19

For years Israel has refused opening their nuclear facilities to IAEA inspection and Israel signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

45 member states, including Turkey, Russia, China and Iran, back the proposal from 18 Arab countries.

Israel has also criticized and condemned Iran for their nuclear program but the Iranians have let the IAEA into their nuclear facilities to be inspected.

United States (who have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) is a big economic supporter of Israel. Why hasn't the U.S. pressured Israel to have their nuclear program inspected and sign the proliferation treaty?

Improve this question
6
  • 2
    That Iran has let IAEA into all their nuclear facilities is a false claim -1.
    – user9790
    Jun 1, 2018 at 13:21
  • For example, this secret site was just discovered nytimes.com/2018/05/23/world/middleeast/iran-missiles.html
    – user9790
    Jun 1, 2018 at 13:25
  • @KDog The NNPT is about nuclear warheads, not about ballistic missiles. While they are complementary technologies, a ballistic missile test site is not a nuclear facility.
    – Philipp ♦
    Jun 1, 2018 at 13:39
  • @Philipp Here's another latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-iran-nuclear-20170830-story.html
    – user9790
    Jun 1, 2018 at 13:40
  • The US is not a "big economic supporter of Israel". Israel's annual budget is in the order of $100b/year, and the US support out of that is about $1b, about 1%.
    – Tsahi Asher
    Jun 12, 2018 at 9:40

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
19

It is widely and credibly suggested that Israel has nuclear weapons.

While that is not officially true it can be ignored. But once it is undeniable a stink would certainly be made, probably in the US's direction (despite the source probably being France) . This embarrassment could potentially reduce the popularity of our support for Israel.

If however the rumors are false, and Israel does not have weapons proving that to the world might make the nearby states less afraid to attack again.

Schrodinger weapons are exactly what they want. They keep the deterrent without causing an incident.

Improve this answer
7
  • 8
    Israel hasn't signed the non-proliferation treaty, so isn't bound by it.
    – Sjoerd
    Apr 23, 2017 at 13:20
  • 1
    Great answer. I just wish you gave the perspective of Israel and their reasons for not letting the IAEA inspect their nuclear program.
    – Noah
    Apr 23, 2017 at 16:05
  • 12
    "Schrodinger weapons" - I like that.
    – Bobson
    Apr 23, 2017 at 22:35
  • 2
    I guess I was wanting sources/citations.
    – Noah
    Apr 26, 2017 at 23:13
  • 3
    Wikipedia suggests that it was France, not the US, that co-operated with Israel on nuclear weapons development.
    – David Richerby
    Sep 14, 2017 at 18:04
9

"Why hasn't the U.S. pressured Israel?"

The default answer on "why didn't X do Y?" is "Because X didn't have a reason to do Y". Not doing something is easy. Hence, we should look at the question to see if there are any reasons for the US to do so.

  1. "45 member states, including Turkey, Russia, China and Iran, back the proposal from 18 Arab countries." On the whole, having those countries on the proposal would be a reason for the US to reject the proposal. Those aren't the historical friends and allies of the US.

  2. "Israel has also criticized and condemned Iran for their nuclear program". So has the US. In other words, this finds the US and Israel agreeing, so it can't be a motive for the US to put pressure on Israel.

Now, we might consider some hypothetical reasons why the US might want to act like this. Maybe the US would believe that the Middle East would be more stable if nobody had nuclear weapons. On the other hand, Israel's nuclear capability probably explains why they haven't been at war with their neighbours for a while. If Israel would give up their nuclear weapons, the US probably must intervene to save Israel in the next war. Because as the question notes, those Arab neighbours still don't recognise the legitimacy of Israel.

In the end, we have to conclude that there are no strong objective reasons for the US to act, which is consistent with the observed lack of action.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .