When Will Arabs Form Deterrent Force to Protect Themselves?

Leaders

a day ago

By: Dr. Atef Al-Shabrawy
International Expert in Development and Social Economy
In 1966, the classic theorist Thomas Schelling introduced a novel concept at the time: 'deterrence.' After World War II, military strategy shifted away from what was known as 'military victory' and began to rely on the art of coercion, intimidation, and deterrence. Schelling argued that the ability to inflict harm on another state is a threatening factor that influences the behavior of that state, compelling it to refrain from aggressive actions.
In response to a question from French television in 1974 about whether Iran planned to acquire nuclear weapons, the Shah of Iran cleverly replied, 'My country has signed a non-proliferation treaty. If we trust the major nuclear powers because they are responsible, we wonder: what would happen if there were a 'frivolous' state in the region seeking to acquire such weapons, and who would it attack?' The Concept of Deterrence
This approach was echoed by France in the same year when it announced its possession of what President de Gaulle termed 'nuclear deterrence.' This weapon was developed independently by France to avoid reliance on the United States, allowing it to leave NATO. De Gaulle himself, using similar justifications, provided Israel with nuclear weapons under the pretext of protecting it from the Arab threat. In a jab at President Nasser for supporting the Algerian revolution, French diplomat Stéphane Hessel wrote in his memoirs in 2011: 'Helping Israel acquire nuclear weapons is a mandatory task; we created Israel, and we must protect it from a dangerous Arab world that opposes it.' Nuclear Experiments
Researcher Dominique Schnapper noted in her 2021 book 'De Gaulle in the Eyes of the Jews' that between 1960 and 1966, France conducted dozens of nuclear tests, some of which were attended by Israeli experts. Consequently, Israel did not need to conduct its own nuclear tests, as France shared the results of its experiments, effectively granting Israel entry into the nuclear club. Mordechai Vanunu Exposes Israel
Despite this, Israel continued to deny possessing nuclear weapons until its project engineer, Mordechai Vanunu, leaked classified information and photographs from the Dimona reactor to the British press in 1986, revealing the 'Israeli nuclear ambiguity' that had persisted for decades. Israeli-Iranian Bombardment
During the 12 days of mutual Israeli-Iranian bombardment, it became evident that the struggle for control over the Middle East and its resources involves preventing certain countries from acquiring any deterrent capabilities, monitoring and stifling their attempts, and even destroying them. Iraq was destroyed under the pretext of possessing fictitious weapons of mass destruction, and similar arguments were used against Iran, as if nuclear weapons were the exclusive domain of major powers and their allies.
In May 1998, India announced that it had become a nuclear power following secret tests that went undetected by American satellites. Shortly thereafter, its historical rival, Pakistan, declared its entry into the nuclear club, becoming the only Muslim nation to achieve this feat while the major powers were distracted. Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of the Pakistani bomb, conducted tests in the Baluchistan mountains before being arrested for allegedly assisting Iran, Libya, and North Korea in developing nuclear technology. He was forced to make a televised apology but remained under house arrest until his death in 2021.
Ballistic Missiles
The intense Iranian bombardment of Israel highlighted the fact that nuclear technology is not the only deterrent weapon; ballistic and hypersonic missiles can also serve as strategic deterrents. The world witnessed their use in Iranian attacks on Israeli cities, which caused global panic and compelled major powers to intervene. These missiles effectively deterred and broke the aggressor, and the brief conflict, which aimed to divert attention from the ethnic cleansing in Gaza, appeared to be a test of weapons and technologies in preparation for a larger battle whose participants we do not yet know, but we do know its location. Extreme Democracy
With the cessation of bombardment, a new dimension of nuclear and strategic deterrence emerged, particularly for Arab nations in the region. The alarming increase in economic exchanges and investments between regional countries and the West seems to have provided us with no negotiating advantage or satisfaction regarding our positions and orientations. It has not erased the cultural and ideological divisions among us, nor the greed for our resources. There is now a tangible threat from the 'Western democracy' that once brought forth Hitler as a symbol of the extremism produced by the ballot box.
Recently, 'democratic' extremist leaders have emerged in the United States, Israel, and most European countries, with increasing possibilities of future leadership that may be even more extreme and violent, potentially unleashing bloodier wars. NATO has decided to raise member contributions to military spending from 2% to 5% of GDP by 2035. Enormous Military Budgets
It is worth imagining that the 32 NATO countries do not spend more on defense than they do on healthcare or education. Nevertheless, adopting a 5% contribution means these countries will allocate more to their militaries than to education. These enormous budgets could become a more aggressive and extreme force, potentially turning against any friendly nations. The Future of Arabs
The future of Arabs is now at the mercy of existential threats that require us all to form an independent intellectual, scientific, and material force, seeking a 'entity' that achieves the strategic deterrence necessary to prevent future generations from suffering and being destroyed by a new right-wing extremist. I recall the words of Saudi writer Othman Al-Omeir: 'We are heading into the future with the people of the future.' I doubt that the 'people of the future' he referred to will take us along with them, given our weaknesses. It is perhaps better to say: 'We are heading into the future with our strength; for strength secures us a place among the people of the future.'
Short link :
Post Views: 3