In this time of rancour, fear and war, peaceful nuclear cooperation in the Middle East is still possible
The proposal was not a new Iranian initiative. As far back as 1974, Iran proposed a zone free from nuclear weapons in the Middle East at the UN, and was soon joined by Egypt. That proposal passed overwhelmingly in the general assembly. After Iraq's use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, the initiative was expanded in 1990 to cover all weapons of mass destruction. But for half a century, progress has been blocked by Israel and its main patron, the United States.
This paralysis is no accident. Despite overwhelming annual support in the UN general assembly and repeated commitments in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), the Middle East remains one of the only regions on Earth without a nuclear weapon-free framework. More than 100 non-aligned states at the 1995 NPT review and extension conference made progress towards such a zone a condition of the treaty's indefinite extension. Yet 30 years on, little has changed.
In fact, the situation has deteriorated, showing that while possession of nuclear weapons usually leads to reckless adventurism, such weapons in no way assure success, provide invincibility or safety for citizens. Recent unlawful military action by the nuclear-armed Israel – which is not party to the NPT – against Iran's internationally monitored nuclear facilities brought our region dangerously close to an abyss. The failure of Israel to achieve its unwarranted objectives, and the inability of the US to bring Iran to its knees, could and still can engulf this region and by extension the entire world in a forever war.
Enough is enough. We must take the future of our region's security into our own hands. It is time for the Middle East and north Africa to move beyond empty rhetoric and towards genuine regional cooperation – based on mutual respect and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. That is why we propose the creation of the Middle East Network for Atomic Research and Advancement, or Menara, which fittingly means 'lighthouse' in Arabic.
Menara would be a regional body designed to facilitate peaceful nuclear cooperation among its members. Open to all qualified states in the Middle East and north Africa, to join, countries must reject the development or deployment of nuclear weapons and commit to mutual verification of their compliance. In return, Menara would help them benefit from peaceful nuclear technology, including energy production, medicine, agriculture and scientific research.
Such a body is not a substitute for disarmament – it is a step towards it. Regional nuclear cooperation, with strong safeguards and mutual oversight, can strengthen non-proliferation and enhance energy security without enabling militarisation.
It has long been argued that progress on regional disarmament must wait for Israel to disarm. But a regime that has shown no regard for international legitimacy by committing international crimes such as apartheid, genocide and, most recently, mass starvation will hardly be influenced by this negative pressure – it certainly has not been for more than 50 years. And its perilous nuclear arsenal has been and will always remain the gravest threat to international non-proliferation and regional and global peace and stability. Holding hundreds of millions of people hostage to one regime's nuclear arsenal and political impunity is a recipe for permanent instability. We must find a new way forward.
Menara would also help reframe the nuclear debate in the region. For too long, nuclear issues have been cast solely in terms of risk and threat. But nuclear science also offers solutions – to the climate crisis, water scarcity, food security and energy diversification. As oil and gas reserves dwindle, nuclear energy will be vital for regional growth and sustainability. Menara can make this future a shared, secure reality.
Here's how it would work. Menara would coordinate research, education and development across member states. It would support joint ventures in fields ranging from uranium enrichment and waste management to nuclear fusion and medicine. Members would share facilities, pool expertise and ensure transparency through a joint regulatory board. Contributions would be proportional to each country's capacity, but every member would benefit.
The network would be headquartered in one of the participating countries, with branch offices and potentially shared enrichment facilities in others. Oversight would be conducted by a board of governors composed of national representatives, with international observers from the UN, the security council and the International Atomic Energy Agency invited to participate. Crucially, Menara would include robust mutual safeguards to prevent the diversion of materials for military use.
Today, more than ever, we in the Middle East and north Africa region have been woken up to a collective cognisance of the horrifying picture of our future unless we seize this moment. We know that mistrust runs deep in our region. Iran has its grievances and so do others. But history must not define our destiny.
We call on the nations of the Middle East and north Africa to endorse Menara and begin formal negotiations on its structure, mandate and membership criteria. A regional summit – under the auspices of the UN and with support from global powers – could lay the foundation. Such a step would not only reduce the risk of nuclear conflict but also offer a model for cooperation in a fractured world.
The status quo is unsustainable. The nightmare of escalation and its inherent potential to cause proliferation is no longer hypothetical; it is dangerously close to becoming real. But there is still time to choose a different path.
Menara can be a beacon guiding us towards a future where the Middle East is no longer a battleground for nuclear brinkmanship, but a leader in peace, progress and responsible energy. The time to act is now.
Javad Zarif is associate professor of global studies at the University of Tehran. He was Iran's foreign minister and chief nuclear negotiator from 2013-21. His co-author is Mohsen Baharvand, who was Iran's deputy foreign minister and ambassador to the UK
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
32 minutes ago
- The Guardian
What conditions has Australia put on recognition of a Palestinian state – and what will happen if they are not met?
The Australian government has pledged to recognise a Palestinian state. The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, says the decision is 'predicated' on commitments from the Palestinian Authority's (PA) Mahmoud Abbas, who has said his group will undergo critical governance reforms, and that a future state will have no room for members of the terrorist group Hamas. But Albanese's government won't say what would happen if those commitments are missed. Here are the key questions about the recognition discussion. Albanese says Abbas has made pledges including: A demilitarised Palestine. Recognising Israel's right to exist in peace and security. The Palestinian Authority holding elections and undertaking governance reforms, including education system reforms to not promote further violence. No role for Hamas. Shahram Akbarzadeh, a professor of Middle East politics at Deakin University, says the PA commitments raise 'lots of challenges'. He describes the PA as 'rife with corruption and nepotism' but says there is no other body which could begin processes towards Palestinian statehood. It is vital then, Akbarzadeh says, that western nations – likely led by the EU, UN and ideally the US – help lead democratic and governance reforms in the PA. 'All of this requires and calls for sustained international engagement and investment – funds and expertise,' he says. 'If the international community wants to see a viable new state emerge, there needs to be support for it. You can't just issue a declaration and walk out the door.' Sussan Ley, the opposition leader, claims Albanese is skating over the issue. 'He actually refuses to say what will happen if the conditions that he sets out for recognition are not met,' she told the Sydney radio station 2GB. Akbarzadeh says barring Hamas from a future governing role is 'widely accepted' by Arab leaders, but the 'practicalities' are difficult. 'That's going to be a much harder proposition than disarming Hamas … it will involve a lengthy process of checks and balances,' Akbarzadeh says. He questions whether the ban would extend to people in Gaza who were forced to affiliate with members of Hamas, as the ruling party in the territory. 'Affiliation with Hamas during that time doesn't mean necessarily they're all terrorists. Everyone in Gaza had some sort of affiliation with Hamas, as a necessity of life. It adds another layer of complication,' he says. Amal Naser, of the Palestine Action Group, told Channel Nine: 'I don't think it's very plausible' Hamas could be blocked from a future Palestinian state. 'But the key issue here is that western states can't be determining who is in governance in Palestine, but they do have an obligation to prevent and punish this genocide,' she said. Albanese told Channel Nine the international community could stop Hamas members from running for elections – but did not say exactly how. 'You can [stop Hamas] if you have the Arab states in the Middle East all speaking as one as well as the Palestinian Authority as well as the international community.' Albanese has repeatedly said recognition is a chance to 'isolate Hamas' and promote more moderate voices. Albanese and the foreign affairs minister, Penny Wong, shrugged off repeated questions on Monday and Tuesday about commitments not being met. Albanese has refused multiple times to say whether Australia could revoke Palestinian recognition. Government sources indicate Labor is focused on making the reforms work, rather than considering alternatives. Wong told the ABC on Monday that Australia and the international community would 'hold the Palestinian Authority to its commitments'. Ley says a future Coalition government would revoke Palestinian recognition, raising questions about how such a diplomatic backflip could be executed three or six years into the future of a newly established Palestine. The Coalition has claimed Palestinian recognition is a reward for Hamas. Wong says there is 'much more work to do in building a Palestinian state'. Australia will contribute to building the capacity of the PA and providing humanitarian aid to civilians in Gaza. Asked on the ABC whether Australia would help in rebuilding Gaza after Israel's military bombardment, Albanese said Australia would 'play our part' – but noted Australia was 'not big players in the Middle East'. More than 146 countries have already recognised Palestine. In recent weeks, France, Canada and the UK have pledged to recognise. The Canadian leader Mark Carney's pledge was also predicated on the PA's commitment to reforms and elections, including no role for Hamas and a demilitarised Palestine. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, in pledging recognition, noted Abbas's condemnation of Hamas, and the PA's calls for Hamas to be disarmed and excluded from future governance of Palestine. Macron also spoke of the PA's commitment to reforms and elections. The British prime minister, Keir Starmer, pledged to recognise Palestine unless Israel's government took 'substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza', including a ceasefire and peace plan. Wong says practical steps, such as an Australian embassy presence or conferring full embassy status to the Palestinian delegation to Australia, would be tied to the PA's commitments. But no firm timeline or details have been confirmed. The government is facing pressure from inside and outside its ranks to go further in responding to Israel's military campaign. Labor Friends of Palestine, an internal pressure group, has urged the government to impose sanctions on more members of Netanyahu's government, put more aid and mobile hospitals into Gaza, and set up a humanitarian visa pathway for Palestinians. Other Palestinian Australian groups have urged the cutting of diplomatic ties with Israel – a step Albanese rejected as 'completely counterproductive'.
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
State Department softens criticism of some Trump partner countries in scaled-back human rights report
WASHINGTON, Aug 12 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration has scaled back a key U.S. government report on human rights worldwide, dramatically softening criticism of some countries that have been strong partners of the Republican president, such as El Salvador and Israel, which rights groups say have extensive records of abuses. Instead, the U.S. State Department in its widely anticipated 2024 Human Rights Report sounded an alarm about the erosion of freedom of speech in Europe and ramped up criticism of Brazil and South Africa, countries Washington has clashed with over a host of issues. Any criticism of governments over their treatment of LGBTQI rights, which appeared in Biden administration editions of the report, appeared to have been largely omitted. Washington referred to Russia's invasion of Ukraine mainly as the "Russia-Ukraine war." The report's section on Israel was much shorter than last year's edition and contained no mention of the severe humanitarian crisis or death toll in Gaza. Some 61,000 people have died, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, as a result of Israel's military operations in response to an attack by Palestinian militant group Hamas in October 2023. The report was delayed for months as Trump appointees altered an earlier State Department draft dramatically to bring it in line with "America First" values, according to government officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. The report introduced new categories such as "Life" and "Liberty," and "Security of the Person." "There were no credible reports of significant human rights abuses," the 2024 report said about El Salvador, in sharp contrast with the 2023 report that talked about "significant human rights issues" and listed them as credible reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings, torture, and harsh and life-threatening prison conditions. Washington's bilateral ties with El Salvador have strengthened since Trump took office, as the administration has deported people to El Salvador with help from President Nayib Bukele, whose country is receiving $6 million from the U.S. to house the migrants in a high-security mega-prison. Critics said the report was politically driven. "The report demonstrates what happens when political agendas take priority over the facts," said Josh Paul, a former State Department official and director of nongovernmental organization A New Policy. "The outcome is a much-abbreviated product that is more reflective of a Soviet propaganda release than of a democratic system." State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said the report was restructured to improve readability and that it was no longer an expansive list of "politically biased demands and assertions." Bruce declined to respond to specific questions about countries and did not say why a list of rights abuses in El Salvador was removed. The Trump administration has moved away from the traditional U.S. promotion of democracy and human rights, seeing it as interference in another country's affairs, even as it criticized countries selectively, consistent with its broader policy towards a particular country. One example is Europe, where Trump officials repeatedly weighed in on European politics to denounce what they see as suppression of right-wing leaders, including in Romania, Germany, and France, and accused European authorities of censoring views such as criticism of immigration. For decades, the State Department's congressionally mandated Human Rights Report has been used as a blueprint of reference for global rights advocacy. This year's report was prepared following a major revamp of the department, which included the firing of hundreds of people, many from the agency's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, which takes the lead in writing the report. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in April wrote an opinion piece that said the bureau had become a platform for "left-wing activists," saying the Trump administration would reorient the bureau to focus on "Western values." In Brazil, where the Trump administration has clashed with the government, the State Department found the human rights situation declined, after the 2023 report found no significant changes. This year's report took aim at the courts, stating they took action undermining freedom of speech and disproportionately suppressing the speech of supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro, among others. Bolsonaro is on trial before the Supreme Court on charges he conspired with allies to violently overturn his 2022 electoral loss to leftist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Trump has referred to the case as a "witch hunt" and called it grounds for a 50% tariff on Brazilian goods. In South Africa, whose government the Trump administration has accused of racial discrimination towards Afrikaners, this year's report said the human rights situation significantly worsened. It stated that "South Africa took a substantially worrying step towards land expropriation of Afrikaners and further abuses against racial minorities in the country." In last year's report, the State Department found no significant changes in the human rights situation in South Africa. Trump, earlier this year, issued an executive order that called for the U.S. to resettle Afrikaners, describing them as victims of "violence against racially disfavored landowners," allegations that echoed far-right claims but which have been contested by South Africa's government.
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
Israel bombards Gaza City; Hamas leader visits Cairo in bid to salvage ceasefire talks
CAIRO, Aug 12 (Reuters) - Israeli planes and tanks kept bombarding eastern areas of Gaza City overnight, killing at least 11 people, witnesses and medics said on Tuesday, with Hamas leader Khalil Al-Hayya arriving in Cairo for talks to revive a U.S.-backed ceasefire plan. The latest round of indirect talks in Qatar ended in deadlock in late July with Israel and Palestinian militant group Hamas trading blame over the lack of progress on a U.S. proposal for a 60-day truce and hostage release deal. Israel has since said it will launch a new offensive and seize control of Gaza City, which it captured shortly after the war's outbreak in October 2023 before pulling out. Hamas' meetings with Egyptian officials, scheduled to begin on Wednesday, will focus on ways to stop the war, deliver aid, and "end the suffering of our people in Gaza," Hamas official Taher al-Nono said in a statement. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's plan to expand military control over Gaza, expected to be launched in October, has increased a global outcry over the widespread devastation, displacement and hunger afflicting Gaza's 2.2 million people. It has also stirred criticism in Israel, with the military chief of staff warning it could endanger surviving hostages and prove a death trap for Israeli soldiers. It has also raised fears of further displacement and hardship among the estimated one million Palestinians in the Gaza City region. Foreign ministers of 24 countries including Britain, Canada, Australia, France and Japan, said on Tuesday the humanitarian crisis in Gaza had reached "unimaginable levels" and urged Israel to allow unrestricted aid into the enclave. Israel denies responsibility for hunger in Gaza, accusing Hamas of stealing aid. It says it has taken steps to increase deliveries, including pausing fighting for parts of the day in some areas and announcing protected routes for aid convoys. A Palestinian official with knowledge of the mediated ceasefire talks said Hamas was prepared to return to the negotiating table, and the leaders who were visiting Cairo on Tuesday would reaffirm that stance. "Hamas believes negotiation is the only way to end the war and is open to discuss any ideas that would secure an end to the war," the official, who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the matter, told Reuters. However, the gaps between the sides appear to remain wide on key issues, including the extent of any Israeli military withdrawal and demands for Hamas to disarm. A Hamas official told Reuters on Tuesday the Islamist movement was ready to relinquish Gaza governance on behalf of a non-partisan committee, but it would not relinquish its arms before a Palestinian state is established. Netanyahu, whose far-right ultranationalist coalition allies want an outright Israeli takeover of all of Gaza, has vowed the war will not end until Hamas is eradicated. On Tuesday, Gaza's health ministry said that 89 Palestinians had been killed by Israeli fire in the past 24 hours. Witnesses and medics said Israeli bombardments overnight killed seven people in two houses in Gaza City's Zeitoun suburb and another four in an apartment building in the city centre. In the south of Gaza, five people, including a couple and their child, were killed by an Israeli airstrike on a house in the city of Khan Younis and four others by a strike on a tent encampment in nearby coastal Mawasi, medics said. The Israeli military said it was looking into the reports of the latest bombardments and that its forces take precautions to mitigate civilian harm. Separately, it said its forces had killed dozens of militants in north Gaza over the past month and destroyed more tunnels used by militants in the area. Five more people, including two children, have died of starvation and malnutrition in Gaza in the past 24 hours, the territory's health ministry said. The new deaths raised the number of deaths from the same causes to 227, including 103 children, since the war started, it added. Israel disputes the malnutrition fatality figures reported by the health ministry in the Hamas-run enclave. The war began on October 7, 2023, when Hamas-led militants stormed into southern Israel, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli figures. Israel's offensive against Hamas in Gaza since then has killed more than 61,000 Palestinians, according to local health officials.
