Nuclear deterrence as a double-edged sword: Who will guarantee us that governments will not fall into the hands of religious lunatics?

By: Avraham Borg

The idea of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction sounds utopian, but is it more naive than the belief that deterrence will always work? Isn't a force designed to protect its wielder liable to become a threat to its very legitimacy? Isn't it better to conduct ourselves transparently and pursue demilitarization, like Germany and Japan did at the time?

Shimon Peres (or, as he was affectionately known at the time, "authorized circles in Jerusalem") is credited with the statement from the late 1960s that "Israel is not a nuclear state, and the position of the Israeli government today, as in the past, is that Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East." And I, who have never doubted the truthfulness of Peres, or of any other Israeli leader, am therefore convinced that Israel has no nuclear capability. After all, no other country in the region currently has one.

So what's the problem?

Some discussions have been going on for decades without a break, and some have never really begun. The debate about the merits and immorality of nuclear weapons has been going on since Hiroshima, and has never stopped. It's just that over the years it has become a tired ritual. We all know by heart the theology of the balance of terror, the language of mutual deterrence, the constant justifications: it prevents all-out wars, ensures stability, fortifies strategic independence. But deep down, it seems that the central question has never been truly answered: What is all this good for? Where is it leading us? "We" is the entire human race armed with weapons of mass destruction.

Iran and the Psychology of Power

Public debate in Israel tends to analyze the Iranian nuclear program through the lenses that are understandable to Israelis: theology and technology. There is supposedly no rational thinking in Tehran, and the entire "Ayatollah" regime is just a primitive combination of messianics and jihadists. Sometimes, when supporters of the Israeli government talk about the Ayatollah regime, you're not entirely sure whether they're talking about them or us. And besides, everyone here is an expert on nuclear bombs, on the number of centrifuges, the enrichment percentages, and intelligence reports. But the Iranian nuclear program is not an engineering or religious matter at all. Nor is it a hollow caricature of Netanyahu at the UN.

Iran is pursuing a bomb not only because it believes "foreign reports" and thinks Israel might have one. And not because too many of its neighbors, both tangential and distant, have proven nuclear capabilities. Not even because of its struggle against the great devil, the United States. The real Iran is surrounded by enemies. Real and imagined. It also saw what the US dared to do to its neighbor Iraq, which did not have nuclear weapons in the early 2000s. And it also drew conclusions from what Washington would not dare do to North Korea because it has nuclear weapons. This is a hard truth: Iran has real security considerations.

And besides, nuclear weapons are the key to entering the prestigious club of superpowers. Without them, Iran is seen as an underdeveloped country with oil and religious rhetoric. With advanced weapons, it could become the center of Shiite pride and the entire Islamic future.

Nuclear weapons are a status symbol that carries international recognition. And in our region, where hierarchies and respect are basic currencies of existence, this symbol is sometimes worth even more than power itself.

A strange paradox prevails in Israel: According to all the denials - we do not have nuclear weapons. And we are not allowed to talk about it. Sorek and Dimona are the Lord Voldemort whose names are not allowed to be spoken. The media only refers to "foreign sources", the verbal ambiguity is a national strategy. And I, a believer among believers, hope that this is indeed the case.

Several questions arise in this regard:

Is such a weapon a strategic asset - or has it become a burden?

And if Iran has a bomb, should we develop one too?

Do weapons of mass destruction protect those who possess them, or invite future threats on a scale we have never known and may never be able to face?

And if that's not enough, don't the rumors, which are of course unfounded, about Israeli nuclear capability perpetuate the image of Israel as a dangerous and isolated entity?

It is very possible that the rumors about the weapons we do not have and have never had have become a license to delegitimize our existence. Because when you are held up as someone who has the ability to destroy cities and countries, it is easy to present you as an existential threat that must be removed. This is the paradox of deterrence since time immemorial: the force that is supposedly intended to protect us - becomes a tool that threatens our very legitimacy.

We will start with transparency, open the existing research centers with a statement of willingness to enter the international oversight system, then come the agreements and arrangements centered on transferring control and oversight to an ally. The United States, for example.

Fear is not an action plan.

The idea of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction sounds utopian. But is it really any more naive than the belief that we can play this game forever? That deterrence will always work? That mistakes won't happen, that technology won't fall into the wrong hands? And if Iran has a bomb and other countries develop their own, who can guarantee that governments won't fall into the hands of religious lunatics? That beliefs about doomsday and the coming of the Messiah won't sway anyone?