The implications of supporting Israel’s ambiguity policy on its nuclear weapons

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had the audacity to accuse Iran of genocide in his statement outlining the reasons for Operation Rising Lion, while openly committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza with the international community’s complicity.

“For decades, the tyrants of Tehran brazenly, openly called for Israel’s destruction. They backed up their genocidal rhetoric with a program to develop nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu stated in a seven-minute video. The Wall Street Journal  reported that Israel has already planned 14 days of military operations against Iran, while Netanyahu asserted an indefinite timeframe. 

The US had prior knowledge of Israel’s airstrikes on Iran. According to Axios, the US is aiding Israel in intercepting Iran’s ballistic missiles. While rushing to Israel’s aid, US Representative told the UN Security Council that any attack on US military bases would bring dire consequences for Iran. 

The double standard, exposed for what it is, still stands in the international arena. The US maintains the right to aid any form of aggression or interference in sovereign countries under the guise of aid, while threatening action against any form of retaliation. 

“Israel advised us this action was necessary for its self-defence. Every sovereign nation has the right to defend itself and Israel is no exception,” McCoy Pitt, Senior Bureau Official for the Bureau of International Affairs, told the UN Security Council. 

READ: Israeli defense minister threatens to ‘burn Tehran’ if Iranian attacks continue

Iran is also no exception, one must add. But let us not forget what former US General Wesley Clark described in 2001 of the US War on Terror and foreign intervention: “We are going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finish with Iran.” 

The US is deeply complicit in Israel’s strikes against Iran, and the international community is following suit with its rhetoric. Take France, which is purportedly deliberating on symbolic recognition of a Palestinian state: “We reaffirm Israel’s right to defend itself against any attack,” Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot stated, despite Israel attacking Iran first. 

Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong followed suit. “We all understand the threat of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programme represents a threat to international peace and security, and we urge the parties to prioritise dialogue and diplomacy.”

Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavsky warned that Iran “long failed to meet its obligations to the international community, and is building up its nuclear programme. But at the same time, it has rhetoric that is aimed at destroying the state in Israel … So I have a great deal of understanding for … military action to deter the production of a nuclear bomb in the region.”

One question for all world leaders supporting Israel’s attacks against Iran. Are any of these world leaders concerned that their diplomacy is protecting a settler-colonial entity that has embarked on genocide and has deliberately maintained a policy of ambiguity regarding its own nuclear weapons and capabilities? 

Israel’s policy of ambiguity was maintained by the US, as a memo by then National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger dated 7 July 1969, illustrates. Discussing Israel’s contract to purchase Phantom aircraft, Kissinger notes that Israel committed “not to be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Near East. But, he adds, “it was plain from the discussion that they interpreted that to mean they could possess nuclear weapons as long as they did not test, deploy, or make them public.” The memo further acknowledges, “public knowledge is almost as dangerous as possession itself.”

We have now seen Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Is the policy of ambiguity not as dangerous as public knowledge itself, or even more? 

OPINION: When the ‘civilised world’ allows inhumanity to thrive, we are all in deep trouble

As early as November 2023, Israeli Heritage Minister Amichar Eliyahu stated that Israel should drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza. Netanyahu rejected Eliyahu’s statement and then Defence Minister Yoav Gallant remarked on X that he was glad “these are not the people in charge of Israel’s security”. Eliyahu later described his comment as “metaphorical”. 

Palestinians have been openly threatened with nuclear annihilation. In May this year, US Congressman Randy Fine called for nuking Gaza in the same way the US did in Japan. While Israel has not yet used nuclear weapons in Gaza, in November 2023 Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor stated that Gaza has been hit with more that 25,000 tonnes of bombs, which is equivalent to two nuclear bombs. The weight of the US nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was approximately 15,000 tonnes. 

Israel is listed among the nine countries in possession of nuclear weapons, with 90 warheads and material for up to 200. Germany, which supports Israel’s security narrative, is listed as one of the five countries that host US nuclear weapons. There are also 28 countries, besides the 6 host countries for US and Russian nuclear weapons, that endorse the possession and use of nuclear weapons. 

As Israel drags the world into diplomatic confrontation with Iran, focusing on the country’s nuclear weapons program, who is focusing on Israel’s policy of ambiguity regarding its own nuclear weapons? Furthermore, who is focusing on the immense disparity between Israel’s military and nuclear capabilities, and the Palestinians in Gaza with negligible means of defending themselves? Considering Israel’s strikes on Iran, will Western leaders toe the line that Israel is expecting, which is to annihilate Gaza from rhetoric, which is the bare minimum allowing it political visibility?

Israel has not swapped Gaza for Iran, even if Netanyahu would like to create the image of a new enemy. He has already created the exact scenario with Lebanon, which briefly shifted attention away from Gaza. Yet every time Israel embarks on a new, visible attack, the plans have been months or years in the making. Israel disseminates the narrative and Western leaders comply with diplomatic overtures, in the same way they did over Gaza. 

We must not lose sight of Gaza, however. Gaza remains central to Israel, not because of any threat, but because it is a bulwark against Zionist colonisation. Israel needs to conjure enemies because that is how it maintains its existence. It needs to focus on resistance movements, on other countries’ nuclear weapons, to maintain an image of a vulnerable, helpless state. The truth, however, is that Israel is a settler-colonial entity that obtained the world’s approval to openly commit genocide in Gaza, sides maintaining its policy of ambiguity over nuclear weapons while attacking Iran for its own programme.  

Let the late war criminal Henry Kissinger’s words sink in for a moment, and consider the danger Israel poses, being a nuclear power that shields itself from scrutiny through ambiguous policy. If that is too immense for the international community to grapple with, how much more so for Gaza? 

BLOG: Protecting Israel’s narrative also protects genocide

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.