Today's Washington Times contains a story indicating that, when Netanyahu visited Washington in May, Obama confirmed to him in writing that he would continue to honor a deal struck between the U.S. and Israel in 1969 that the U.S. would look the other way at Israel's nuclear program as long as Israel made no public statement that it had nukes. EXCLUSIVE: Obama agrees to keep Israel's nukes secret:
President Obama has reaffirmed a 4-decade-old secret understanding that has allowed Israel to keep a nuclear arsenal without opening it to international inspections, three officials familiar with the understanding said.
The officials, who spoke on the condition that they not be named because they were discussing private conversations, said Mr. Obama pledged to maintain the agreement when he first hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House in May.
Under the understanding, the U.S. has not pressured Israel to disclose its nuclear weapons or to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which could require Israel to give up its estimated several hundred nuclear bombs.
I have seen previous references to this 40-year-old agreement, for example, in Michael Karpin's 2006 book The Bomb in the Basement: How Israel Went Nuclear and What That Means for the World, but I believe this is the first time I have seen its existence confirmed by "officials," even if they are unnamed.
I was wondering after Obama's recent speech at the UN, which called on all states which have not already signed the NPT Treaty to sign on to it, without any limitation, express or implied, that might exempt Israel, how there could be such silence in the media about whether the speech was implicitly calling for Israel to join the NPT regime. On that, the Washington Times article says the following:
Mr. Netanyahu let the news of the continued U.S.-Israeli accord slip last week in a remark that attracted little notice. He was asked by Israel's Channel 2 whether he was worried that Mr. Obama's speech at the U.N. General Assembly, calling for a world without nuclear weapons, would apply to Israel.
"It was utterly clear from the context of the speech that he was speaking about North Korea and Iran," the Israeli leader said. "But I want to remind you that in my first meeting with President Obama in Washington I received from him, and I asked to receive from him, an itemized list of the strategic understandings that have existed for many years between Israel and the United States on that issue. It was not for naught that I requested, and it was not for naught that I received [that document]."
UN Security Council Resolution 1887, which was adopted on Sept. 24 in response to Obama's speech, says the following:
- [The Security Council] Calls upon all States that are not Parties to the NPT to accede to the Treaty as non-nuclear-weapon States so as to achieve its universality at an early date, and pending their accession to the Treaty, to adhere to its terms
I see nothing in the resolution that would exempt Israel.
Glenn Greenwald, writing today, contrasts Israel's intransigence with the great progress made yesterday in nuclear negotiations with Iran: Iran: More accomplished in one day of negotiations than in 8 years of threats.
UPDATE: Recall that on Sept. 17 the general assembly of the IAEA called on Israel by name to sign the NPT Treaty: Ha'aretz: IAEA calls on Israel to sign Non-Proliferation Treaty:
For the first time in 18 years, Israel, the United States and the Western powers were unsuccessful at preventing passage of a resolution calling on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The resolution, passed at the end of the annual general assembly of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna on Thursday, also demands that Israel open its nuclear reactor in Dimona to international inspectors.
The resolution was passed by a majority of 49 countries, among them the members of the Arab League and the bloc of developing nations; against 45 Western countries, including the European Union and the United States, and 16 abstentions.
The non-binding resolution mentions "Israeli nuclear capabilities."
The terms of this resolution should certainly inform any interpretation of the Security Council resolution passed almost immediately thereafter. That SC Resolution, by the way, unlike the IAEA one, is binding as a matter of international law.
UPDATE II: Some commenters have objected to my relaying a Washington Times story that only had anonymous sourcing. I am interested to see that today's Ha'aretz has reported the Washington Times story with the headline 'Obama won't press Israel to reveal nuclear arsenal':
U.S. President Barack Obama will not pressure Israel to disclose its nuclear arsenal to international inspection, as reported on Friday by The Washington Times.
Note that Ha'aretz reports the prime assertion of the Washington Times story as fact.
I now wonder whether the discussion at the Netanyahu-Obama meeting in Washington on May 18 may have been provoked by Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemueller's May 6 call on Israel to sign the NPT Treaty: Washington negotiator calls on Israel to sign nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty:
Washington: Wednesday 6 May 2009 - A diplomatic row broke out today between the US and Israel after Washington's chief nuclear arms negotiator called on Israel to sign the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), breaking a US tradition of discretion over Israel's nuclear arsenal.
Israeli officials said they were puzzled by a speech to an international conference in New York by Rose Gottemoeller, an assistant secretary of state, who said: "Universal adherence to the NPT itself - including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea - also remains a fundamental objective of the United States."
By including Israel on a list of countries known to have nuclear weapons. Gottemoeller broke with normal US diplomatic practice. Since 1968 when the CIA reported Israel had developed a nuclear weapon , Washington has pursued a policy of not demanding transparency from its close ally, and in return Israel agreed not to test a bomb or it declare its nuclear capability - a policy of "strategic ambiguity".