Essay on The ethics of international affairs: The discussion about nuclear weapons threat in the Middle East

In my opinion, the argumentation of Mohamed El-Baradei, former Director General of the IAEA regarding the necessity of nuclear non-proliferation regime in the Middle East is generally very convincing.

He claims that the most important component of nuclear-arms-control is a creation and development of nuclear-weapon-free zones. And talking about certain zones, one of the areas with the most intense tension among the neighboring countries is the Middle East with the countries likes Israel and Iran.

Basically, it is in the nature of nuclear weapons – this provocation – they are used as a tool of power balance. Nuclear weapons are used as a major strategic influence and a word of power, but they are also a global source of instability and insecurity.

The problem of regulation of nuclear weapons lies in the regulation. The general framework for their regulation was developed but it’s not being obeyed my all countries.

The Middle East is a very complicated region, where the terrorist groups are rising and the nuclear force can’t make any influence on these groups. The reason is that these people doesn’t have any cities or constant homes which could be bombed. These terroristic unions often change their tactics and methods of attach. They are too flexible. Therefore, we can make a conclusion that nuclear power is desperate in the case of this region, so we can clearly understand Mohamed El-Baradei’s opinion. He insist that there should be a mutual intention to achieve a global security and we should start with establishment of the nuclear-weapon-free areas.

I also need to remind you about the The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) which “is the founding document of multilateral nonproliferation endeavours and deals with preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and contains commitments on nonproliferation, safeguards, nuclear disarmament, nuclear energy and nuclear-weapons free zones.” (Black n.a.)

But nowadays the IAEA faces with differences in accessing to nuclear-weapons technology and this technology is spreading fast now. Dr. El-Baradei has written another article for the Economist in 2003t that I would like to quote here: “Previously relatively few countries knew how to acquire nuclear weapons.” Now, with 35–40 countries in the know by some estimates, the margin of security under the current non-proliferation regime is becoming too slim for comfort. We need a new approach.” (Black n.a.)

So, I need to sum up the situation is getting quite serious, but unfortunately, not too many countries take Dr. El-Baradei’s wise recommendations into account.

Israel’s policy of strategic ambiguity

Another controversial aspect of the Middle East relations is Israel and its policy of strategic ambiguity. It’s a tough case of a country that has quite uneasy relations with its neighbors and that tries to ensure its security through the possession of the weapons of mass destruction.

It should be noted that this country hasn’t been officially recognized as a nuclear weapons state but it is known as having unofficial or unconfirmed weapons (possibly including even nuclear weapons). It is known that Israel possessing various kinds of weapons like chemical, biological and possibly nuclear.

A few powerful countries of the region like India and Pakistan as well as Israel never were the participants of NPT.

This ambiguity is caused by hostile environment that surrounds this country.

According to the comments of Israel’s Prime Minister the major threat for Israel’s security is Iran. This country threatens Israel in an open manner and has a certain nuclear weapon capacities and ambitions. Taking these facts about Iran into account, a policy of deliberate ambiguity seems to be an appropriate response. The main argument of the government is Israel would not be the first country in the region to own nuclear weapons.