Nuclear Egypt? Quite possible

Nuclear Egypt? Quite possible
Egypt's ruling elite loves to see itself at the centre of West Asian politics; for the Presidential Palace and its retinue of loyalists, Cairo is the most important place, the gateway to what Americans refer to as 'Middle East', stretching across the Maghreb and the Mashreq. Ever since Anwar Sadat decided to part company with the Russians (in those days it was the USSR) after his predecessor, Gamal Abdel Nasser's disastrous 'United Arab Republic' political and military campaign, the US has been particularly charitable towards Egypt. Sadat's historic visit to Jerusalem and the equally historic peace agreement he signed with Israel paved the path for greater American assistance, amounting to $ 2 billion every year. Egypt became the bulwark against Arab radicalism, the launching pad for America's West Asia policy. There was no change in this arrangement after Sadat's assassination by Islamists on October 6, 1981. Indeed, American support for the palace increased: President Hosni Mubarak was -- and remains -- the best choice to keep the Ikhwan-ul Muslimeen (Muslim Brotherhood) at bay.
But with new players emerging in West Asia and Saudi Arabia, under the tutelage of King Abdullah, who is desperate to rid his country of its 'extremist', if not Wahaabi, tag so that it is not seen as an exporter of fanatical Islam, Egypt has been suffering an erosion of its exalted stature as the key player. This is also because Egypt is now being increasingly seen as a spoiler, instead of facilitator, in the Israel-Palestine peace process. Cairo does have a tendency to scowl if others are able to achieve something which it has failed to secure -- King Abdullah's initiative to break the deadlock over Israel-Palestine peace negotiations at the Arab League's Riyadh summit last year left quite a few Egyptians smarting; many of them are still sulking.
What has added perceived 'insult' to Cairo's imaginary 'injury' is the increasing realisation in Washington that the wider Arab-Israeli conflict has now mutated into an Israeli-Palestinian issue. Hence, any peace deal has to be essentially a bilateral agreement between Tel Aviv/Jerusalem and Ramallah, or else it is doomed to fail, just like the 'Road Map' crafted by the US State Department turned out to be a miserable failure. A third factor that has contributed to what Egyptians see as their country's "diminishing" role is Iran's attempt to emerge as the sole leader of 'Greater Middle East'. While Tehran has been cautious not to overtly flaunt its Shia credentials in Sunni Arab-dominated West Asia and reached out in equal measure to both Shia Hizbullah and Sunni Hamas, the Shia-Sunni fault-line cannot be ignored. Strangely, the Arab street, which should have witnessed the manifestation of this fault-line, is supportive of Iran since it is perceived as more daring than the Arab palace in challenging the Americans.
The US knows the implications of allowing Shia Iran to gain in stature in West Asia. It also knows that Saudi Arabia can play the Sunni card with greater finesse than Egypt. Hence, Riyadh now dominates America's West Asia strategy, not Cairo. And Americans being Americans, they have not been particularly careful about Egyptian toes while shifting strategy -- diplomacy, contrary to popular opinion, is not the US's strength. This was on display during President George W Bush's visit to the region last week. Mona Eltahawy, an Egyptian journalist, is scathing in her comments on the visit: "The most recent reminder of Egypt's diminished role in regional politics came when President George W Bush ended his Middle East trip by pausing in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh. He thanked President Hosni Mubarak six times and used the word 'appreciate' 10 times. But sweet words don't hide simple maths: Mr Bush spent just three hours in Egypt -- an afterthought compared to the two days he had just spent in Saudi Arabia, where he delivered a major arms sale, and sword-danced with the relatives of Saudi King Abdullah."
Pharaohnic anger, which Mr Mubarak can summon with amazing ease, is not to be trifled with; an enraged Egypt is not good news -- for the US, the region and the extended neighbourhood which is skirted by India's western border. Early indications of the storm blowing through Cairo's corridors of power are already available. Iran's Alalam news network has put out an interesting story from Beirut: "Former Egyptian Ambassador in Tehran says Egypt strongly defends Iran's right to possess peaceful nuclear programme. In an exclusive interview, Mr Mahmoud Faraj said during Mr Bush's visit to the region Egypt strongly defended Iran's right to own atomic technology for civilian purposes... stressing Mr Bush failed in his attempt to win the Arab countries' support against Iran." According to this report, Mr Faraj spoke of the "need for restoration of Egyptian-Iranian relations (which broke down after Tehran provided shelter to Sadat's assassin, Khaled Al-Islambuli, and named a street after him) as soon as possible".
A second, more interesting report, has emanated from Cairo, disclosing that Egypt's "first nuclear reactor will be built at Dabba on the Mediterranean coast west of the main port of Alexandria". The report adds that the site "meets all the safety conditions and the requirements of operating an electricity generating nuclear plant". Egypt's nuclear energy programme dates back to the days of unrestricted Russian military aid. But unsure of the safety standards, Egypt abandoned its nuclear programme, at least officially, in 1986 after the Chernobyl disaster. There are reasons to believe that Egypt has been working towards reviving its nuclear programme, under the cover of civilian use of nuclear technology, for the last few years. In October 2007, Mr Mubarak gave rumours some legitimacy by announcing the "beginning of a national plan for setting up nuclear plants for peaceful use".
Of late the IAEA has been discomfited by reports of Egypt kick-starting its nuclear programme, not least because Cairo, which had an active nuclear weapons programme during 1954-67 but later opted for the NPT, has failed to disclose details of experiments at its revived nuclear facilities. Egypt is believed to have two nuclear reactors and signed an agreement with Russia in 2001 for "scientific and technical cooperation in the peaceful use of atomic energy according to Egypt's national nuclear needs and priorities". Are the Russians, eager to take on the Americans, behind Egypt's revived nuclear programme? After all, Moscow has been more than supportive of Tehran's bomb-in-the-basement programme. Worse, it could be Iran holding out a nuclear olive branch to its foe while all American eyes are trained on Saudi Arabia. This could mark a new chapter in that region's tempestuous history.

Israel Diary - I

Israel Diary - I

Belligerent Iran changes West Asia alliances

Kanchan Gupta

If there is one topic of conversation that overshadows everything else in Israel today it is next month's US-sponsored peace talks at Annapolis. There is some amount of cynicism among intellectuals and right-of-centre politicians who believe that this will be another wasted effort because the Palestinians will not settle for anything less than what Yasser Arafat demanded and was refused. But the overwhelming mood is one of optimism. Friday's meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at the former's residence in Jerusalem, during which they are believed to have discussed ways and means of ensuring Annapolis does not become just another marker along the tortuous road to a negotiated settlement, is an indication of how seriously both the Israelis and the Palestinians are taking the conference.
But for all his efforts to focus on a possible joint declaration of principles if not an agreement of sorts, Olmert is a distracted man -- not so much by the cases of alleged corruption piling up against him as by Iran's accelerated nuclear programme and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's relentless assault on Jews and his threats to exterminate Israel. Indeed, in Israel's security establishment, Hamas and Hizbullah have taken a back seat as strategists race against time to put together a plan to stymie Iran's soaring ambitions. There are apprehensions that the over-emphasis on Annapolis among the political class could deflect attention from Iran which would work to Tehran's advantage.
"The greatest danger is that Annapolis might be considered a substitute for, or become a distraction from, the overarching requirement for any peace process to have a chance: Forcing Iran to back down," the Jerusalem Post comments in its weekend edition, "without that, nothing achieved at Annapolis -- or in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, for that matter -- has a hope of sticking over the long term. By the same token, a turning back of the Iranian challenge could significantly increase the prospects for success on all of these fronts."
Shia Iran is being increasingly perceived as trying to dislodge the traditional Sunni Arab power base in West Asia, stretching from the Gulf states to the Suez Canal. This is bad news for Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt; on the other hand, Shias in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq are delighted. A nuclear armed Iran, therefore, is as much a threat to Israel as its hitherto Arab foes. Strangely, together they now form a putative alliance: Israeli officials refer to Saudi Arabia as a "moderate Arab state" while Riyadh, Amman and Cairo put pressure on Abbas and his Fateh to cut a deal with the Jewish state so that there are no distractions while dealing with "Islamofascist" Iran.
Just how far opinion has shifted in Arab palaces, if not on Arab streets, can be gauged from the non-response to the Israeli air strike on a Syrian target on September 6. It is believed, though there has been no official statement, leave alone a confirmation, that Israeli bombers crossed into Syrian air space and flattened a nuclear "facility". There are various versions floating around in Jerusalem about the nature of this "facility" -- it may have been an upcoming nuclear reactor or a storage facility for Iranian nuclear material. There is some speculation that Iran had shifted some of its men and material to Syria to ensure a foreign military intervention does not entirely neutralise Tehran's nuclear capability. Israel decided not to take a chance and bombed the facility into oblivion.
"The Government of Israel has neither said anything, nor has it denied news reports about the September 6 strike. But we do know something happened on that day, as do the Arabs. What is surprising is the deafening silence of the Arab world," says Eran Lerman, director of the Israel office of American Jewish Committee (AJC). This is seen as an endorsement of the Israeli air strike by Sunni Arab states that have never quite been at ease with Syria since the days of Gamal Abdel Nasser's disastrous experiment with a "United Arab Republic".
Those in the security establishment who advocate a tough line with Iran interpret the Arab silence over September 6 as indicative of Iran's isolation in the region. Ahmadinejad is seen as dreaming of "regional hegemony"; others have ganged up against him, displaying rare unity, more so against an Islamic nation. "The only protests we heard came from Syria's only friends ... which is less than half of Lebanon," Lerman adds, referring to the Shias of Lebanon.
Lerman brushes aside all suggestions of approaching Iran's claim -- that its nuclear programme has nothing to do with acquisition of nuclear warheads -- with a snort. "Iran's claim is a fantasy. Believing in Iran is like believing in the tooth fairy," he says. Apart from its ambition to emerge as the predominant regional power, Iran, Lerman adds, is driven by its "ideological commitment". In terms of technological abilities, defence posture and intelligence capability, Israel is far better placed than Iran. "But we have very little time," he says.
So, will Israel take the first step towards neutralising Iran's nuclear programme as it did in Osirak, destroying Iraq's nascent nuclear facility on June 7, 1981, a week before it was to go "live"? Was the bombing mission in Syria a dry run? Lerman avoids a direct answer. He only points out that Iran poses a threat to everybody and everybody should react. He has a point: A nuclear armed Iran is as alarming for India as for Israel, or, for that matter, the US and Europe.
Just how advanced is Iran's nuclear programme? A senior official at Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs says, "We are not sure whether we know enough... it could be more advanced than we think." His assessment is alarming: Iran should be able to achieve complete enrichment and produce a device by the second half of 2009. This has made "pragmatic, moderate Arab regimes sit up and take notice of Tehran's ulterior motives". With Hizbullah on the ascendant in Lebanon, Syria fortifying itself with new weapons (of "Russian origin") and Hamas having established a line of communication with Tehran, not to mention Shias becoming more aggressive by the day in Iraq, "pragmatic", if not "moderate", Sunni Arab states have reason to feel as concerned as Israel, if not more.
It is this shared concern that has led to what Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, recently voted the most influential woman in her country, describes as "new camps and new alliances". Sitting in her office in downtown Tel Aviv, listening to her outline Israel's threat perception of Iran, I am mesmerised by her body language. It's not for nothing that she has been nominated the chief Israeli interlocutor for the latest peace dialogue. "We need to stop Iran. It is a threat to the region ... It can destabilise the region more than the Israel-Palestine conflict," she says in a matter-of-fact manner.
It's not a proposition, but a statement of intent. "Sanctions are effective but they take time to have an impact. And right now time is of essence," she says, and, after a pause, adds disdainfully, "the world lacks determination. It is unaware of the consequences, the domino effect (of Iran going nuclear)."
So, what are the options? The full import of Thursday's sanctions, imposed by the US on Iran, is yet to be known, but they have been welcomed by Israel. Once again, there is a deafening silence in the Arab world. But what if Russia and China refuse to play ball? Then who shall bell the cat? "At this point of time it's tempting to say we'll take care (of the problem)," says an ebullient Lerman. Which means a repeat of Operation Opera that put paid to Saddam Hussein's dreams of acquiring nuclear power.
But will the Israelis be audacious enough to bomb Natanz? Maybe yes if Annapolis goes well and the Arabs have something to show for their exertions. And if that doesn't happen, we can look forward to a dangerous West Asia destabilising global power equations and throwing the world economy into a tizzy. A breakthrough, no matter how small, at Annapolis could prevent this from happening. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice realises this, as does Livni.