Why Nobody Is Raising the Issue of Israel's N-Might By Sir Cyril Townsend

Why Nobody Is Raising the Issue of Israel's N-Might

By Sir Cyril Townsend

January 25, 2006

Arab News, January 24, 2006

Prince Saud Al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, has just been in London. I read in the papers that during his time in that senior post the United Kingdom has got through no less than nine foreign secretaries. I watched him being interviewed on television and he was calm, polite and authoritative.

He did what should be done more often by such experienced and respected visitors from the Gulf. He put over most effectively on TV his country’s views on current issues in the Middle East, without pandering to Western prejudices and without overstating the case.

The key topic during his visit was Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and he reminded his audiences that the West had allowed Israel to develop a formidable nuclear arsenal and he claimed, entirely correctly in my view, that Israel’s nuclear strike capability had influenced Tehran.

It is true to say the British media, some important parts of which remain biased toward Israel, has tended to keep off the subject of Israel’s nuclear weapons. When they are mentioned, normally it has been from the perspective of “tiny, vulnerable” Israel being threatened with elimination by massed Arab tank armies!

France has worked with Britain and Germany to mediate over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. I wonder how many people in France recall that it was France who got Israel off to its start in the bomb business, when it secretly agreed to supply it with a plutonium-producing reactor at Diamona in the Negev desert. I suspect even fewer people in France link that support with today’s international crisis over Iran.

The United States connived at the construction of nuclear weapons by Israel, and is at present the most aggressive country over the possibility Iran might acquire nuclear weapons. The United States, like other Western countries, waged a powerful worldwide campaign against countries obtaining stocks of nuclear warheads, while looking away from what was going on at Diamona.

I have no doubt that the regime in Tehran has long felt threatened by Israel’s conventional and nuclear might, its failure to admit to having some 200 nuclear warheads, and its illegal and aggressive acts in the region, including the invasion of Lebanon. Iran will have carefully studied the arguments that countries like Britain and France have deployed for decades to justify having their own nuclear deterrent. Many Iranians recall they lost perhaps one million people when Iraq invaded their country and like the idea of a deterrent. If Iran’s leadership wants to have nuclear weapons — as I firmly believe it does — it is obviously responsible for its decisions. But it is absurd to disregard what has been allowed to happen in the Middle East.

Prince Saud also questioned how Iran might use any future nuclear weapons:

“If they hit Israel they are going to kill Palestinians. If they miss Israel, they are going to hit Saudi Arabia or Jordan. Where is the gain in that?”

It was a strong comment from such a skilled and moderate foreign minister.

Foreign Minister Saud expressed caution over the likely UN sanctions against Iran and wondered what they were being punished for at this stage. The answer to his second point is surely that Iran, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, failed to declare a 20-year covert research program into nuclear technology — a clear breach of the rules — and was slow to allow in the international inspectors and respond to their questions.

For the moment Britain, Germany and France are at work drafting a resolution for the International Atomic Energy Agency which will refer Iran to the Security Council. Western diplomats are confident such a resolution will pass. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned the idea is to move slowly building up the international pressure on Iran to comply with its obligations.

According to a senior official at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office reported in The Times (Jan. 18):

“We do not see this leading straight into sanctions. We see a gradual build-up of moves that will take place over time. We are not going to New York (the Security Council) to introduce punitive sanctions against Iran... The Security Council has weight and authority on the issues. A country cannot ignore the calls and requirements of the Security Council without cost. It brings together major players acting in concert.”

I warmly welcome such a statement that sounds very much like the true and authentic voice of the British Foreign Office! However, it may not please Washington which is hoping for strong and prompt action by the council. There is little to be gained by rushing if Russia and China, which have veto powers, are not so persuaded.

In the months ahead I trust we shall see the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia working closely together over this crisis.

Earth, a planet hungry for peace

Apartheid Wall


The Israeli Land-Grab Apartheid Wall built inside the Palestinian territories, here separating Abu Dis from occupied East Jerusalem. (IPC, 7/4/04).

The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers in the West Bank, like a Python. (Alquds,10/25/03).

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's.

editor@aljazeerah.info