Latest news with #MiddleburyInstituteofInternationalStudiesatMonterey
Newsweek
4 days ago
- Business
- Newsweek
Israel Fears Arms Race in Fight to Remain Middle East's Only Nuclear Power
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Located among the sprawling dunes of Israel's southern desert is a central component of what Avner Cohen calls his country's "worst kept secret." The Negev Nuclear Research Center, officially renamed in 2018 after late Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres and often referred to by the name of the nearby city of Dimona, is widely known to be the complex where Israel first underwent the project to obtain nuclear weapons back in the late 1950s. The program emerged just a decade after the nation declared its independence and fought the first of several wars against neighboring Arab powers. Since then, Israel has maintained a policy of strategic ambiguity concerning its nuclear arsenal, neither confirming nor denying its existence. Cohen, a professor for non-proliferation studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey who authored several definitive books on Israel's nuclear weapons history, argued this opaque strategy was partially informed by a desire to diminish the incentive of the other side, Israel's enemies, to seek weapons of mass destruction. While Cohen told Newsweek that "it's indisputable" that Israel possess nuclear weapons, he explained that the country has maintained them in a way unlike any other nuclear power, establishing a critical separation between the capabilities and those who would be tasked with using them. He characterized Israel's approach as a "benign monopoly," one that "gives the others the very lowest incentive to go nuclear." "And I think that Israeli leaders are very much committed to keep Israel in that way," he said, "on the one hand, that Israel will be the only one in the region with those capacities, and at the same time, to do their best not to nuclearize the remaining conflict in the Middle East." And yet the regional equation has shifted over time. The foremost conflict playing out across the Middle East today is between Israel and Iran, a nation that already possesses a sophisticated and large-scale nuclear program. Iranian officials have always maintained their nation's sprawling network of nuclear facilities were solely for peaceful purposes, yet fears of potential weaponization have for the third time in a decade brought the United States and Iran to the negotiating table. Meanwhile, a number of other countries in the region are also vying to develop nuclear programs, all of which, like Iran, insist they only seek to obtain civil nuclear capabilities. As the U.S. and Saudi Arabia discuss the possibilities of Washington's support in this endeavor, Russia has already struck deals with Egypt and Turkey to aid in the development of nuclear reactors. Now, Israeli officials are expressing concern that the growing interest in nuclear initiatives could spark a regional rush to attain capabilities that could forever reshape the Middle East. "At the end of the day, we wouldn't like to see some kind of nuclear race in the Middle East, whether it's civil or military," Tsach Saar, Israel's consul deputy general in New York, told Newsweek. "We're just afraid it's going to lead to a nuclear race in the region." A Newsweek composite image depicts Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, left, and U.S. President Donald Trump surrounded by symbols of some Middle East nations and illustrations of missiles. A Newsweek composite image depicts Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, left, and U.S. President Donald Trump surrounded by symbols of some Middle East nations and illustrations of missiles. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva The Begin Doctrine When faced with the development of rival nuclear programs, Israel has a lengthy history of taking matters into its own hands. The origins of this strategy date back to the Mossad intelligence agency's "Operation Damocles" campaign targeting former Nazi German personnel who assisted Egypt to develop its rocket program in the 1960s. But the doctrine has come to be defined by a 1981 raid, known as "Operation Opera," against a nuclear reactor in Iraq early into its war with Iran. Rather than mask responsibility, then-Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin took full credit. "Tell so your friends, tell anyone you meet, we shall defend our people with all the means at our disposal," Begin said at the time. "We shall not allow any enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction turned against us." Thus began the so-called "Begin Doctrine," marked by an array of largely covert operations targeting potential nuclear capabilities across the Middle East. Among the most notable operations in line with this strategy include a 2007 raid against a nuclear reactor in Syria later named "Operation Outside the Box" and a still-undeclared campaign of cyberattacks and assassinations targeting nuclear facilities and personnel in Iran beginning in 2010. In November 2020, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, viewed by many as the chief architect of Iran's nuclear program, was slain in a remote-control machine gun attack in Iran that has been widely attributed to Israel. Iran and Israel have simultaneously been engaged in a yearslong shadow war that was brought out into the open for the first time last year as the two foes twice exchanged direct strikes. As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu now threatens to take unilateral action against Iran's nuclear facilities amid the ongoing talks between Tehran and Washington, the Begin Doctrine appears to remain very much in effect. "What is called the Begin Doctrine basically says that Israel should make every conceivable effort to prevent any hostile country in the region from acquiring nuclear weapons and so you look through the history of Israel," Ariel Levite, a former principal deputy director general of policy at the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission who now serves as senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's Nuclear Policy Program, told Newsweek. "And you see that that was applied to Iraq, and that was applied to Syria, and that was earlier even applied to Egypt," he said, "and now it's being applied to Iran." Ephraim Asculai, a veteran of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission who is today a senior researcher at Israel's Institute for National Security Studies, also spoke of how the Begin Doctrine remains active, particularly when it comes to Iran. "The Begin Doctrine, that was declared as the result of the Iraqi nuclear ambitions, says, in essence, that no Middle East state will be permitted to have a nuclear weapons development program," Asculai told Newsweek. "As far as I know, this is still in force today and dictates Israeli actions. This is especially true in the case of Iran, a declared mortal foe of Israel." This photo declassified and released by the Israel Defense Forces in March 2018 shows what was believed to be a nuclear reactor site destroyed by Israel during a September 2007 raid in Deir Ezzor, Syria. This photo declassified and released by the Israel Defense Forces in March 2018 shows what was believed to be a nuclear reactor site destroyed by Israel during a September 2007 raid in Deir Ezzor, Syria. Israel Defense Forces/AP The Saudi Question Asculai emphasized that "Israel does not oppose nuclear power development in the region," rather "Israel does oppose any development that could lead any state into nuclear weapons ambitions." He added: "This relates, in particular to nuclear enrichment programs that could lead, if misdirected, to nuclear weapons." Among the region's nuclear aspirations currently garnering the most attention are those of Saudi Arabia. While far from a declared adversary of Israel, which seeks to normalize ties with the kingdom, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, sometimes referred to simply as "MBS," has hinted at nuclear weapons ambitions in the past, particularly his declarations that he would seek such capabilities immediately if Iran were to acquire them. "The case of Saudi Arabia is somewhat different," Asculai said, "since MBS declared that if Iran was to have a nuclear weapons development program, so would he, and if Iran was to have a uranium enrichment program, so would he." As Levite pointed out, Saudi Arabia is widely believed to have a tacit agreement with the world's sole Islamic nuclear power, Pakistan, through which Islamabad would deploy nuclear weapons to the kingdom "if push comes to shove." Both nations have denied such a pact. Saudi Arabia is also a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), as is the case with Iran and the first nuclear weapons states, the U.S., Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China, while India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea remain non-parties to the NPT. Saudi Arabia has struck preliminary agreements in recent years with both China and Russia in exploring a nuclear energy program. The prospect of Saudi Arabia pursuing uranium enrichment on its own soil, as it has repeatedly expressed interesting in doing, would be a first for the Arab world, defying what Levite referred to as "the U.S. gold standard" set by the United Arab Emirates when it opened the Arab world's debut nuclear power plant in 2020. The UAE had pledged to forego enrichment and reprocessing at home as part of the earlier "123 Agreement" reached with the U.S. in 2009. "What generates some proliferation concern in Israel is not the Saudi interest in nuclear power plants as such," Levite said, "but more in the Saudi desire to engage in enrichment activity." And while he stated that "generally, the level of anxiety about nuclear energy in Arab hands is rather limited to safety and security concerns," he argued that there is "far greater apprehension over the potential that those countries would actually be engaged in nuclear fuel cycle activities." "Not only are you creating a dangerous precedent of creating and potentially helping build enrichment capability in Saudi Arabia, but also others would say, 'OK, so the gold standard is now broken. If the Iranians have it, we should have it too. If the Saudis have it, we should definitely have it,'" Levite said. Today, the primary area of contention between Israel and Saudi Arabia pertains not to nuclear issues, but the war in Gaza. Saudi protests over Israeli actions in its operations against the Palestinian militant group Hamas have proven a sticking point for normalization talks and have incited an escalation of Saudi condemnation of Israel. And though few expect this anger to transform into military threats, Levite felt Saudi Arabia remained vulnerable to instability that could make its nuclear bid more problematic for Israel. "Saudi Arabia is inherently unstable politically, and so the regime may one day become much more of a threat to Israel," he added. "From a security and safety point of view, having those things in Saudi Arabia is not a particularly attractive option." Newsweek has reached out to the Saudi Embassy in the U.S. for comment. Other prominent Israeli figures have voiced concern that a U.S.-Saudi nuclear deal could push other countries to seek their own programs. Last month, former Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid, who currently serves as head of the opposition, told Israel's Army Radio that allowing Saudi Arabia to develop a civil nuclear program would "lead to a Middle East nuclear race." He alleged that Emirati officials had already communicated to him that, "if the Saudis accept this—we will do it too." Meanwhile, Iranian officials have also proposed a nuclear fuel sharing consortium among regional countries, such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, along with multi-billion-dollar investments to support President Donald Trump's vision of a "nuclear renaissance" at home. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, left, shakes hands with his Saudi counterpart Prince Faisal bin Farhan during their meeting in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on May 10, 2025. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, left, shakes hands with his Saudi counterpart Prince Faisal bin Farhan during their meeting in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on May 10, 2025. Foreign Ministry of the Islamic Republic of Iran/AP Friends and Foes Thus far, the U.S. has yet to strike a nuclear agreement with either Iran or Saudi Arabia, and such an arrangement with the latter was notably absent from the series of deals reached during Trump's recent trip to the kingdom. But the visit did reinforce indications of another trend that has elicited concern among some Israeli observers. As Trump's decision to skip Israel on the regional tour that also included the UAE and Qatar already raised questions, the U.S. leader moved to lift sanctions on Syria, despite Netanyahu reportedly asking him not to. It was the latest instance of the two men diverging on key issues in recent weeks after the U.S. engaged in direct talks with Hamas to secure the release of a dual U.S.-Israeli national being held in Gaza and struck a ceasefire deal with Yemen's Ansar Allah movement, also known as the Houthis, that did not include the group's ongoing strikes against Israel. Trump and Netanyahu also appear to have drifted in their messaging on Iran nuclear talks. The Israeli premier's call during their last meeting in April to pursue an Iran nuclear deal "the way it was done in Libya" drew headlines as Trump had previously criticized his then-national security adviser John Bolton's reference to a "Libya model" during talks with North Korea that ultimately collapsed in 2019. Longtime Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi forfeited his nation's budding nuclear program in exchange for better ties with the U.S. in 2003, the same year the U.S. invaded Iraq and toppled President Saddam Hussein over allegations of weapons of mass destruction. Qaddafi was later overthrown and slain in a 2011 rebellion backed by NATO. Even as the White House increasingly adopts a harder public line against the prospect of Iran being able to enrich on its soil as part of a potential deal, reports have surfaced suggesting greater U.S. flexibility on this issue, as previously indicated by Trump and a number of his top officials, including Vice President JD Vance and Middle East Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, who is leading the U.S. negotiating team. In a stark revelation last week, Trump confirmed that he warned Netanyahu not to pursue military operations against Iran as negotiations continue. It is at least the second time the U.S. leader has openly discussed discouraging the Israeli premier from taking action against Iran since taking office in January. Still, U.S. and Israeli officials have downplayed the notion of gaps emerging between the two leaders, including on nuclear issues. "We work on these issues with our allies, and we have a very open and honest dialogue about these issues," Saar, the Israeli diplomat, said. "And I do believe that we see that there's no daylight between the current administration and our government on these issues." Saar said the two nations also continued to see eye-to-eye as it relates to the Trump administration's view on what a deal with Iran should look like, a position the White House has also voiced to Newsweek throughout the talks, the fifth round of which were held last week in Rome. "The negotiations are still ongoing, and, at this point, I don't believe it has changed. Ultimately, the United States and Israel are on the same page," Saar said. "Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, period, and we agree with that." Levite, however, was less convinced that Trump and Netanyahu were in complete harmony. At a time when Netanyahu was facing growing international and domestic pressure over his criminal court proceedings, handling of the war in Gaza, including calls for new elections, Levite felt Israeli leader was becoming more assertive in his attempts to pressure Trump into a stricter deal that was less likely to be accepted by Iran, while his threat of resorting to force if negotiations fail or yield a "bad deal" may ultimately push the White House toward an agreement. "I think it reaffirms the rationale that the U.S. should actually seek a deal—and seek a deal quickly—with Iran that would make it kind of politically unacceptable for Israel to contemplate a strike against Iran that will get the U.S. involved," Levite said. At the same time, he compared the position of Netanyahu, sometimes referred to by his nickname, Bibi, today to that of Begin when he ordered Operation Opera just two months before an election. "I mention this because the sense is that you're the prime minister, your legacy is defined by [whether you have] dealt with the greatest threats to Israeli security, and if you think that your time in office is actually shrinking, which I think it is, and you think that Iran poses such a threat and is more vulnerable now than it would be in a year's time, because we pierced its armor, you can see why in Bibi's mind, it's now or never," Levite said. Cohen, the Israeli-American author, also argued that Netanyahu's thinking may be tied to considerations over his political future and legacy. "The only thing that he could show before an election, and I believe that he's going to have an election in the next nine months, I don't think he'll be able to postpone it much longer, is to have some show that 'I defied the Americans, and I went into an operation against Iran,'" Cohen said. "I think the complication of that would be such that the U.S. would have to be involved." Even a reluctant Trump administration may find it difficult to avoid becoming entangled in such an operation, Cohen said, as he believed Israel lacked the sufficient capabilities to single-handedly take out Iran's vast, complex network of nuclear facilities, many of which are deep underground. Unlike operations carried out in Iraq and Syria in 1981 and 2007, respectively, Israel may also face a formidable retaliation from Iran's vast missile and drone arsenal that could be unleashed for days on end, far exceeding what was witnessed during the previous confrontations between the two nations last year. Thus, Cohen argued that the fundamental issue was less about whether or not the U.S. would come to Israel's aid in the event of a new conflagration, but more as to the distance between the two leaders' objectives. Trump, he said, "does not want to move into a kinetic war," while Netanyahu embodies "the Israeli instinct that has always been to take kinetic action." "Both sides are trying to conceal the rift, but there is mutual fear, mutual lack of trust and it's growing. That's my sense," Cohen said. "I believe strongly that the question is how fast and when are you going to see it more in the open." "I think there are many signs that it's boiling and when it will come out to the surface is difficult to say," he added. "And, yes, I think Bibi knows he has to be very cautious about that."
Daily Mirror
15-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Mirror
Trump touts Golden Dome missile shield as Russia advances next-gen weapons
Speaking to US troops inside a hangar at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar during his ongoing Middle East tour, Donald Trump described the multi-billion-dollar "Golden Dome' system as a huge leap in America's defence Donald Trump has unveiled ambitious plans to build a "Golden Dome" missile defence shield over the United States. Speaking to US troops inside a hangar at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar during his ongoing Middle East tour, the US leader described the multi-billion-dollar system as a huge leap in America's defence. "It will cost many billions of dollars, all made in the USA," he said. "It was called the Iron Dome, but I changed it to the Golden Dome. I thought it was a little more beautiful." Referencing US military strength and his administration's defence priorities, Trump added: "We won World War II, and we are now stronger than ever. We want to build a 'golden dome' to protect our skies. We will build the F-47 fighter jet and develop the F-35 fighters." The proposed shield draws on Israel's Iron Dome system, which has become a cornerstone of that country's defence during recent Iron Dome relies on an integrated system of radars, computer processors, and interceptor missiles to protect cities and critical infrastructure from short-range threats. However, experts caution that replicating - let alone expanding - such a system across the vastly larger and geographically diverse States would be far more complex and costly. "It's the difference between a kayak and a battleship," said Jeffrey Lewis, a missile defence expert at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey. " Israel is more than 400 times smaller than the United States. What works there can't just be scaled up without major technological and logistical changes." Trump first introduced the idea of a "Golden Dome" in a speech earlier this year, and an executive order followed that prioritised research into space-based interceptors as part of the system's foundation. Unlike traditional missile defence systems, such interceptors would be designed to neutralise threats before they reach US airspace. Several defence contractors have expressed interest in competing for the project. Reports previously suggested that Elon Musk's aerospace company, SpaceX, was involved in a bid — a claim the billionaire denied in a post on X. Despite enthusiasm from some military and political figures, the plan faces enormous hurdles, both technical and financial. While existing missile interception technologies, such as the Ground-Based Midcourse Defence system, offer limited protection against intercontinental ballistic missiles, a US-wide Golden Dome would require much larger coordination between land, air, and space-based systems and billions more in government spending. The announcement comes amid growing anxiety over America's ability to fend off next-generation weapons, particularly Russia's nuclear-powered cruise missile, the Burevestnik - known in NATO reporting as the SSC-X-9 "Skyfall." Originally announced by Vladimir Putin in 2018, the Burevestnik is believed to have nuclear propulsion and be capable of flying for extended periods and evading traditional defence systems. While long shrouded in secrecy, satellite imagery analysis suggests Russia is preparing new launch sites. The missile has been tested at various Russian military sites, including Novaya Zemlya, Nenoksa, and Kapustin Yar, some of which are operated by Russia's nuclear agency, Rosatom. Analysts had previously believed the system was years from completion, but fresh intelligence points to accelerated progress. Trump's Golden Dome vision reflects a broader attempt to shore up US defences during renewed global instability, particularly with Iran, another focus of his Middle East trip. Speaking in Qatar, Trump suggested a new nuclear agreement with Tehran was close. "Iran has sort of agreed to the terms," he said. "They can't have a nuclear weapon. We're not going to be making any nuclear dust. It's very simple." However, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian immediately rejected Trump's claim, accusing the president of misunderstanding regional dynamics. "Trump is naive for thinking he can come to our region, threaten us, and hope that we back down against his demands," Pezeshkian said, according to Iranian state media. "We will never negotiate our dignity. This is in the blood of every Iranian."
![[Song Jong-hwan] How to deal with Pyongyang's nuclear threat](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwimg.heraldcorp.com%2Fnews%2Fcms%2F2025%2F02%2F05%2Fnews-p.v1.20250205.04aee0759f5141dc86adc1e21d3b3724_T1.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
![[Song Jong-hwan] How to deal with Pyongyang's nuclear threat](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fall-logos-bucket.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fkoreaherald.com.png&w=48&q=75){kind=small}
Korea Herald
05-02-2025
- Politics
- Korea Herald
[Song Jong-hwan] How to deal with Pyongyang's nuclear threat
When US President Donald Trump took office as the 47th president on Jan. 20, he declared he would 'make America great again," and started executing his 'America First' priorities. He also mentioned North Korea as nuclear power on the same day. In an interview with Fox News three days later, he said he would talk to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. However, North Korea said it would continue to strengthen its nuclear response stance on Jan. 29. The current South Korean government has announced that it will work closely with the new US government to denuclearize North Korea, but some scholars speculate that Trump may seek 'small deal' negotiations in which the US demands that North Korea reduce its nuclear weapons in return for lifting sanctions. There is an interpretation that Trump is trying to remove North Korea's nuclear weapons through dialogue without fighting, according to his "The Art of the Deal," published in 2015. North Korea has stated that it will use nuclear weapons if war breaks out and that it continues to strengthen its nuclear attack capabilities. North Korea said that its denuclearization might be possible only after the US withdraws its forces out of South Korea. South Korea must establish a balance of terror to prevent North Korea from even being tempted to provoke war with weapons of mass destruction. The theory of balance of terror was created in 1973 by Hans Morgenthau, a professor at the University of Chicago until he passed away in 1980. He warned that 'if a threatened nation has no nuclear means of retaliation, it will either suffer complete destruction or surrender unconditionally as did Japan in 1945 after Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been destroyed by nuclear bombs." I argue South Korea should change its defense paradigm from relying on conventional weapons to a nuclear armaments-focused one to establish a balance of terror. At the same time, seamless cooperation between South Korea and the US is required. This is to ensure that extended deterrence, facilitated by US nuclear capabilities, can be promptly and tangibly realized. On Jan. 11, 2024, Robert Carlin, a scholar at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, and Siegfried Hecker, a professor at Stanford, raised the question about whether the end of total destruction resulting from the application of extended deterrence would justify the means. Recently, Elbridge Colby, Trump's nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy, expressed skepticism about whether the US can continue to keep its promises for extended deterrence. Trump held a public video call with US soldiers stationed at Camp Humphreys, a US military base in Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi Province, on Jan. 20. Camp Humphreys is the largest and newest US army base overseas. I do not believe North Korea will give up its nuclear weapons. The competition for hegemony between the US and China is intensifying, and I believe the US' policy of extended deterrence against North Korea's nuclear armament is not effective. With these reasons, several nuclear options have been raised in the US and South Korea: nuclear armament under US understanding; redeployment of US tactical nuclear weapons; the plutonium reprocessing and uranium enrichment allowed to Japan when the US-Japan Atomic Energy Agreement was extended on July 16, 2018; and construction of nuclear-powered submarines given to Australia in on Sept. 15, 2021 when AUKUS (Australia-United Kingdom-United States) started. First, applying strong pressure rather than offering a "small deal," if one or more of the nuclear options mentioned above is eventually realized, could, I believe, effectively encourage dialogue for the denuclearization of North Korea. Second, South Korea could exert pressure on China to play an active role in achieving the denuclearization of the North. Third, if both Koreas possess nuclear weapons, I argue that situation could contribute to a situation like that between China and India, or between India and Pakistan. Fourth, Seoul could serve as a deterrent, preventing Pyongyang from threatening the US mainland and US military bases in Japan. Fifth, in the era of US-China power competition, a nuclear-armed South Korea could, I argue, serve as a countermeasure to restrain China, in the event that China attacks US forces stationed here to gain control over the Pacific region. Finally, a nuclear-armed South Korea could be considered more cost-effective and less damaging to the US than the US itself conducting a military operation in response to North Korea. As the ROK-US Combined Forces Command's motto, 'Let's Go Together,' suggests, the governments and people of the US and South Korea should join forces to move quickly to deal with North Korea's nuclear weapons.
