Middle Eastern Denuclearization and the Iranian Nuclear Issue

The Iranian nuclear crisis has been brewing for more than a decade and it shows no signs of easing.Throughout its negotiations with Western powers, Iran has insisted on its right to use nuclear energy peacefully and the nation’s nuclear technology program has made consistent progress.Concerned that Iran will eventually possess nuclear weapons given the progressive maturation of its nuclear technology, Western powers have on the one hand been asking Iran to stop uranium enrichment, attempting to negotiate while paving the way for inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) that will place Iran’s nuclear activities under the monitoring of the international community.

But on the other hand, Western powers have made consistent attempts to toughen their economic sanctions on Iran, reiterating that negotiations cannot last forever and implying that the military card is the last option in resolving the Iranian nuclear issue.Israel,Iran’s arch-rival in the region, has also added fuel to the flames by requesting the use of force against Iran and trying to stifle Iran’s budding nuclear program.Facing tremendous political, economic and military pressure from the West, Iran has remained undeterred,continuing to advance its nuclear program as planned while reiterating its unwillingness to build nuclear weapons.With neither side willing to compromise, war is more likely to break out in the Middle East now.Many complex factors have contributed to the current situation, but the most fundamental factor is that none of the parties concerned have been able to find fundamental solutions to their concerns.Therefore, the international community needs to find a new and specific way to realize denuclearization in the Middle East.Only by adopting such a path can the Iranian nuclear crisis truly be resolved.

I.With Nowhere to Go, Talks Reach an Impasse

In August 2002, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI),an exiled anti-government organization, disclosed that Iran had constructed uranium enrichment facilities and heavy water reactors in Natanz and Arak, two cities located in central Iran.This revelation propelled Iran’s nuclear program into the public eye.Since then,the international community has held numerous rounds of talks with Iran on the subject of its nuclear program.One part of the negotiation process was conducted between the IAEA and Iran and focused on setting a range and schedule for the inspection of Iran’s nuclear facilities.The other part of the negotiating process was held between Iran and a six-party mechanism involving the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany (hereon referred to as “P5+1”), aiming to persuade Iran to give up uranium enrichment activities and accept unconditional IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities.

During the initial negotiations, Iran made gestures that signaled that it would concede.Under pressure from the IAEA, Iran signed an Additional Protocol to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) that granted unlimited access to IAEA inspectors.Iran reached the “Paris Agreement” with the UK, France and Germany (known as the “EU-3”) in November 2004, voluntarily suspending all of its uranium enrichment activities.However, in March 2005 the EU-3 rejected a proposal that Iran put forward to restrict its uranium enrichment once the suspension was over.Since then, Iran has adopted a tougher stance on its nuclear program.Iran restarted work at its uranium conversion facility in Isfahan in August 2005 and declared that it would resume its uranium enrichment activities beginning in January 2006.1Hua Liming, “Iranian Nuclear Issue and China’s Diplomatic Choice”, International Studies,2007(1), p.59.Since April 2006, Iran has been refilling uranium hexafluoride to 3,000 centrifuges which were used for uranium enrichment, and it has acquired enriched uranium with a purity of 3.5 and 4.8 percent.

When negotiations between Iran and the EU-3 broke down and it became clear that Iran was intensifying its nuclear activities, the sixparty mechanism (P5+1) attempted to resolve the problem.The sixparty mechanism was initiated in June 2006, and that same month,foreign ministers from the six countries raised a “six-party proposal”for resolving the Iran nuclear issue.The proposal was essentially a package plan that encouraged Iran to stop all of its uranium enrichment activities, allowed Russia to provide nuclear fuel to Iran,and supported Iran’s accession to the World Trade Organization,among other conditions.If Iran did not accept the proposal, punitive actions were to be taken.Regardless, Iran did not respond actively to the proposal.In December of that year, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1737, effectively placing an embargo on all entities relating to Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs, freezing Iran’s assets and imposing foreign travel restrictions on relevant personnel.The UN Security Council passed Resolution 1747 in March 2007, expanding sanctions against the Iranian government.Then, in October of the same year, the United States decided to unilaterally impose heavier sanctions on Iran, declaring that it would sanction over 20 Iranian governmental organizations, banks and individuals, including the Iranian Department of Defense and the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (IRGC).Alongside this unilateral move, the United States also decided to deploy three aircraft carriers into the Persian Gulf.

Throughout this process, Iran managed to accelerate its nuclear program all while dealing with the IAEA.In April 2008, Iran announced that it had started to install 6,000 new centrifuges for uranium enrichment in Natanz.Iran finished constructing its first nuclear fuel plant in April 2009, and the facility developed the capacity to produce 40 tons of nuclear fuel.In February 2010, Iran declared that it had produced uranium enriched to a purity of 20 percent.In April of the same year, Iran stated that it had developed third-generation centrifuges and that it was planning to install 60,000 centrifuges in Natanz in order to supply its nuclear power plants with fuel.

Given Iran’s apparent expedition of its nuclear program, in June 2010 the UN Security Council elected to pass Resolution 1929,initiating a fourth-round of sanctions against Iran, prohibiting UN exports of heavy weapons, missiles and missile-related goods from UN member states to Iran and banning Iran from all activities related to ballistic missiles that could be used to carry nuclear weapons.Iran did not concede when faced with these new sanctions.On November 27,2010, Iran announced that it had produced 35 kilograms of uranium enriched to 20 percent.The number increased to 40 kilograms by January 8, 2011.The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI)declared on February 10, 2011 that it had obtained nuclear fusion technology.The Bushehr nuclear power plant was put into service later that year on May 18.On October 17, it was announced that Iran had produced 70 kilograms of uranium enriched to 20 percent.On October 2, 2012, Iran publicly declared that it would start manufacturing uranium enriched to 60 percent if no agreement was reached between the six countries (P5+1).On February 23, 2013,Iran announced the planned construction of sixteen nuclear power plants.

The United States and the European Union (EU) have together initiated multiple rounds of sanctions against Iran.The EU agreed to impose an oil embargo on Iran in January 2012.Meanwhile, in February 2012, US President Barack Obama froze all Iranian assets within the United States, including those of the Iranian government and all Iranian financial institutions such as the Central Bank of Iran.In order to ease these pressures from the West, Iran agreed to conduct several rounds of negotiations with the six states (P5+1) in Turkey, Baghdad, Moscow and Almaty.Because both sides continue to hold divergent positions, no substantial progress has been made thus far.

There are three reasons why previous negotiations have twisted and turned but ultimately failed.First, with Iran insisting on its right to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, the nation has been unwilling to suspend its uranium enrichment program or other efforts to enhance its nuclear technology, nor has it been willing to allow the IAEA to inspect its nuclear facilities and relevant sites.Throughout its negotiations with the West, Iran has sought to buy time to develop and improve its nuclear technology.If it delays for long enough, it may eventually possess nuclear arms that could deter its adversaries and achieve a strategic balance with Israel.

To reach such a goal, Iran has on the one hand held negotiations with the international community, at times taking flexible positions.For instance, in May 2010 Iran signed nuclear fuel-swap deals with Turkey and Brazil, agreeing to ship 1.2 tons of low-enriched uranium(with a purity of 3.5 percent) to Turkey in exchange for 120 kilograms of more highly enriched uranium (with a purity of 20 percent).Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei reiterated that “holding [nuclear arms] is a sin as well as useless, harmful and dangerous,”2http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/nuclear-weapons-are-a-sin-says-iransayatollah-ali-khamenei.and he issued a fatwa in February 2013 that forbade Iran from developing nuclear weapons.On the other hand, Iran has repeatedly asserted that the peaceful use of nuclear power and uranium enrichment make up the inalienable rights and dignity of Iran and the Iranian people.Iran would never give up its right, endowed by the NPT,to enrich uranium, and it has full discretion to decide the extent of its enrichment actions.The West has only had one choice when negotiating with Iran - to acknowledge Iran’s rights.

Second, by alleging that Iran had ample oil and gas resources and thus did not need to generate nuclear energy, Western countries made it clear that they did not trust Iran’s promise to only use nuclear power for peaceful purposes.Instead, they revealed their assumption that Iran was ultimately seeking nuclear power for military purposes.As such, negotiating with Iran became the country’s last chance.The West requested that Iran stop uranium enrichment activities, close its nuclear facilities at Fordow and meet the demands of the IAEA to conduct complete inspections of its nuclear sites.In return, the biggest concession that the West was willing to make was to recognize Iran’s right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and then loosen its sanctions.What Iran requested, however, was a complete termination of Western economic sanctions and the elimination of security threats against Iran.As is evident in the above discord, there was thus a huge gap between the two sides’ positions.

Third, Iran’s archenemy in the Middle East, Israel, tried every possible method to pressure the United States to use force against Iran, repeatedly asserting that Iran’s real intention was to attain nuclear power by delaying its negotiations with the West.Extremely powerful Jewish lobbying groups in Washington also constantly asked the US government to do everything in its means to stop Iran’s nuclear program.Israel’s instigation, combined with the influence of the Jewish lobby in Washington, joined forces to pressure the American government to take military action against Iran.

II.The Thorny History of the Iranian Nuclear Issue

The failure to achieve meaningful gains throughout the Iran nuclear talks is closely related to the complex contradictions that persist in the modern Middle East.As the origin of the world’s three major religions, the Middle East has long been plagued by national,religious, sectarian and territorial disputes, causing deep and longterm resentments between many of the local populations.The Arab-Israeli conflict, as the most prominent regional dispute, has persisted for over a half century, but there is also discord between fellow Islamic states.As a predominantly Shia Muslim country, Iran not only distrusts Israel but also other Sunni Muslim states in the region.Outside forces have often taken advantage of the chaos and become involved in regional affairs, making the situation even more complex.Given this context, once one country develops nuclear powers, other countries naturally feel propelled to develop nuclear technologies and possess their own nuclear arms.

The first country to seek its own nuclear arms in the Middle East was Israel.Israel holds an advantage in the scale of its conventional forces and has defeated multiple Arab states in all of the Arab-Israeli conflicts.However, Israel has long felt insecure due to the population advantage that Muslim countries have over it.In addition, Israel’s Muslim neighbors possess vast territory and extensive strategic maneuvering space.As early as Israel’s founding, the country was planning to develop nuclear weapons.The Israel Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) was established in 1952 and placed under the leadership of the Israeli Defense Ministry.

With assistance from the United States, Israel constructed its first nuclear reactor in Rishon LeZion in 1957.Another nuclear reactor was built at Nachal Soreq in 1959, though this reactor was supervised by the United States.Israel has since sought to covertly cooperate with France.Between 1957 and 1964, with French assistance, Israel constructed the “Negev Nuclear Research Center”in the Dimona desert.The complex consisted of fifteen buildings and 2,700 staff engaged in the research and development of nuclear arms.In 1986, Mordechai Vanunu, a former Israeli nuclear expert who fled the country, revealed that there had been a secret underground nuclear facility for over 20 years at Dimona.The facility had been manufacturing plutonium and may have been producing thermonuclear materials such as deuterium, tritium and lithium-6 as early as the 1980s.These materials would then have been shipped to nuclear bomb workshops for processing.

This information indicated to the world that Israel probably already possessed the ability to build hydrogen and neutron bombs.In addition, according to a memorandum issued by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) on September 4, 1974, Israel did in fact already possess nuclear weapons.Adopting a policy of “silence and ambiguity,” the Israeli government neither admitted nor denied that it possessed nuclear arms.Israel captured Vanunu in a secret mission while continuing to develop its nuclear power.According to estimates made by authoritative sources, Israel now possesses 80 nuclear warheads.

Iran started developing nuclear technology as early as the 1950s.By the 1970s, it had built one nuclear reactor, six nuclear research centers and five uranium processing facilities.Since the former Shah regime adopted a pro-US stance, the United States and other Western states supported Iran’s research to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.After the breakout of the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran and the United States became adversaries and the United States no longer supported Iran’s nuclear program.In the meantime, the Iranian spiritual leader Ayatollah Khomeini decried nuclear weapons for being “inhumane,” and Iran’s nuclear program came to a halt.

Iran resumed its peaceful nuclear program after the Iran-Iraq War and the first Gulf War.It reached an agreement with Russia to resume work on the Bushehr plant in 1991 and then signed another contract with Russia in 1995 in which Russia promised to help Iran build four light-water reactors.After releasing photos taken by surveillance satellites in September 2002, the United States asserted that Iran had constructed two secret nuclear sites in Natanz and Arak.In February 2003, Iran confirmed that it had successfully extracted uranium from its central region and started developing nuclear fuel recycling techniques.However, Iran reiterated that all of its nuclear activities were aimed at civilian and peaceful uses of nuclear power.Distrusting Iran’s assertions, Western countries such as the United States started sanctioning and pressuring Iran.Iran’s nuclear program thus became a major focus of global attention.

Arab states are deeply concerned both about Israel’s possession of nuclear arms and Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology.Israel has long retained its superiority over Arab states in terms of conventional warfare.With nuclear arms, Israel’s strength would be greatly reinforced, thus giving Israel absolute military superiority over the Arab world.Since it is difficult for Arab countries to recover Jerusalem - the sacred city taken by Israel - and other lost territories,they are eager to obtain nuclear technology in order to balance Israel.Arab states are ambivalent about Iran’s attempts to obtain nuclear power: on the one hand, they hope Iran, as an Arab state,can balance Israel with its nuclear capacity.This would allow them to reap benefits without sowing the costly investments in their own nuclear programs.But on the other hand, they are concerned that if the Shia-majority Iranians attain greater power, they will threaten the Arab world’s Sunni populations, who make up a majority, due to historical grudges and territorial disputes between the two groups.As such, they are hesitant to welcome an Iran with nuclear capabilities.Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and other major powers in the Middle East are also attempting to obtain nuclear technology in order to have more bargaining chips when competing with Israel and seeking balance with Iran.

As the leading state in the Arab world, Egypt established agencies in the early 1950s to conduct research on the civilian uses of atomic energy.With US assistance, Egypt established a lab for radioactive materials by the late 1950s.In 1961, Egypt acquired a 2-megawatt research reactor from the Soviet Union.In October 2007, the Egyptian government declared that it was planning to build several nuclear power plants to meet its growing energy demands.At present, up to 87 percent of Egyptians support their country possessing nuclear arms.3Josh Rogin, “New poll: Egyptians turning toward Iran, want nuclear weapons,” 19 October,2012, http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/19/new_poll_egyptians_turning_iran_want_nuclear_weapons.A report released by the IAEA in May 2009 indicated that weapongrade enriched uranium was found in soil samples near Inchass, a nuclear site close to Cairo.Ostensibly differentiating between Egypt and Iran, Israel said that it had no objections to Egypt’s nuclear plan.In reality though, Israel paid close attention to Egypt’s actions,fearing that it could trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia, another big power in the Arab world, has also demonstrated a keen interest in pursuing nuclear technology.The country once built a small nuclear reactor for research purposes in the 1970s.In 2005, Saudi Arabia started negotiations with the UN to join the “Small Quantities Protocol” so that it could possess a certain amount of nuclear materials upon becoming a signatory.Meanwhile,Saudi Arabia rejected the IAEA’s inspection demands.In June 2011,Abdul Ghani Malibari, coordinator of the Saudi civil nuclear agency,stated that Riyadh planned to build sixteen civilian nuclear reactors over the coming two decades.On December 5, 2011, Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former Saudi intelligence agency chief and ambassador to the United States, declared that Saudi Arabia would consider producing nuclear weapons as a precaution against its regional adversaries - namely, Israel and Iran.

In addition, Iraq built a nuclear reactor with French help in the 1970s at Tammuz, just thirty-two kilometers southeast of Baghdad.Worrying that Iraq might be able to manufacture nuclear bombs at the facility, Israel bombed and destroyed the Tammuz reactor and its underground research facility in 1981.Iraq’s nuclear program was thus aborted.

Syria also started building its own nuclear reactors in the 1990s,seeking to cooperate with Russia on the peaceful use of nuclear energy.However, its efforts failed due to pressures from the West.Israeli fighter aircrafts bombed a suspicious nuclear reactor in Syria on September 6, 2007, seriously dampening Syria’s ability to pursue nuclear arms.

With the exception of Israel, other states in the Middle East are yet to possess nuclear weapons and are still attempting to develop nuclear technology for civilian use.However, considering improvements in nuclear technologies, it will become much easier to transfer these technologies from civilian to military applications.If Iran or other Arab states face grave national security threats, they may follow in Israel’s footsteps and pursue nuclear weapons.

III.Resolving the Iranian Nuclear Issue under the Framework of a Nuclear-Free Middle East

As demonstrated above, the Iran nuclear issue has extremely complex roots.The international community must seek both permanent and temporary solutions by focusing on the issue’s root causes.Otherwise, Iran’s nuclear issue will not be addressed and nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East will become increasingly severe.In response to this dilemma, the international community should link Iran’s nuclear program directly to the denuclearization of the entire Middle East, asking all parties to abandon their intentions of pursuing and possessing nuclear arms.If this happens, all parties will lose their excuses for pursuing nuclear arms, and as a result, there will be no regional nuclear arms race.This is the only way to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis, prevent war, and maintain a peaceful,stable and nuclear-free Middle East.This path would also eliminate considerable hostility and confrontation between regional players,thus creating the conditions for peace-building in the Middle East.The international community has since 1995 sought to build a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.The UN held a Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the NPT in 1995, calling for the establishment of a Middle Eastern zone free of nuclear weapons.Ever since that Conference was held, the UN General Assembly has passed resolutions each year requiring Israel to accede to the NPT as a non-nuclear state and place all of its nuclear facilities under the comprehensive IAEA safeguards.Meanwhile, the UN has been urging all states in the region to sign and implement the IAEA Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements, also encouraging them to sign the Additional Protocols to the Safeguards Agreements.Such requests have not been met with any substantive progress.

The “Final Document” adopted at the 2010 NPT Review Conference detailed plans to hold a conference for all Middle Eastern states at the end of 2012 in order to discuss the creation of a Middle Eastern zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.This was supposed to be the international community’s biggest achievement so far on the construction of a region free of nuclear weapons.The Final Document also called upon all nonsignatories of the NPT, especially Israel, to join the treaty and submit their nuclear facilities to international monitoring.However, the conference was not convened as expected at the end of 2012, and there is no indication that it will be held in the near future.Noting the persistence of “a deep conceptual gap” in the Middle East on approaches toward regional security and arms control arrangements,the US State Department announced on November 23, 2012 that the 2012 Conference would not be convened on schedule.To justify the delay, the US cited present conditions in the region and the fact that not all states had reached an agreement on acceptable conditions for the Conference.4

In reality, the real reason that the 2012 conference was not convened was because Israel refused to participate, worrying that it would become the target of other states’ accusations.One precondition for the conference, however, was that all states in the Middle East participate - otherwise no effective agreement could be reached.The conditions stipulated by the United States and Israel for building a nuclear-free Middle East included a permanent peace agreement between Arab states and Israel, in addition to Iran surrendering its nuclear program.In their opinion, no nuclear weapon-free zonecould be realized unless these conditions were met.

4 Victoria Nuland, “2012 Conference on a Middle East Zone Free of Weapons of Mass Destruction,” November 23, 2012, http//:www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/11/200987.htm.

It is not surprising that the 2012 Conference was halted.The conference’s failure demonstrates the complexity of regional conflicts and the fact that there is a long way ahead for creating a Middle Eastern zone void of nuclear weapons.Because of this, all regional denuclearization plans should consider the legitimate interests of concerned parties in order to ensure their national security once they abandon their nuclear programs.To resolve the Iranian nuclear issue within the framework of a nuclear-free Middle East, the international community should not only acknowledge Iran’s right to peacefully use nuclear energy and request that Iran and other states stop their research on nuclear arms.They must also ensure that all states’ peace and security are systematically guaranteed.Below are concrete plans to achieve the above goals:

First, all parties must stress that security in the Middle East is closely related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,including nuclear weapons.In this regard, all relevant states should work to enhance security and stability in the region while making sure that denuclearization and the Arab-Israeli peace talks make progress.

The international community must call upon all states in the Middle East to halt their efforts to develop nuclear weapons and join the NPT.Existing nuclear states should completely destroy their nuclear arms and accept regular and irregular inspections from the IAEA.

All activities and facilities related to the peaceful use of nuclear energy in Middle Eastern states should be placed under the strict monitoring of the IAEA; all nuclear materials and fuels needed should be provided by the international community; and all nuclear waste should be transferred to IAEA-designated foreign sites for proper disposal.

All NPT signatory states must agree not to assist, encourage or induce any Middle Eastern states to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons and other nuclear devices.

In compliance with relevant UN Security Council resolutions,Iran must suspend all of its uranium enrichment and post-processing activities.Once Israel abandons its nuclear program and accepts international inspections, Iran should stop its uranium enrichment activities and ship all of its nuclear waste, resulting from its peaceful use of nuclear energy, to foreign sites.Iran should also allow the IAEA to supervise its nuclear facilities.

The UN Security Council should provide security assurances to Middle Eastern countries, guaranteeing that no country, after giving up its nuclear plan, will be invaded by any other state.If such invasions do take place, then the Security Council will take immediate measures to stop them.

The call for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons should be enforced by entities authorized by the UN Security Council.Only the Security Council bears the authority and capacity to implement these plans.

IV.The Applicability of Resolving the Iran Conflict under the Framework of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons

When the plan to build a nuclear weapon-free Middle East was proposed in 1995, Iran’s nuclear program had not yet emerged.Therefore, these two issues were not directly linked at their origin.Since the revelation of Iran’s nuclear program in 2003, the international community has had long and arduous negotiations with Iran.Throughout this period, Iran’s nuclear technology has been improving, and the prospect of resolving the issue remains uncertain.Given the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, all parties concerned should reach a consensus and try to resolve the crisis within the context of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.

Israel is ultimately the key to achieving denuclearization in the Middle East.As the only state with nuclear weapons in the region,Israel has actually attempted to forever prolong its Middle Eastern nuclear monopoly by setting Arab-Israeli peace as a precondition for the creation of any regional nuclear-free zone.Facing Iran’s persistent pursuit of nuclear technology, Israel has continuously been bluffing and trying to set a bottom line for the use of force, all while urging the United States to use force against Iran.Other than this path,Israel has no other means to eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat.Since Iran is a much stronger military adversary than Iraq, Israel has little chance of defeating Iran if it goes into war sans US assistance.Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has asserted that unilateral action on the part of Israel against the Iranian nuclear threat would be a desperate last resort.

Moreover, even if the United States took military action against Iran, it could only delay the forward progress of its nuclear program,not actually eliminating its capacity of eventually developing nuclear capabilities.For Israel, which retains an advantage in conventional forces, it would be very cost-effective to give up its nuclear arms in exchange for the halt of nuclear programs in its neighboring Muslim countries.

Arab states have long been unwilling to allow Israel to obtain nuclear superiority in the region, but they also do not hope to see Iran become a nuclear power.Therefore, states in the region have all along supported the construction of a nuclear-free Middle East.However, since the Arab spring, with more and more people supporting Iran, popular attitudes towards Iran’s nuclear program have also undergone subtle changes.According to an opinion poll taken in September 2012, 61 percent of Egyptians now support Iran’s nuclear development.This number was only 41 percent in August 2009.5Josh Rogin, “New poll: Egyptians turning toward Iran want nuclear weapons,” 19 October,2012, http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/19/new_poll_egyptians_turning_iran_want_nuclear_weapons.Iran has responded positively to this development, stating that it would assist Egypt in its construction of nuclear reactors and satellites.Such changes reflect a new trend in the region - an increasingly severe Arab-Israeli conflict and a reduction in the tensions between Iran and its Arab neighbors, largely due to the recent ousters of former military strongmen in many Arab countries.Meanwhile,Prime Minister Erdo?an of Turkey, another Islamic power, stated that “Turkey has always supported Iran’s nuclear program and this position will not change in the future.” Under such circumstances,if Israel continues to refuse to give up its nuclear arms, Islamic states will together exert great pressure on Israel.This would make Israel’s security situation even more severe.

As for Iran, although it has the right to develop nuclear energy,tougher sanctions imposed by the West have inflicted heavy losses on its oil exports.The daily export of Iranian oil decreased from 2.4 million barrels a day in 2011 to 1 million barrels a day in 2012.Reductions in Iran’s oil exports have had a negative impact on its stock market.The Rial, Iran’s currency, depreciated by over 80 percent between October 2011 and October 2012.Iran’s economy,which remains heavily reliant on energy exports, got into trouble.Iran may even face military attacks if it continues to advance its nuclear program.Moreover, even if Iran acquires nuclear arms, its nuclear arsenal would not surpass Israel’s in the short run.Instead,Iran’s continued advancement of its nuclear program will provoke other states in the region to go nuclear, eventually balancing out Iran’s nuclear advantage.

Considering all of the above factors, Iran could abandon its nuclear program without serious costs if Israel promised to renounce its nuclear arms.

The United States, which maintains vital interests in the Middle East, is in an awkward position regarding the creation of a nuclearfree zone in the Middle East.Strategically speaking, a nuclear-free Middle East conforms to America’s security interests in the region.However, as Israel’s key ally, the US government is constrained by its domestic Jewish lobbying groups.There is intense pressure to take Israel’s concerns into consideration.Adopting a favorable policy towards Israel’s nuclear ambitions, the United States strongly opposes any plans that would force Israel to renounce its nuclear program while Iran retains its program.In the view of the United States, a Middle Eastern nuclear-free zone will not be built until peace is attained in the Arab-Israeli conflict and Iran’s nuclear program is placed under international supervision.That said, Obama has publicly espoused the goal of building a nuclear-free world, and thus the United States cannot fully oppose concrete measures to realize denuclearization in the region.The US might adopt a more proactive attitude if the resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue is incorporated into the construction of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.

Remaining heavily dependent on energy from the Middle East,both Europe and Japan hope for continued stability in the region.Moreover, since both Europe and Japan are not as close with Israel as the United States, they are more likely to support the incorporation of the Iranian nuclear issue into the larger establishment of a nuclearfree Middle East.On the one hand, Russia and China have been persuading Iran to continue international talks and coordinate with the IAEA; on the other hand, they oppose the United States’ use of force against Iran and are pushing for a peaceful settlement of Iran’s nuclear issue.Both China and Russia have always supported the denuclearization of the Middle East.

With efforts from the international community, it is possible to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue under the framework of building a nuclear-free Middle East.This possibility may even increase over time.

V.Conclusion

Because the positions of Israel, the United States and Iran will not fundamentally change in the short term, the acceptance of any plan for Middle Eastern denuclearization will undoubtedly involve a long process.However, given the fact that neither military means nor the ongoing negotiation process was effective in addressing the Iranian nuclear crisis, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is inevitable.Once Iran goes nuclear, other Arab states will follow suit,resulting in an unimaginably dreadful and complicated situation in the Middle East.This will endanger the security of the entire region, negatively affect the global energy supply and harm the world economic recovery.Therefore, although there is a long and arduous road ahead, it is a road that must be pursued.The international community must in the long run connect the settlement of the Iran nuclear issue with the building of a nuclear-free Middle East.