BICOM

Key points

• US President Obama’s nuclear summit, attended by delegations from over 45 countries, is focusing international attention on rising threats of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism.
• A recent US nuclear policy assessment significantly limits American use of nuclear weapons, but leaves open its nuclear option regarding countries that defy their non-proliferation obligations and pose an imminent threat. As such, countries like Iran and North Korea remain at the focus of American strategic security policy.
• Israel maintains an official policy of ambiguity regarding its nuclear capabilities and this is not expected to change in the coming period. Despite Prime Minister Netanyahu’s decision not to personally travel to Washington, Israel’s participation illustrates its commitment to international nuclear security and its concerns over Iran’s drive for nuclear power.

Introduction

Several noteworthy events in recent weeks have directed international attention to the challenge of nuclear security and the new threats posed by rogue states and non-state terror groups seeking to obtain nuclear capabilities. The publication of an American nuclear policy assessment significantly limits American use of nuclear weapons, but leaves open the nuclear option regarding countries that defy the Non-Proliferation Treaty and pose an imminent threat. As such, countries like Iran and North Korea remain at the focus of American strategic security policy.

The focus on nuclear security has raised the issue of Israel’s nuclear policy. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided to cancel his participation in the summit following reports that Israel will be pressed by Arab leaders over this issue. The following document examines Israel’s policy and situates it in the context of the recent shift in international focus and contemporary threats to regional stability.

A renewed nuclear focus

This week, leaders of over 45 nations are convening in Washington DC to discuss the future of international nuclear security. The summit, hosted by US President Barack Obama is being attended, among others, by China, India, Turkey, Egypt and European countries. The United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency will also be represented. The Israeli delegation will be headed by Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor.

The summit is part of a broader effort by President Obama’s administration to ensure that nuclear security becomes a focus of a coordinated international effort. The US and Russia reached an agreement last week over the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which ensures mutual oversight on nuclear stockpiles, and gradually brings about a reduction in both countries’ nuclear arsenals. Between them, the US and Russia hold 95% of the world’s nuclear weapons.

Earlier this week, the administration in Washington published the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which outlines American nuclear policy, investment and war-planning for five to ten years. Outlining US nuclear security policy, the NPR significantly narrows the circumstances in which the US will launch a nuclear strike, highlighting the “fundamental role” of nuclear weapons as a deterrence mechanism. Several analysts importantly noted that the document does not suggest that deterrence is the “sole purpose” of these weapons, which leaves open the possibility of nuclear use in other scenarios. Although it is stated for the first time that the US will not launch an attack on a non-nuclear country, this country must be in compliance with its non-proliferation obligations under international treaties. This leaves Iran on the list of potential targets.

Both the NPR and the upcoming summit in Washington place the threat of nuclear terror as a central concern for international nuclear policy. The document recognises for the first time that the threat from terrorists acquiring a nuclear weapon (or the fissile material to make one) is greater than that of a nuclear strike by an adversarial state. US Defence Secretary Robert Gates rearticulated this point recently when he noted that next week’s summit will seek to “tackle the most dangerous threat we face today, the threat of nuclear terrorism.”

The Israeli delegation travels to Washington hoping to highlight Israel’s deep concerns over Iran’s nuclear drive, and the consequent threat of nuclear weapons reaching one of the terror groups supported by the Iranian regime. As such, Israel joins other countries in pushing for new measures that would further strengthen non-proliferation efforts and address the rapidly-changing needs of nuclear security. At the same time, the summit has opened the possibility for some to criticise Israel’s own nuclear policy.

Israel‘s nuclear policy

Geographic and demographic asymmetries in the region leave Israel inherently vulnerable to attack. Its tiny size prevents the possibility of “strategic depth” – the ability to absorb a first strike or surprise attack and then launch a counter-attack. This geo-strategic situation is cited by international intelligence sources as the key motivation, dating back to the 1950s, for Israel to develop a nuclear deterrent.

Israel maintains a strict policy of nuclear ambiguity – neither confirming the existence of a weapons capability, nor denying it. There have been a range of unconfirmed estimates about Israel’s nuclear capability over the years. The Federation of American Scientists estimates that Israel’s nuclear weapons inventory may include less than 100 nuclear weapons.

Israel and the US are believed to have had, since the late 1960s an agreement that Washington will not ask Israel to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as long as Israel maintains a low profile and does not reveal its capabilities via public statements or nuclear testing. Since then, these implicit understandings are said to have been maintained by consecutive US and Israeli administrations, including, according to recent reports, by President Obama.

Maintaining a policy of ambiguity has been successful in preserving Israel’s strategic deterrence without resorting to threatening rhetoric. Egyptian and Syrian decisions to halt the attack on Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War and Saddam Hussein’s decision not to use chemical weapons against Israel in the first Gulf War have been attributed to this deterrence policy.

A number of reasons have been cited for Israel not signing up to the NPT, thereby declaring itself a nuclear power. Despite numerous reports regarding Israel’s nuclear capabilities in the past four decades, Arab countries have mostly refrained from developing nuclear programmes and there has been no nuclear race in the region. This might change if Israel explicitly acknowledges possession of nuclear weapons. Furthermore, Israel does not present a risk to the international nuclear proliferation regime. On the contrary, Israel has the highest interest in preventing other countries from obtaining nuclear weapons or related materials, specifically those countries that support proxy terror groups in the region.

Israel and the threat of nuclear terror

The threat of nuclear terror is now one of the most alarming scenarios for countries around the world. It is enough for an armed group to get hold of a small amount of fissile material and integrate it into an explosive device in a dense urban environment to cause widespread damage. Entire areas could become uninhabitable for long periods of time and secondary injuries and deaths are likely due to radiation exposure.

The changing nature of threats in recent years also impacts deterrence policies implemented by Israel and other countries in the region. Iran’s nuclear ambitions increase the threat of dangerous nuclear material reaching terror organisations. Tehran has been known for supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, as well as assisting insurgent groups in Iraq and Yemen. The Iranian regime uses these relations to expand its regional position.

This constitutes an increasing challenge to Israel and Arab states who might find themselves confronting radical groups that present a considerable threat by virtue of their access to nuclear material. The threat of nuclear weapons, in this regard, is measured to a large degree by a country’s ability to safeguard its nuclear stockpile and prevent it from falling into the hands of terror groups, not merely by its intention to use it in future conflict. As such, the Iranian nuclear programme presents an unprecedented threat.

President Obama noted in his Prague speech last year that the international community must come up with a new policy that could effectively deal with the nuclear threats of the 21^st century. There must be an international consensus on the dangers from nuclear terrorism and inadequate nuclear security, even if opinions differ on the solutions to deal with this problem. Achieving consensus on the threat, at a minimum, has already been noted as a key objective of the US administration. Israel will undoubtedly provide its support in this regard, and will seek broad international effort in countering the nuclear threats of the future.