16 April 2007
The Danger in Islamic Nuclear Development
Officials of Islamic countries, like Iran or Saudi Arabia, argue that it is illogical for them to wish to develop nuclear weapons technology. This, they say, reduces their political and physical security rather than increases it for it invites neighboring countries to match that capability in order to protect themselves with a second strike capability. That only makes it possible for a rogue state to launch a first strike.
Unfortunately, no matter how reasonable this argument appears to be, it begs the question: How does support for terrorist non-state organizations, like Hezbollah and Hamas, make either Iran or Saudi Arabia more secure? As long as resources of oil-rich states in the Middle East are directed to violent paramilitary organizations that do not conform to international standards of behavior, security cannot be called the compelling policy of those states. Nuclear weapons will become another resource that one day may be directed into the hands of those paramilitary organizations.
Of course, these states’ rejoinder to this objection to their non-transparent development of nuclear power is that those in the West who would limit their “right” under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to produce fissile material hypocritically defend a terrorist state, Israel. All issues in this part of the world correlate to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. NPT cannot be resolved in the absence of the establishment of a two-state solution in the Middle Eat and the signing on to it by all the parties involved, including all of the Arab League, the rest of the Islamic community, NATO, and Israel. The money for it will have to come from the oil-rich countries of the Middle East (whose wealth comes at the expense of the West); the enforcement of it will have to come at the hands of both the West and as a result of withdrawn support for non-state (and state-sponsored) terrorist activities, whether official or unofficial, whether offensive or defensive, retaliatory or pre-emptive.
No partial resolution will be possible. But the coming to a head of the nuclear issue may force a comprehensive settlement.
Officials of Islamic countries, like Iran or Saudi Arabia, argue that it is illogical for them to wish to develop nuclear weapons technology. This, they say, reduces their political and physical security rather than increases it for it invites neighboring countries to match that capability in order to protect themselves with a second strike capability. That only makes it possible for a rogue state to launch a first strike.
Unfortunately, no matter how reasonable this argument appears to be, it begs the question: How does support for terrorist non-state organizations, like Hezbollah and Hamas, make either Iran or Saudi Arabia more secure? As long as resources of oil-rich states in the Middle East are directed to violent paramilitary organizations that do not conform to international standards of behavior, security cannot be called the compelling policy of those states. Nuclear weapons will become another resource that one day may be directed into the hands of those paramilitary organizations.
Of course, these states’ rejoinder to this objection to their non-transparent development of nuclear power is that those in the West who would limit their “right” under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to produce fissile material hypocritically defend a terrorist state, Israel. All issues in this part of the world correlate to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. NPT cannot be resolved in the absence of the establishment of a two-state solution in the Middle Eat and the signing on to it by all the parties involved, including all of the Arab League, the rest of the Islamic community, NATO, and Israel. The money for it will have to come from the oil-rich countries of the Middle East (whose wealth comes at the expense of the West); the enforcement of it will have to come at the hands of both the West and as a result of withdrawn support for non-state (and state-sponsored) terrorist activities, whether official or unofficial, whether offensive or defensive, retaliatory or pre-emptive.
No partial resolution will be possible. But the coming to a head of the nuclear issue may force a comprehensive settlement.
Comments:
Post a Comment
