will be spurred to ask the Untied States to sign a mutual defense pact. As an alternative, there will probably be an Israeli demand for the development of a “second strike” capability against an enemy country equipped with nuclear weapons. The struggle is, therefore, global. It con- sists of the need to persuade countries like Russia and China to avoid handing over nuclear technology, even for civil uses to coun- tries that cannot be trusted. Compared with