Paper presented during my Masters studies at Alliant International University

1. “ Evaluation of the legacy of the NPT with focus
on the Middle East ”
Prepared by Abdelhamied El-Rafie
Under The Supervision of
Prof. Dr. Ana Cristina Petersen
For The course of
Research Methods in International Relations
MAIR At Alliant International University
Abdelhamied El-Rafie

2. Introduction:
My research will try to examine the relation between the legal framework of the NPT as
a treaty and its legacy in practice with concentration on the Middle East so My research
topic will be “ Evaluation of the legacy of the NPT with focus on the
Middle East ”
My research questions will be:
1. Has the international system of Non Proliferation presented in the NPT prevented
the spread of nuclear weapons.
2. this leads to the second question which is with application to the Middle East we
find powers who are possessing or trying to poses Nuclear weapons so will the
current system prevent these powers from not entering the NPT system or it might
lead to an Arms race in the region?
3. This leads to the Third question which is what is the affection of the current
Hierarchy of the International system and its present balance of power on the Non
Proliferation in the Middle East?
So the concepts I will be defining in my research are :
1. The Middle East.
2. Non Proliferation.
My Hypothesis will be that Non compliance with the measures of prevention taken in the
Middle East by the NPT by not including all the Nuclear powers in the region to the NPT
will lead to a nuclear Arms race in the region
Abdelhamied El-Rafie

3. I. Definitions
The Middle East:
“The "Middle East" as a term can be as contentious as the region it identifies. It's not a
precise geographical area like Europe or Africa. It's not a political or economic alliance
like the European Union. It's not even an agreed-upon term by the countries that
constitute it. So what is the Middle East?
The "Middle East" is not a term Middle Easterners gave themselves, but a British term
borne of a colonial, European perspective. The term's origins are seeped in controversy
for having originally been a European imposition of geographic perspective according to
European spheres of influence. East from where? From London. Why "Middle"? Because
it was half-way between the United Kingdom and India, the Far East.
By most accounts the earliest reference to the "Middle East" occurs in a 1902 edition of
the British journal National Review, in an article by Alfred Thayer Mahan entitled "The
Persian Gulf and International Relations." The term gained common usage after it was
popularized by Valentine Chirol, a turn-of-the-century correspondent for the London
times in Tehran. Arabs themselves never referred to their region as the Middle East until
the colonial usage of the term became current and stuck.
For a time, the "Near East" was the term used for the Levant--Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine,
Syria, Jordan--while "Middle East" applied to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Iran. The
American perspective lumped the region into one basket, giving more credence to the
general term "Middle East."
Abdelhamied El-Rafie

4. Today, even Arabs and other people in the Middle East accept the term as a geographical
point of reference. Disagreements persist, however, about the exact geographical
definition of the region. The most conservative definition limits the Middle East to the
countries bound by Egypt to the West, the Arab Peninsula to the South, and at most Iran
to the East.
A more expansive view of the Middle East, or the Greater Middle East, would stretch the
region to Mauritania in West Africa and all the countries of North Africa that are
members of the Arab League; eastward, it would go as far as Pakistan. The Encyclopedia
of the Modern Middle East includes the Mediterranean islands of Malta and Cyprus in its
definition of the Middle East. Politically, a country as far east as Pakistan is increasingly
included in the Middle East because of Pakistan's close ties and involvements in
Afghanistan. Similarly, the former south and southwestern republics of the Soviet Union-
-Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan--can also be
included in a more expansive view of the Middle East because of the republics' cultural,
historical, ethnic and especially religious cross-overs with countries at the core of the
Middle east.”(1)
NPT Non Proliferation Treaty
“The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), formally called the Treaty on the
Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, is the cornerstone of the international effort to
halt the proliferation, or spread, of Nuclear Weapons. The NPT was first signed in 1968
by three nuclear powers—the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United
Abdelhamied El-Rafie

5. Kingdom—and by nearly 100 states without nuclear weapons. It
came into force in 1970, and by the mid 1990s it had been signed by 168 countries.
The NPT distinguishes between nuclear-weapon states and non-nuclear-weapon states. It
identifies five nuclear-weapon states: China, France, the Soviet Union, the United
Kingdom, and the United States.Article II forbids non-nuclear-weapon states that are
parties to the treaty to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear
explosive devices. Article III concerns controls and inspections that are intended to
prevent the diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or
explosive devices. These safeguards are applied only to non-nuclear- weapon states and
only to peaceful nuclear activities. The treaty contains no provisions for verification of
the efforts by nuclear-weapon states to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Under the provisions of Article IV, all parties to the treaty, including non-nuclear-weapon
states, may conduct nuclear research and development for peaceful purposes. In return
for agreeing not to develop nuclear weapons, non-nuclear-weapon states receive two
promises from nuclear- weapon states: the latter will help them to develop nuclear
technology for peaceful purposes (Art. IV), and the latter will "pursue negotiations in
Good Faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an
early date and to nuclear disarmament" (Art. VI). Since 1975, NPT signatory countries
have held a review conference every five years to discuss treaty compliance and
enforcement.”(2)
Abdelhamied El-Rafie

6. Questions
1. Has the international system of Non Proliferation presented in the
NPT prevented the spread of nuclear weapons?.
The answer to this is simple which is NO because depending on the historical
background there are nuclear powers other than the five mentioned powers in the
treaty like India and Pakistan(1998). (3)
But the answer is not that simple because there is a gap which lead to the spread of
the know how of the technology of possessing nuclear arms now there are more
restrictions like the pressure is currently on countries like Iran and North Korea.
But this leads to a sub question which is analyzing the relation with the powers
which are trying to acquire nuclear weapons and the Super powers specially the US?
In cases like India and Pakistan we find that both countries are allies to the US to a
certain extend but cases like Iran and North Korea we find that these countries were
mentioned by different US administrations as Rogue states or part of Axis of evil.
Let me explain more In my assumption that the International environment during the
Indian and Pakistani nuclear explosions was facilitating to these two powers in
srecial to acquire the nuclear weapons plus the fact that these two powers were in
good relations with the US. (4)
But on the contrary The North Korean and the Iranian examples show different facts
that they were trying to challenge the US will that’s why there is a huge debate and
argument about them possessing Nuclear weapons.
2. If we apply the above answers or if I may say discussions on the
Middle East Will the Current system of the NPT prevent the
occurrence of an Nuclear Arms race in the Region?
Abdelhamied El-Rafie

7. This leads to some sub questions:
1. Who are the key Powers in the Middle east?
2. Who are the current Nuclear powers or who are trying to possess Nuclear military
powers?
3. Will other UN -Nuclear powers in the region stay without a reaction in case of the
possibility of occurrence of NUCLEAR Military powers in the region?
1. Who are the key Powers in the Middle east?
• Egypt
• Israel
• Turkey
• Iran
• Saudi Arabia
• Syria
These are more or less are the major military powers in the region
2. Who are the current Nuclear powers or who are trying to possess Nuclear military
powers?
 Israel (never admitted that it acquires these weapons) but there is an agreement
among many military official and semi official sources that it possess high tech
nuclear military weapons and also what is called Tactical Nuclear weapons .
 Iran there is a denial from the Iranian side that it develops Nuclear weapons
although there is assurance from the west and Israel that Iran is trying to become a
nuclear military power.(5)
Abdelhamied El-Rafie

8. Analysis:
“ President Obama is doing precisely what he campaigned on, namely, to open a
dialogue
with Iran. It’s an effort that began with his comments on Iran during his inaugural
address, his videotaped Nowruz message to Iran last winter, a pair of quiet messages to
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Leader, and Obama’s careful and balanced response to
the post-election crisis over the summer. Once started, the talks aren’t likely to have a
swift conclusion, but the very fact that they’re taking place will make it impossible for
hawks to argue successfully either for harsh, “crippling” sanctions on Iran or for a
military attack.
Just look at the steps leading up to the October talks, to see why the Israelis find them so
precipitous.
At July’s G-8 summit in Italy, Iran was given a September deadline to start negotiations
over its nuclear programs On September , Iran gave its answer: No.
Instead, what Tehran offered was a five-page document that was the diplomatic
equivalent of a giant kiss-off. It begins by lamenting the “ungodly ways of thinking
prevailing in global relations” and proceeds to offer comprehensive talks on a variety of
subjects: democracy, human rights, disarmament, terrorism, “respect for the rights of
nations,” and other areas where Iran is a paragon. Conspicuously absent from the
document is any mention of Iran’s nuclear program, now at the so-called breakout point,
which both Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his boss Ali Khamenei insist is not up for
discussion.
What’s an American president to do in the face of this nonstarter of a document? What
else, but pretend it isn’t a nonstarter. Talks begun Oct. 1.
Abdelhamied El-Rafie

9. “The conclusion among Israelis is that the Obama administration won’t lift a finger to
stop Iran,” hence Israel will be forced to act. That’s wrong for severals reasons, writes
Stephens, among them:
For starters, its ability to do so is iffy: Israeli strategists are quietly putting it about that
even a successful attack may have to be repeated a few years down the road as Iran
reconstitutes its capacity. . . .
Most importantly, it is an abdication of a superpower’s responsibility to outsource
matters of war and peace to another state, however closely allied. President Obama has
now ceded the driver’s seat on Iran policy to Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Here are arguments. It may be in the long-term interests of the US not to confront Tehran
over the one policy the Iranian people strongly support it on right now: the nuclear
question. Given the strength of the internal resistance to the regime, it might be better to
accept some nuclear development while trying to exploit internal divisions with
economic carrots. Containment, in other words: a policy that was once quite acceptable
on the mainstream right.
And what’s so awful about a nuclear stand-off between Iran and Israel in the Middle
East?
It is not necessarily a stable situation in a region when one country - and one country
alone - has nuclear weapons in a region like the Middle East. In fact, it might encourage
that country to act militarily with impunity, to over-reach and generate excessive
hostility. Nuclear deterrence worked very well for much of the world for a long time in
preventing conflict rather than exacerbating it. It may be the one thing preventing an
India-Pakistan war. Why is it unthinkable in the Middle East? . . .
But what I really worry about in Stephens’ op-ed is the attempt to blame the US for
Abdelhamied El-Rafie

10. Israel’s predicament. The truth is the opposite of Stephens’ claim: the US is not secretly
pushing Israel to strike Iran; Israel is openly pushing the US to strike on its behalf. Why
on earth would any US president take that bait on Israel’s terms and on Israel’s time-
table?
But any such perspective just gets tossed here. Iran cannot have nukes like Israel has, and
America MUST wage pre-emptive war to stop that natural balancing.
As I have said for a very long time now: #2 reaching for the nuke when #1 has one is not
crazy. That’s why Kim Jong Il and the DPRK needs to be our focus now, not Iran. Kim
runs a totalitarian state, immune to pressure from below. Iran does not, as it’s clearly
evident today. The DPRK is a fake state with no claim to history. Iran is not, and it’s
been around for centuries (unlike Israel). The DPRK is highly incentivized to use nukes
as a result, but Iran is not. The DPRK is a terminal cult-of-personality criminal regime,
while Iran is a late-stage revolutionary state whose ruling mafia is beset by infighting.
I don’t see connectivity working with North Korea, I do see it working with Iran. That’s
why I don’t believe in talks with Kim, but I do believe in talks with Tehran.
We have been down this path several times with countries like Iran, and know how to
balance the containment and rollback and efforts at detente designed for the soft-kill.
There is no solid logic for going all wobbly on Iran’s nukes. We simply know how to
manage that package. . . .
Eventually, Israel has to adjust itself to the reality of a nuclear stand-off. It cannot hold a
monopoly forever. It is that simple.
Why give any deference to proponents of so-called “pre-emptive” war that isn’t pre-
empting anything? Why should we permit them to set the terms and define the limits of
Abdelhamied El-Rafie

11. the debate? Obama isn’t “making” Israel go to war against Iran, not least because the
“threat” from Iran is vastly exaggerated and Israel’s security would not be significantly
undermined if Iran did acquire a nuclear weapons capacity. When Iran is far away from
acquiring such weapons, how much smaller is the Iranian “threat”?
He also takes on Sullivan for not challenging Stephens’ assertions over the imminence of
the a nuclear threat from Iran:
The most significant assumption Stephens makes in his op-ed is that Israel has a perfect
right to do whatever it thinks necessary to guard against any possible threat, no matter
how chimerical or far-fetched, and that it is the task of the United States government to
change Iranian behavior to prevent an unprovoked Israeli attack. No other state is granted
this sort of exceptional treatment in its dealings with regional rivals as Israel is, and
Washington exempts no other state so completely from the requirements of international
law as it does for Israel. At no point does Andrew challenge Stephens’ baseless claim that
Iran is just a year or two away from possessing a nuclear weapon. ElBaradei has made it
clear that this is fiction. Why does Andrew take seriously that Stephens is interested in
the “disarmament” of Iran when Iran has no nuclear weapons of which it can be
disarmed”(6)
Facts:
It is agreed upon the constants of the US strategic plans in the Middle East since the 50s
is the security of Israel .
This leads to another fact which is very clear specially since 1967 is giving Israel the
edge on Military power by both quantity and quality so Israel is the strongest party in the
equation of military power in the Middle East .
Another fact :Israel is out of the NPT system
Abdelhamied El-Rafie

12. 3. Will other UN -Nuclear powers in the region stay without a reaction
in case of the possibility of occurrence of NUCLEAR Military powers
in the region?
This depends on :
Their relation with the US
Their regional Importance
Their relations with sources of Nuclear
powers.
Conclusions:
For example the powers who have good relations with the US will be hesitated to
start Military Nuclear Programs but on the Contrary Due to their regional Importance
they will try to maneuver and try to take piece of the Nuclear cake in case there is a
new Military Nuclear power in the region .
Also there is a possibility that The parties who don’t have good relations with the US
to contact the Black market of Nuclear Technology to obtain this kind of weapon .
This will lead to the logic question which is what will happen if we assume the Iran,s
Program is for military purpose ?????!!!!!
This will mean that Iran is trying to change the equation of the region which was
settled which is Threatening the Security of Israel which is a pillar of US strategy in
the region
Abdelhamied El-Rafie

13. This will lead to that countries of the region will try to have peaceful Nuclear energy
programs which is legal under the NPT
But what if these parties contacted The parties which are ready to sell Nuclear
Military technology
Then this might mean that and this needs to technical proof that peaceful programs
can change with some nasty work to military ones adding to this the instability and
the uncertainty of the Middle East and its future without solving the core problem of
the region which is establishing the Palestinian state and the return of the occupied
territories of 1967 and declaring the region as free of Nuclear weapons .
So the logic result will be there is a huge possibility of a nuclear arms race in the
region.
Abdelhamied El-Rafie

14. Resources:
1. http://middleeast.about.com/od/middleeast101/f/me080208.htm
2. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Nuclear+Non-
Proliferation+Treaty
3. Article in Arabic retrieved September 27,2009 from the world wide web:
http://mfa.gov.eg/MFA_Portal/ar-
EG/Foreign_Policy/International_Relations/disarm/752009Nuclearweapon
s.htm
4. Article in Arabic retrieved September 27,2009 from the world wide web:
http://mfa.gov.eg/MFA_Portal/ar-
EG/Foreign_Policy/International_Relations/disarm/16_8_2007_nuclear_st
atement_Naela_gabr.htm
5. Article in Arabic retrieved September 27,2009 from the world wide web
Article in Arabic retrieved September 27,2009 from the world wide web:
http://mfa.gov.eg/MFA_Portal/ar-
EG/Foreign_Policy/International_Relations/disarm/16_8_2007_statement
2_.htm
6. The Latest on Bombing or Talking to Iran By Eric Etheridge September
16, 2009, 6:29 pm retrieved September 28,2009 from the world wide
web: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/the-latest-on-
bombing-or-talking-to-iran/?scp=3&sq=npt&st=cse
Abdelhamied El-Rafie

15. Readings:
1. TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF
NUCLEAR WEAPONS retrieved September 22,2009 from
the world wide web ,
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Other
s/infcirc140.pdf
2. APPLICATION OF IAEA SAFEGUARDS IN THE
MIDDLE EAST Report by the Director General to the
Board of Governors
and to the General Conference retrieved September
27,2009 from the world wide web:
http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC43/Documents
/gc43-17a2.html
3. Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and
relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737
(2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), and 1835 (2008) in the
Islamic Republic of Iran Report by the Director General.
Retrieved October 2 ,2009 the world wide web:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2009/g
ov2009-55.pdf
4. IAEA Chief Addresses Historic UN Security Council
Meeting UN resolution calling for nuclear disarmament
approved at meeting Staff Report 24 September 2009
retrieved September 27,2009 from the world wide web:
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2009/unscmeeting.
html
Abdelhamied El-Rafie