New Article: Rodman, American Arms Transfers to Israel, 1962–1970

Rodman, David. “American Arms Transfers to Israel, 1962–1970: The Nuclear Weapons Dimension.” Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs (early view; online first).

 
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23739770.2015.1114769
 
Extract

The American-Israeli relationship underwent a dramatic transformation during the 1960s. From its establishment in 1948 and throughout the 1950s, Israel had largely been kept at arm’s length by the administration of Presidents Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower. Both feared that an intimate relationship with Israel would alienate the Arab world, and therefore threaten access to Middle Eastern oil, as well as encourage Soviet penetration of the region. The truncated logic in formulating its Middle Eastern policy, but eventually came around to adopting a more favorable attitude toward Israel. Presidnet Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration deepened the trend begun by its predecessor. And, by the early 1970s, during the administration of President Richard M. Nixon, Israel had come to be seen as a strategic asset to the United States in its quest to contain Soviet influence in the Middle East.

 

 

 

Advertisements

New Article: Morag, The Strategic Impact of an Iranian Nuclear Weapons Capability on Israel

Morag, Nadav. “The Strategic Impact of an Iranian Nuclear Weapons Capability on Israel.” In Nuclear Threats and Security Challenges, NATO Science for Peace and Security series (ed. Samuel Apikyan and David Diamond; Dordrecht: Springer, 2015): 135-46.

 

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JRME-09-2014-0023

 

Abstract

This paper will address the likely strategic impact of an Iranian nuclear weapons capability on Israeli security, both in terms of the country’s regional standing within the Middle East, and in terms of its homeland security issues. It should be emphasized that an Iranian capacity to produce and deploy nuclear weapons in a fairly short period of time will have largely the same strategic impact on Israel as an already existing Iranian nuclear weapons capability because Iran will be able to claim that, by developing this capacity, it will be able to counter Israeli “aggression” in the Middle East, thus enhancing its prestige in the region and beyond. Moreover, an Iranian capability to develop and deploy nuclear weapons may embolden Iran to risk further confrontation with Israel, the United States, and America’s Arab allies because a nuclear weapons capability is likely to be perceived in Teheran, particularly by regime hardliners, as an insurance policy against a catastrophic attack on Iran that could threaten the regime’s hold on power. Finally, even if Iran does not actually build nuclear weapons, once it has the capacity to build them in a short period of time, Israel will need to think about the implications of their use against Israeli cities and what this means for its homeland security.

 

 

Research in Progress: Scoping Study of U.S.-Israel Dialogue (Chen Kane, Middlebury Institute of Int’l Studies)

Scoping Study of U.S.-Israel Dialogue
Performer: Middlebury Institute of International Studies
Project Lead: Chen Kane
Project Cost: $70,000
FY15-16

URL: http://calhoun.nps.edu/handle/10945/45427

Objective:
Over the last twenty years, there has been an increase in security-related Track 2 dialogues in the Middle East. Yet, with Israel, one of the region’s most important states and a nuclear power, few Track 2 dialogues addressing mutual security concerns have been held. They are needed to foster a more open exchange and discussion of emerging mutual security issues. This study will evaluate the feasibility and scope of a future Track 2 dialogue between the United States and Israel within the 2016 timeframe.

Approach:
This project involves background research and analysis, including of past attempts to establish Track 1.5 strategic dialogues and the reasons they have failed. Additionally, researchers will conduct in-depth consultations with current and former U.S. government and non-government personnel. They will also travel to Israel to discuss the project’s objectives with a select group of Israeli government and non-government interlocutors. Subjects for discussion will include Iran’s nuclear program, Syria’s civil war, a Middle East WMD-free zone, extended deterrence, missile defense, and other emerging security issues.

Click here for PDF.

ToC: Israel Affairs 21.4 (2015)

This new issue contains the following articles:

Articles
The journalist as a messiah: journalism, mass-circulation, and Theodor Herzl’s Zionist vision
Asaf Shamis
Pages: 483-499
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2015.1076188

The debate between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem in Mandatory Palestine (1920–48) over the re-interment of Zionist leaders
Doron Bar
Pages: 500-515
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2015.1076180

Development of information technology industries in Israel and Ireland, 2000–2010
Erez Cohen
Pages: 516-540
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2015.1076183

Israel’s nuclear amimut policy and its consequences
Ofer Israeli
Pages: 541-558
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2015.1076185

She got game?! Women, sport and society from an Israeli perspective
Yair Galily, Haim Kaufman & Ilan Tamir
Pages: 559-584
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2015.1076184

The origin of globalized anti-Zionism: A conjuncture of hatreds since the Cold War
Ernest Sternberg
Pages: 585-601
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2014.984419

The Diaspora and the homeland: political goals in the construction of Israeli narratives to the Diaspora
Shahar Burla
Pages: 602-619
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2015.1076181

India–Israel relations: the evolving partnership
Ashok Sharma & Dov Bing
Pages: 620-632
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2015.1076189

The design of the ‘new Hebrew’ between image and reality: a portrait of the student in Eretz Yisrael at the beginning of ‘Hebrew education’ (1882–1948)
Nirit Raichel
Pages: 633-647
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2015.1076187

The evolution of Arab psychological warfare: towards ‘nonviolence’ as a political strategy
Irwin J. Mansdorf
Pages: 648-667
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2015.1076186

Militancy and religiosity in the service of national aspiration: Fatah’s formative years
Ido Zelkovitz
Pages: 668-690
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2015.1076191

Book Reviews
The historical David: the real life of an invented hero/David, king of Israel, and Caleb in biblical memory
David Rodman
Pages: 691-693
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2015.1083700

Britain’s moment in Palestine: retrospect and perspectives, 1917–48/Palestine in the Second World War: strategic plans and political dilemmas
David Rodman
Pages: 693-696
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2015.1083701

Israeli culture on the road to the Yom Kippur War
David Rodman
Pages: 696-698
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2015.1083702

The one-state condition
Raphael Cohen-Almagor
Pages: 698-701
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2015.1083699

Globalising hatred: the new Antisemitism
Rusi Jaspal
Pages: 701-704
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2015.1083703

Psychological Warfare in the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Rusi Jaspal
Pages: 704-707
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2015.1083704

Editorial Board
Editorial Board

Pages: ebi-ebi
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2015.1109819

New Article: Rabinowitz & Miller, U.S. Nonproliferation Policy toward Israel, South Africa, and Pakistan

Rabinowitz, Or, and Nicholas L. Miller. “Keeping the Bombs in the Basement: U.S. Nonproliferation Policy toward Israel, South Africa, and Pakistan.” International Security 40.1 (2015): 47-86.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00207

 
Abstract

How has the United States behaved historically toward friendly states with nuclear weapons ambitions? Recent scholarship has demonstrated the great lengths to which the United States went to prevent Taiwan, South Korea, and West Germany from acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet seemingly on the other side of the ledger are cases such as Israel, South Africa, and Pakistan, where the United States failed to prevent proliferation, and where many have argued that the United States made exceptions to its nonproliferation objectives given conflicting geopolitical goals. A reexamination of the history of U.S. nonproliferation policy toward Israel, South Africa, and Pakistan, based on declassified documents and interviews, finds that these cases are not as exceptional as is commonly understood. In each case, the United States sought to prevent these states from acquiring nuclear weapons, despite geopolitical constraints. Moreover, once U.S. policymakers realized that prior efforts had failed, they continued to pursue nonproliferation objectives, brokering deals to prevent nuclear tests, public declaration of capabilities, weaponization, or transfer of nuclear materials to other states.

 

New Article: Ziv, Shimon Peres and the Israeli Nuclear Program

Ziv, Guy. “The Triumph of Agency over Structure: Shimon Peres and the Israeli Nuclear Program.” International Negotiation 20.2 (2015): 218-41.

 

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718069-12341306

 

Abstract
This article advances the proposition that when the negotiator is empowered to reach an agreement on behalf of his or her government, agency has the potential to triumph over structure. The negotiator whose personal attributes include flexibility, sensitivity, inventiveness, tenacity and patience is more likely to meet this potential. Shimon Peres, the director-general of Israel’s Ministry of Defense in the mid-1950s, possessed many of these traits. He was also given virtually free rein by Prime Minister and Defense Minister David Ben-Gurion to pursue negotiations with France over the acquisition of a nuclear reactor. Despite significant structural hurdles – financial difficulties, domestic opposition, u.s. disapproval, and an unstable and divided French Fourth Republic – Peres’s unorthodox diplomacy allowed Israel to become a nuclear power. This case highlights the oft-overlooked role of agency in political science, in general, and in international negotiations, in particular.

 

 

 

New Book: Rabinowitz, Bargaining on Nuclear Tests

Rabinowitz, Or. Bargaining on Nuclear Tests. Washington and Its Cold War Deals. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.

 

9780198702931_450

 

Most observers who follow nuclear history agree on one major aspect regarding Israel’s famous policy of nuclear ambiguity; mainly that it is an exception. More specifically, it is largely accepted that the 1969 Nixon-Meir understanding, which formally established Israel’s policy of nuclear ambiguity and transformed it from an undeclared Israeli strategy into a long-lasting undisclosed bilateral agreement, was in fact a singularity, aimed at allowing Washington to turn a blind eye to the existence of an Israeli arsenal. According to conventional wisdom, this nuclear bargain was a foreign policy exception on behalf of Washington, an exception which reflected a relationship growing closer and warmer between the superpower leading the free world and its small Cold War associate. Contrary to the orthodox narrative, this research demonstrates that this was not the case. The 1969 bargain was not, in fact, an exception, but rather the first of three Cold War era deals on nuclear tests brokered by Washington with its Cold War associates, the other two being Pakistan and South Africa. These two deals are not well known and until now were discussed and explored in the literature in a very limited fashion. Bargaining on Nuclear Tests places the role of nuclear tests by American associates, as well as Washington’s attempts to prevent and delay them, at the heart of a new nuclear history narrative.

Table of Contents

1: Introduction
2: The Paradox of Hegemony
3: The NPT, Nuclear Tests and Their Changing Legal Status
4: The American Test Ban Debate
5: Israel
6: South Africa
7: Pakistan
8: India
9: Conclusions

ToC: Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, 8.1

At Issue: Iran
Iran Thirty-Five Years After the Islamic Revolution: A Conversation
David Menashri
“Like Two Scorpions in a Bottle”: Could Israel and a Nuclear Iran Coexist in the Middle East?
Louis René Beres
“No Permanent Allies, No Permanent Enemies, Only Permanent Interests”: Israeli–Iranian Relations
Avi Primor
Middle East Currents
Breakdown and Possible Restart: Turkish–Israeli Relations under the AKP
Matthew S. Cohen and Charles D. Freilich
Egypt’s Quest for Normalcy
David Sultan
Internationalizing the Arab–Israeli Conflict
Yehuda Bauer
European Currents and Retrospectives
Israel and the EU: Beyond the Horizon
Frans Timmermans
Combating Antisemitism in Europe
Michael Whine
Two Vignettes on Israeli–European Economic Community Relations in the Late 1950s
Sharon Pardo
Linking the Vistula and the Jordan: The Genesis of Relations between Poland and the State of Israel
Szymon Rudnicki
Counterpoints
Absolving the Allies? Another Look at the Anglo–American Response to the Holocaust
Alexander J. Groth
Holocaust Rescue Revisited: An Unexplored Angle
Wojtek Rappak
Reviews
Israel Has Moved by Diana Pinto
Reviewed by Colette Avital
Israel in Africa 1956–1976 by Zach Levey
Reviewed by Joel Peters
The Wisdom of Syria’s Waiting Game: Foreign Policy Under the Assads by Bente Scheller
Reviewed by Dimitar Mihaylov
Shiism and Politics in the Middle East by Laurence Louër
Reviewed by Harold Rhode
Beyond War: Reimagining American Influence in a New Middle East by David Rohde
Reviewed by Juliana Geran Pilon
The Nixon Administration and the Middle East Peace Process, 1969–1973: From the Rogers Plan to the Outbreak of the Yom Kippur War by Boaz Vanetik and Zaki Shalom
1973: The Road to War by Yigal Kipnis
Reviewed by David Rodman
Race and US Foreign Policy: The African-American Foreign Affairs Network by Mark Ledwidge
Reviewed by Fred A. Lazin
Useful Enemies: John Demjanjuk and America’s Open-Door Policy for Nazi War Criminals by Richard Rashke
Reviewed by Efraim Zuroff
The Influence of Airpower upon History: Statesmanship, Diplomacy, and Foreign Policy since 1903 edited by Robin Higham and Mark Parillo
Reviewed by Danny Shalom
Governments-in-Exile and the Jews during the Second World War edited by Jan Lánič ek and James Jordan
Reviewed by Alexander J. Groth
Forgotten Ally: China’s World War II, 1937–1945 by Rana Mitter
Reviewed by Yitzhak Shichor
Letters
Bertram Marc Katz, Rafael Medoff, Konrad Baumeister

Cite: Eiran and Malin, Israel’s Perception of a Nuclear-Armed Iran

Eiran, Ehud and Martin B. Malin. “The Sum of all Fears: Israel’s Perception of a Nuclear-Armed Iran.” Washington Quarterly 36.3 (2013): 77-89.

 

URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0163660X.2013.825551

 

Extract

Four do’s and four don’t’s for policymakers in the United States and beyond flow from this analysis:
First, don’t bet on Israel’s next move. The fears expressed in Israel’s domestic debate are real and rooted, but so are divisions over how to respond. It is anyone’s guess who will prevail in the struggle over how to respond to Iran.
Second, don’t believe everything you hear. Politicians make statements for many reasons. Not every comparison of Iran and Nazi Germany needs to be heeded. Although Israeli fears may be genuine, the Holocaust analogies are deeply flawed and not a sound guide to policy. Although Prime Minister Netanyahu does draw on Jewish history as a compass, he has also used the framing of threats (terrorism, Iran) as a tool to garner political support.
Third, don’t walk away. If Israel feels a growing sense of abandonment, it could cause an escalation of fears and precisely the kinds of responses that could be most destructive for Israel, U.S. policy, and the region.

Israel’s elected officials may favor an attack, but its military leadership shuns one.
Finally, don’t feed fear. Talk is not cheap. U.S. officials, particularly members of Congress, should stop echoing the worst Israeli hyperbole about Iranian capabilities and intentions. At the same time, it would help if Iranian officials stopped making ridiculous statements denying the Holocaust and declaring their desire to see the Zionist entity wiped from the pages of history. Israeli leaders should avoid boxing themselves into making unnecessary choices by giving voice to their deepest fears.
If policymakers avoid these pitfalls, what positive steps should they take to help rein in fears in Israel and across the region? First, the United States should quietly help Israel and its neighbors realize their common interests vis-à-vis Iran and build upon them—not so much to deepen Iran’s isolation but to enable coordinated action in resolving the stalemate with Iran. The United States could facilitate, for example, a quiet exchange between security officials from Israel and other regional players to clarify their respective approaches to the emerging security environment and to discuss the kinds of transparency and oversight measures that might ultimately provide reassurance about Iran’s nuclear intentions.
Second, the United States should continue to coordinate its policies toward Iran with Israel. Despite the reported tensions between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu during the former’s first term in office, relations between the professional policymaking establishments of the two countries have never been closer; this coordination will continue to reassure Israel and to encourage Jerusalem to act with restraint.

Don’t bet on Israel’s next move; it is anyone’s guess.
Third, the United States should support cooperative frameworks which would allow the states of the Middle East to begin to discuss, face to face, principles of regional security. The proposal to convene a conference on a WMD-free zone in the Middle East may be a vehicle for initiating such discussions. The architecture for regional coordination and management of security in the Middle East does not exist today, and is difficult to imagine, but it will remain elusive unless the United States pushes like-minded states into discussions of the shared challenges they face. These discussions will eventually need to address the challenge of banning all weapons of mass destruction in the region.
Finally, and most urgently, the best way to address Israeli fears of Iran is for Washington to break the logjam in its bilateral relations with Tehran, enable Iran to clarify its past nuclear activities, accept negotiated limits on its nuclear activities, and move beyond the years of confrontation which have both undermined regional security and defined Israeli–Iranian relations.

 

Cite: Shaw, Middle East Nonproliferation. Toward a Zone of Inclusion

Shaw, Douglas B. “Middle East Nonproliferation. Toward a Zone of Inclusion.” Nonproliferation Review 19.3 (2012): 357-363.

URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10736700.2012.734184

Abstract

The Middle East is a crucial region for the global nonproliferation regime. In 2010, the state parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons proposed a conference on a Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction-Free Zone. The nuclear weapon-free zone model, on which this idea builds, has achieved important results in other regions, but faces especially stark challenges in the Middle East. However, the attempt to apply the boldly imaginative zone approach to the Middle East holds promise for building a more inclusive dialogue on nonproliferation and regional security.

Cite: Evron, Extended Deterrence in the Middle East

Evron, Yair. “Extended Deterrence in the Middle East.” Nonproliferation Review 19.3 (2012): 391-400.

URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10736700.2012.734186

Abstract

With the exception of Iran, no Middle Eastern state has an operating nuclear power reactor. Several states, including the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Israel, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, and Egypt are considering constructing such reactors; some have even taken steps towards commencing nuclear power projects. There exist, however, considerable economic, technical, safety, and security challenges to achieving these goals, many of which are acute in the Middle East region. Regional and international cooperation on nuclear technology could not only help regional states meet their energy objectives, but it could also help to build trust among states as a basic step towards a future Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction-Free Zone.

Cite: Asculai, Nuclear Power in the Middle East: Risks and Opportunities

Asculai, Ephraim. “Nuclear Power in the Middle East: Risks and Opportunities for Regional Security.” Nonproliferation Review 19.3 (2012): 391-400.

URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10736700.2012.734187

Abstract

With the exception of Iran, no Middle Eastern state has an operating nuclear power reactor. Several states, including the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Israel, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, and Egypt are considering constructing such reactors; some have even taken steps towards commencing nuclear power projects. There exist, however, considerable economic, technical, safety, and security challenges to achieving these goals, many of which are acute in the Middle East region. Regional and international cooperation on nuclear technology could not only help regional states meet their energy objectives, but it could also help to build trust among states as a basic step towards a future Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction-Free Zone.

Cite: Kaye, The Middle East WMD-Free Zone Conference

Kaye, Dalia Dassa. “The Middle East WMD-Free Zone Conference. A Reset for Regional Arms Control?” Nonproliferation Review 19.3 (2012): 413-428.

URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10736700.2012.734189

Abstract

This article reviews the origins and evolution of the Middle East weapons of mass destruction-free zone (WMDFZ) concept and the proposal for a 2012 conference on the subject, and explores new challenges and opportunities for regional arms control in the current regional environment. It suggests that new models may be necessary to revitalize regional arms control efforts. The establishment of a broad regional security forum could include, but should not be limited to, curtailing weapons of mass destruction through the zone approach. Even if the 2012 conference fails to materialize, or is limited to a one-time event, the proposal for such a conference has provided an important opportunity to rethink future options for a regional arms control and security process.

Cite: Kumaraswamy, Israel: The Non-Parallel Player

Kumaraswamy, P. R. “Israel: The Non-Parallel Player.” Strategic Analysis 36.6 (2012): 976-986.

URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09700161.2012.728866

Abstract

Political tensions and rivalry between Iran and Israel have cast a shadow over India’s bilateral relations with both these countries. While one offers energy security, the other provides military–security capability towards ensuring greater Indian influence in the Middle East. Conscious of their relative advantages and challenges, India has managed to maintain a fine balance in its relations with Iran and Israel. Despite the suspected involvement of Iranian citizens in the 13 February 2012 terror attack on the Israeli embassy vehicle in New Delhi, Israel could continue to be a marginal player in Indo-Iranian relations. The same, however, will not be true for the US, which seeks to limit and if possible change the substance and direction of Indo-Iranian relations.

ToC: Israel Affairs 18,4 (2012)

Israel Affairs, Vol. 18, No. 4, 01 Oct 2012 is now available on Taylor & Francis Online.

This new issue contains the following articles:

Original Articles

Existential threats to Israel: learning from the ancient past
Steven R. David
Pages: 503-525
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2012.717386

Leadership, preventive war and territorial expansion: David Ben-Gurion and Levi Eshkol
Shlomo Aronson
Pages: 526-545
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2012.717387

‘Two & three air raids daily. What a bother’: an American diplomat in Israel during the War of Independence
Henry D. Fetter
Pages: 546-562
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2012.717388

The failed Palestinian–Israeli peace process 1993–2011: an Israeli perspective
Raphael Cohen-Almagor
Pages: 563-576
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2012.717389

The birth of the core issues: the West Bank and East Jerusalem under Israeli administration 1967–76 (part 1)
Moshe Elad
Pages: 577-595
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2012.717390

The social representation of incapacity: a psycho-cultural analysis of Israel’s political arena
Mira Moshe
Pages: 596-614
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2012.717391

The advent of Israel’s commercial lobby
Hila Tal
Pages: 615-628
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2012.717392

The games must go on? The influence of terror attacks on hosting sporting events in Israel
Yair Galily, Ilan Tamir & Moshe Levy
Pages: 629-644
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2012.717393

Combat stress reactions during the 1948 war: a conspiracy of silence?
Eldad Rom & Dan Bar-On
Pages: 645-651
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2012.717394

The US, Hezbollah and the idea of sub-state terrorism
Hussain Sirriyeh
Pages: 652-662
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2012.717395

Book Reviews

India’s Israel policy
David Rodman
Pages: 663-665
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2012.718493

The West and the Middle East
David Rodman
Pages: 665-666
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2012.718494

Nation and history: Israeli historiography between Zionism and post-Zionism
David Rodman
Pages: 666-667
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2012.718495

Israeli statecraft: national security challenges and responses
David Rodman
Pages: 667-668
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2012.718496

Confidential: the life of secret agent turned Hollywood tycoon Arnon Milchan
David Rodman
Pages: 669-669
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2012.718497

The anatomy of Israel’s survival
David Rodman
Pages: 669-670
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2012.718498

Perspectives of psychological operations (PSYOP) in contemporary conflicts: essays in winning hearts and minds
David Rodman
Pages: 670-671
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2012.718499

Holy wars: 3000 years of battles in the holy land
David Rodman
Pages: 671-671
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2012.718500

Crossroads: the future of the U.S.–Israel strategic partnership
David Rodman
Pages: 671-673
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2012.718501

Israel’s national security law: political dynamics and historical development
David Rodman
Pages: 673-674
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2012.718502