The IAEA and IsraelThe International Atomic Energy Agency has Israel penciled into its agenda for the IAEA's June 7th board meeting. The AP reported that "a copy of the restricted provisional agenda of the IAEA's June 7 board meeting lists "Israeli nuclear capabilities" as the eighth item — the first time that that the agency's decision-making body is being asked to deal with the issue in its 52 years of existence." This immediately raises two questions. The first question ponders how a 'restricted' UN document wound up in the Associated Press? The answer isn't hard to figure out. It happens in the US all the time. Somebody within the administration leaks information to the New York Times to test public reaction to some policy to see if the propaganda campaign the preceded it was effective or if more groundwork is necessary. It would appear that the IAEA leak is of the same variety. The AP writer admitted as much in his piece:
The "Arab request" was signed by the 18 Arab member-states of the IAEA, no doubt under instructions from the wider- 57-nation Organization of Islamic States whose monolithic voting bloc sets most of the UN's agenda items. The leak is already having its desired effect with editorials around the world criticizing Israel's demand for strong international action to prevent Iran from getting nukes while "brushing off calls to come clean about its own nuclear capabilities." The latest OAS mantra calls for a 'nuclear-free Middle East'. In terms of propaganda value, this is pure gold. The reduction of nuclear weapons is a world-wide shared priority -- at least on paper. At the end of the Cold War the US and Russia each had about 27,000 nuclear warheads pointed at each other. Thanks to nuclear reduction talks begun by President Reagan, the US now has about 5,113. That figure was, until Obama released it, one of America's most closely-guarded military secrets. The Obama administration broke decades of secrecy hoping that, having showed them ours, they would show us theirs. "There is not the slightest possibility that Russia will reveal the number of tactical nuclear weapons it holds," Vitaly Shlykov, a former deputy defense minister who now works as a civilian adviser to Russia's Defense Ministry, told the AP. Obama also reversed another standing nuclear policy of decades-long duration, pledging that the United States would not use nuclear weapons in a first strike or against non-nuclear nations, even in the event of a non-nuclear WMD attack on US soil. In return, the Russians lowered the threshold at which it would consider the first-use of nuclear weapons, even in the event of a small local conflict. As noted earlier, world free of nuclear weapons is a noble concept – on paper. The Russians would love a nuclear-free West – they’re not so hot about defanging themselves, however. Moscow will gladly keep negotiating bi-lateral reductions until Obama achieves his dream of a nuclear-free America – if Obama wants to believe they are destroying their nukes too, why not let him? There is nothing that will get the liberals to march in lockstep off a cliff quicker than the promise of nuclear disarmament. It doesn’t even have to be believable – there is no faith more binding than the Left’s faith in the power of nothing. Assessment: The second question that comes to mind regarding the IAEA’s decision to put Israel on their agenda is in two parts. Why Israel? And why now? Israel has maintained a policy of nuclear ambiguity since the 1960’s – it is a uniquely Israeli variation on the Cold War policy of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction.) The Arab world has embarked on five wars aimed at Israel’s annihilation. Due to the close quarters involved, the Arabs could be fairly confident that Israel wouldn’t use nukes, even if they had them. But following the 1973 Yom Kippur War, it was rumored that Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir had ordered thirteen fighter-bombers airborne, equipped with tactical nuclear warheads and with orders to deliver them to the capital cities of the enemy in the event of an impending Israeli total defeat. As Golda once told a news conference, “The Arabs can fight, and lose, and come back to fight us again. Israel can only lose once.” That was the first revelation of Israel’s Samson Option named for the Biblical judge who brought down the temple of Dagon on his enemies, killing himself along with them in the process. Whether the story about Golda ordering nuclear-armed fighter-bombers aloft is fact or fiction was irrelevant. The shock of the revelation of Israel’s Samson Option put an end to any pan-Arab effort to annihilate the Jewish State by conventional means. Since then, they have focused efforts on asymmetrical tactics like terrorism and border wars of attrition. As long as there is a chance that defeating Israel means the destruction of their own capitals, not many Arab leaders are willing to take the risk. The only alternative is to use their majority power at the UN to try and turn Israel’s rhetoric about a nuclear Iran against them in the international court of public opinion by putting Israel’s alleged nuclear arsenal in the spotlight. Why brings us to the next question. Why now? Israel’s policy of nuclear ambiguity is well-established and has kept the Arab states at bay for decades. Until now, Israel could count on Washington and to a lesser extent, Europe, to shield it from the prying eyes of the United Nations. Despite Washington’s patronage, pro-Arab propaganda about Israel’s unregulated nuclear arsenal posing a threat of nuclear proliferation has continued unabated. The idea is absurd. Jerusalem doesn’t have any friends to proliferate to. Israel can’t count on Washington anymore – less that four percent of Israelis trust the Obama administration. Israel can’t count on Europe for the same reason famously articulated by Henry Kissinger when he asked, “If I wanted to talk to Europe, for whom would I ask?” The Arab world smells Israeli blood in the water. It appears that now is the time to make its move through the UN to try and defang the Jewish State through the UN first and then make its next concerted effort at Israel’s annihilation. But the first step is to bring the whole world into agreement that Israel’s nuclear arsenal poses a greater threat to regional peace than would Israel's eventual destruction and replacement with a moderate Arab state. It’s a tall order. But having Obama in the White House helps cut it down to size. Editor's Note: I accidentally sent out the wrong Omega Letter this morning – twice – in the process, deleting the one I had intended to send and forcing me to start over. Fat fingers. (Good thing I don’t work on Wall Street). My apologies for crowding your mailbox. Happy Mother’s Day! |
