Are the Jordanians, Saudis, and Egyptians Really Pursuing Nuclear Weapons, Or...

Over the past year the “moderate” Arab nation block of Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia have patently publicized their intent to pursue “peaceful” nuclear energy.

Jordan's nuclear ambitions stretch back to 2007 when King Hussein of Jordan declared their nation's peaceful ambitions to acquire nuclear energy (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=178500). Recently Hussein has ostensibly ratcheted up his attempts, and even publicly admonished Israel for using its international political connections to hinder Jordan's nuclear ambitions (news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/10321361.stm).

Meanwhile the Saudis too, are already in the process of establishing the prerequisite infrastructure, which the Saudis call "a renewable energy complex" (www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=173730).

Additionaly, there has been some Egyptian movement towards acquiring "peaceful" nuclear technology going back almost two decades. More recently, Egypt has displayed a new found earnestness when they signed a contract with an Austrian firm to find a suitable location in Egypt for the construction of an experimental nuclear energy plant (http://www.nuclearsafety.org/index.php/component/content/article/15-headlines/291-egypt-signs-160-million-deal-with-australias-worleyparson-for-nuclear-energy-plan).

It is no surprise that as the Shiite non-Arab Iranians move closer to becoming a nuclear power, the "moderate" Sunni Arab nations increase their efforts to acquire weapons in order to stave off Iranian domination. It is not an arbitrary correlation.

Of course the assumption is that the Arab states are not all of a sudden pursuing peaceful nuclear energy, but rather, like Iran, they use that terminology to cover up their true intentions. In other words as the Iranians get closer to developing "peaceful" nuclear power we can expect increased efforts by Arab states to acquire “peaceful” nuclear power.

But how credible are the attempts of these Arab states -all members of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT)- to obtain nuclear weapons?

Iran is one thing. It has actively pursued weapons since the 1979 Islamic-revolution (please see Khomeini’s Ghost, for more on this). Iran has significant international alliances with nuclear powers willing to share. Like China, Pakistan, Russia, and especially North Korea, Iran has an exponentially growing domestic know-how. They are succeeding for these reasons, and these reasons alone.

The Saudis, Egyptians, and Jordanians, have NONE of the above. So if the Arab nations have unrealistic ambitions, what is behind their nuclear rhetoric?

Their motives can be interpreted in two ways.

1. The Arab nations are notorious for their delusional rhetoric. For example during their 1967 and 1973 wars with Israel they reported great victories over the radio, prompted at times by their leaders, while in actuality they were suffering extraordinary defeats (please see the Arab Mind by Raphael Patai). I do not want to go into more detail here, because, despite the many blood libels and propaganda commonly spread in these countries (MEMRITV), I believe that this time they are more calculated in their actions.

2. By ratcheting up their talk of pursuing nuclear energy, aka nuclear weapons, they indirectly, but unambiguously, affirm the notion that Iran's nuclear drive is creating yet another problem -a regional nuclear race, lending further credence to the anti-proliferation argument applied to Iran.

In other words they do not want Iran to have weapons and are doing everything to focus the international community’s efforts on stopping Iran.

What does this mean?

There are two ways at looking at this -from a sanctions standpoint and from a tactical strike perspective.

On one hand their actions are helping galvanize the sanctions movement supported by the Obama administration and most other countries.
Yet the more sanctions that are successfully passed (passed is not synonymous with effective), the more passive the international community becomes in actually stopping Iran. This is because they feel like they are doing enough (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-do-latest-unsc-sanctions-on-iran.html ).

This passivity in turn makes it more difficult to take the only action that will actually stop Iran, a tactical strike.

Or the international community may get the hint and recognize publicly what they know privately: A nuclear Iran would cause such a range of negative consequences that they may actually not repeat history, and support a strike. Not that they would have to raise a finger -Israel will, as usual, do the dirty work. On the contrary, don’t raise a finger, against Israel that is.
Predictably the skeptic will respond:

1.“Let Israel disarm first”. Or, “Iran is only protecting itself from Israeli/American nuclear aggression”.

The very fact that the Arabs, yes the Arabs, have responded to Iran’s actions as a real and immediate threat, should give us a clue as to the real difference between Israel and other countries. Israel will not be the first to use weapons, or use weapons as an umbrella to protect themselves from international terror and Iran… As for America, America could have already attacked Iran.

2.“Look at North Korea, there nuclear weapons are not such a big problem."

Oh, but you forget that it was North Korea that helped Iran along the way to near nuclear armament. The consequences of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons will only accelerate that process.

If the Arabs are on to Iran's game what excuse does the rest of the sane world have?