Register for our free newsletter

Latest News

UN agency calls rare mideast nuclear talks

UN agency calls rare mideast nuclear talks

Arab states, Israel signalled readiness to join talks; But Iran says no "justification" for proposed forum now; Arabs see presumed Israeli nuclear weapons as continued threat

September 3, 2011 4:20 by

…country in the region outside the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Arab states, backed by Iran, say this poses a threat to peace and stability. They want Israel to subject all its atomic facilities to IAEA monitoring.

Israel, which has never confirmed or denied having atom bombs, says it will only join the NPT if there is a comprehensive Middle East peace. If it signed the pact, the Jewish state would have to renounce nuclear weaponry. (Reporting by Fredrik Dahl; Editing by Rosalind Russell)

Pages: 1 2

Tags: , , , ,


  1. MK on September 4, 2011 11:32 am

    This is perfect example of hypocracy!
    …Israel continues to hold weapons of mass destruction while other ME countries, particulary Iran & UAE, who’re trying to pursue nuclear ambitions for energy are being condemned and forced to stop their activity.

  2. Andrew on September 5, 2011 9:54 am

    Whilst Israel almost certainly holds limited yield nuclear weapons, that fact they’ve not been deployed means we can be reasonably assured they are defensive in nature, held as a deterent should her neighbours launch another pre-emptive war/invasion.

    I don’t think anyone seriousy believes Iran’s nuclear ambitions are purely civilian in purpose. The real question is whether Iran is building up a nuclear arsenal as a deterrent, or for proactive use.

  3. MK on September 5, 2011 11:20 am

    Your point is valid, however, the fact of the matter is that when someone is holding something illegal and tells you that you can’t own it, is unjustified ang bogus!

    I do believe that Iran’s motives are not 100% clear, however, they should not be sanctioned to pursue their ambitions when there are other countries that hold much bigger threats in the region such as India, Pakistan, & Israel.

    If a law is made, it should be abided by all, regardless of the past hisoty or untrusted future intentions that a country might hold!

  4. Khalid AlKhatib on September 6, 2011 6:35 am

    Andrew get your facts right, Israel has between 75 – 400 Nukes, that’s not very limited now is it, the fact that phosphorus bombs have been used on civilians in Gaza including children and elderly people whilst the militants have been firing home made rockets which barely reach any where, already says so much about the nukes being a deterrent

    If the whole issue is about Iran or any other country developing nuclear war heads,

    what’ seems to be the problem Israel Pakistan and India have them, once all of the countries in the region are free of WMD then the world community can enforce what ever it wants on specific countries.

    And I just love how hypocritical these organizations are, and how twisted some people are as well.

  5. Andrew on September 6, 2011 11:12 am

    MK: India, Pakistan and Israel neither signed, nor ratified, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, so it isn’t applicable to them. Iran on the other hand did both sign and ratify it, hence it remains applicable to them.

    Khalid: I haven’t stated anything incorrect, perhaps you should get yours right; I said “limited yield”, that means a lower destructive power compared to higher yield warheads found on intercontinental ballistic missles.

    Even then, had I used the word “limited” in the context of the numbers possessed it would still be correct. Assuming the range you quoted is correct, it would still constitute a limited arsenal compared to the stocks maintained by official nuclear powers. For example, the current US nuclear arsenal is over 5,000 warheads – down from a peak of over 31,000 warheads in the late 1960s.

    White phos is not a weapon of mass destruction, so how is that relevant to either the topic, or what I said?

    Given that Israel’s national neighbours haven’t started another war her since the early 70s (as opposed to 3 in the preceding 25 years) it speaks volumes for its deterrent value. It does however have a far more limited effect when dealing with a political group (like Hezbollah, and the war they knowingly provoked in 2006) as opposed to dealing with a nation.

  6. MK on September 6, 2011 11:38 am

    Thank you Khalid!

    And if this is any sign of cooperation…

    …I hope that it’s for the best of the Iranian people!


Leave a Comment