P. 12, AMERICAN
FREE PRESS * January 23, 2006...
Behind the Scenes
with Michael Collins Piper
Give Up Your Nukes
Army War College Analysts Believe that Iran
Would Abandon Nuclear Program if Israel Did
By Michael Collins Piper
report recently published by the distinguished U.S. Army War College
has publicly targeted Israel’s controversial — but officially
nonexistent — arsenal of nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
In the wake of a growing American media cacophony about Iran’s
purported aims of building its own nuclear arsenal — “news”
that has largely been stimulated by bellicose rhetoric in Israel
itself — the Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College,
which is a training ground for the “best and the brightest”
among up-and-coming military officers, has taken quite a different
The college’s report — which has never once been publicized
in the major media in America — says that neither talk of
a military attack on Iran by Israel nor ongoing American diplomatic
initiatives are likely to stop Iran from pursuing its goals. Either
course could result in disaster, said America’s military strategists.
Instead, the report, titled “Getting Ready for a Nuclear-
Ready Iran,” says, quite in contrast, that it is Israel that
should take the initiative.
The American military officers say that Israel should close down
its Dimona nuclear reactor, turn over nuclear materiel to a third
party, and allow the International Atomic
Energy Agency to maintain regular inspection of Israel’s nuclear
operations. The report urges the United States to put pressure on
Israel to make this possible.
America’s military thinkers believe that if Israel were to
curtail its nuclear offensive, the United States would be more easily
able to convince other nuclear states in the Middle East to do likewise.
It is, in fact, a historic truth that it was Israel’s determined
push for nuclear weapons — a documented foundation of that
nation’s geopolitical defense policy — that led Arab
nations, Pakistan and Iran to pursue nuclear weapons in response.
For example, although in 2003 Syria asked for a United Nations resolution
calling for nuclear arms inspections all across the Middle East
— including Israel — few expected that the United States
would rally behind Syria’s request. This came despite the
official U.S. position that, according to then-Secretary of State
Colin Powell, the United States would like to see the entire region
free of weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, the United States
did not support Syria on banning all nukes.
Even The Washington Post reported, on
April 17, 2003, that “Syria’s current arsenal of chemical
warheads and Scud [Scud-D] missiles to deliver them was started
more than 30 years ago to counter Israel’s development and
possession of nuclear weapons, according to present and former U.S.
The Post cited an unnamed former senior intelligence analyst as
saying that Hafez al-Assad, Syria’s former leader and the
father of the current Syrian ruler, believed that the military aid
that the Syrians received from the former USSR “would never
be able to match what Israel developed in the nuclear field and
received from the U.S.”
Joseph Cirincione, head of the nonproliferation program of the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, told the Post, at the time that,
“You can’t get rid of chemical
or biological or nuclear programs in Arab countries unless you also
address the elimination of Israel’s nuclear and chemical programs.”
Cirincione pointed out that the primary reason for other nations
in the region building their own weapons of mass destruction was
due to Israel’s own initiatives.
What is particularly notable about the recent Army War College report
calling for Israel to effectively “de-nuke” is that
the co-author of that report is Patrick Clawson, deputy director
of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a long
and well-established pro-Israel lobby in Washington.
However, WINEP is generally identified with Israel’s so-called
“peace” movement, which has been at odds with the elements
in Israel associated with ailing Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and
former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Sharon and Netanyahu are,
in turn, allied with members of the fanatic pro-Israel “neo-conservative”
elements who have been directing U.S. Middle East policy in the
All of this suggests that, once again, internal Israeli political
conflicts are flowing over into the American political process with
— in this instance — the top-notch officers at the Army
War College allying with Israel’s “left wing.”
Thus, the men who are charged with fighting America’s wars
are taking a public stand that could — if their advice is
followed — help defuse the problem of nuclear proliferation
in the Middle East, if only Israel agrees to go along and the Bush
administration sees the logic of what America’s military leaders
(Issue #4, January 23, 2006, American