by Sandya Das MPA ‘08

During fall break, WWS secondyear M.P.A. students Sandya Das, Florentina Mulaj, and Ryan Phillips, along with Professor Harold Feiveson MPA ’63, PhD ’72 at the Program for Global Science and Security, traveled to Egypt and Israel to examine Egypt’s future nuclear intentions as the threat of nuclear proliferation rises in the Middle East. As part of the fall policy workshop, “Preventing Proliferation Chain Reactions,” these students met with senior foreign and U.S. government officials, think tanks, and journalists in Cairo, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem. The purpose of their trip was to gain an improved understanding of the motivations that would lead Egypt to reexamine its non-nuclear status; explore possible regional arrangements to reduce the proliferation threat in the Middle East; and develop U.S. policy recommendations to reduce the likelihood of Egypt acquiring its own nuclear capability.

Discussions with Egyptian government officials and brain trusts in Cairo provided students with insight into Egypt’s nuclear proliferation concerns. The Egyptians and Arab League expressed concern about Iran’s current nuclear enrichment activities. A nuclear-armed Iran poses a greater threat to the region’s stability because “Iran has regional ambitions that go beyond its nuclear capability and could escalate the increasing Sunni and Shia rift in the region,” said an Arab League official.

However, despite the Iranian nuclear threat, Egypt would not support a U.S. or internationally led military attack against Iran. An Egyptian government official asserted, “while the Iranian President’s rhetoric is dangerous…they have the right to develop a peaceful program as a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).” A U.S. attack, remarked an Arab League official, “would be devastating to the region,” as it would not stop Iran from pursuing its nuclear ambitions or from retaliating with attacks on its own regional neighbors.

Egyptian and Arab League authorities also voiced their frustration with efforts to reduce nuclear asymmetry in the Middle East. Egypt has made several commitments toward regional nonproliferation, notably ratifying the NPT in 1981 and continuing to support a 1974 U.N. General Assembly Resolution calling for a zone free of nuclear weapons. During the Arms Control and Regional Security (ACRS) talks in the 1990s, Egypt tried to put pressure on Israel’s nuclear capability. Yet, the Israeli government continues to insist that its participation in regional disarmament efforts is conditional upon establishing confidence-building measures and achieving a comprehensive peace in the Middle East.

Acknowledging these constraints in past regional efforts, the students were able to understand the Egyptians’ current struggle to advance regional disarmament efforts. According to one Egyptian official on disarmament affairs, “Israel must start talking about nuclear issues and showing signs toward its own disarmament in order to make any progress.” It did not make sense to him, “why Arab countries would have to make more nonproliferation commitments when Israel has made none.” Ali Serri, director of the Disarmament Affairs Department at the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, urged the U.S. to “be more forthcoming in encouraging Israel’s involvement in regional efforts,” further stating, “You support us formally, but not in concrete terms.”

In Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, the students asked about Israel’s potential to engage in future regional nonproliferation and arms-control arrangements. An Israeli source responded that Israel still supports the idea of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction; but, in view of the current regional situation, “we have to go through a series of confidence-building measures before any real progress can be made.” Another Israeli source involved in Middle Eastern affairs added, “there is no room for Israel to maneuver…and no room to give up anything. We have regional threats from all sides.”

While Israel’s government has lacked engagement in regional disarmament efforts, it has devoted serious attention to addressing the risk of a future Iran nuclear threat. Many Israelis are concerned that a nuclear-armed Iran poses an “existential” threat to Israel. An Israeli source claimed that the Iranian regime has developed an ideology that is hostile to Israel—calling for the destruction of Israel, having a President that is more vocal about “wiping Israel off the map,” and exerting behavior that supports terrorism in the region by rearming Islamist Shia political organizations—Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. These assumptions have caused Israel to believe that it is urgent to stop Iran’s nuclear buildup as “the only thing worse than military action to stop Iran are the consequences of a nuclear Iran,” said former Director of Intelligence at the Mossad, Dr. Uzi Arad ’75.

Since Israel believes reaching an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement is essential, the students looked into the prospects of achieving this goal at the Annapolis peace conference in November. Shlomo Brom at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv said, “while it might be unrealistic to expect agreement, there is always the hope that talks will revive semblance of movement.” Another Israeli observer mentioned, “The conference is ceremonial to ignite the process,” but “there has to be the right mix, which is very touchy and difficult.” He explained that, “we first have to help reestablish the Palestinian Authority and its power,and build institutions that will support long-term peace.” Others expressed little hope for success at the conference. Dr. Arad believed it may prove to be an “exercise in futility because Hamas, which is now in control of Gaza, is bent on eliminating the state of Israel.”

Since their return, the students collaborated with other workshop participants who conducted field research in Tokyo and Seoul to study Japan and South Korea’s future nuclear decision making. All participants have integrated their research and formulated U.S. policy recommendations to reduce the likelihood of these three countries going nuclear. In January, they will present their final report to several U.S. government agencies, including Congress, the National Security Council, and the State and Defense departments.

Drawing from her experiences in Egypt and Israel, Florentina Mulaj MPA ’08 reflected that, “continued regional unrest, accompanied by a nuclear Israel, presents a real proliferation chainreaction problem.” Ryan Phillips MPA ’08 further highlighted “just how difficult it is to make any progress on nonproliferation in the Middle East without serious engagement by the U.S. on multiple fronts. Lacking such a commitment, the threat of a proliferation chain reaction is very real.”