The Economist for January 3 proposes that Israel, in light of Libya's acceptance of IAEA inspections, bargain away its nuclear weapons for Arab (primitive) chemical and biological weapons. The Economist notes the implications of Pakistan's nuclear weapons for such a deal. This is an important subject, which is widely discussed in Washington. The Economist points out, correctly, that Israel was 'allowed' to build nuclear weapons, and even test them secretly in the (French) Pacific, only because the Arab countries threatened to destroy Israel with apparently (then, at least) superior conventional forces. (Avner Cohen's 1998 Israel and the Bomb is an excellent, and courageous, account of Israel's nuclear program, especially France's role.) The Arabs no longer threaten Israel (except, as The Economist notes, for Iran), and there is no cogent rationale now for Israel to have nuclear weapons or to remain outside the NPT. Our acquiescence in Israel's possession of nuclear weapons undercuts our support of the NPT. In Pakistan, for example, our efforts are essentially non-starters because of our position vis-avis Israel. My own view is that resolving Israel's nuclear weapons, and bringing Israel into the NPT, would go a surprisingly long way toward fixing our issues with the Arab world. I had lunch with Paul Nitze a few years ago, and he said that he would favor discarding all our nuclear weapons. I asked why, and he said, "Because there's no circumstance in which we would use them." That fits Israel now.
Comments