July, 2003

Arms Control in the Middle East after the Iraq War

Dr Mohammed Abdel-Salam

The concept of disarmament is being proposed as the solution to the problems of the Middle East in the near future. Militant organisations, such as Hizbullah, Hamas, Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Brigades, are being required not only to stop using violence, but to completely disarm. 'Rogue' states are also falling under intense pressure. In an extreme case, Iraq was forcibly disarmed - not only of alleged weapons of mass destruction -WMDs- but through the dismantling of its army and removal of traditional military capabilities. Iran, Syria and Libya are now coming under pressure to give up alleged weapons or, as in the case of Iran, halt civilian nuclear programmes that may allow the development of nuclear weapons.

While issues of arms control have traditionally been approached through the framework of international arrangements and treaties, we are witnessing today the unilateral imposition by the US of disarmament through direct intervention. While the US has always been an important external influence in terms of the Middle East, it has now become, for all practical purposes, a regional player. Through its military and political presence in Iraq, it has become the next door neighbour to both Syria and Iran.

The US has developed a more detailed and invasive policy for the Middle East region than ever before, which has created a fundamental strategic shift in the region. This has immediate consequences for arms control efforts in the region, as coercive measures are increasingly used to impose US policies. In the case of Iraq, the UN weapons inspection teams were not allowed to continue their work, and the US intervened to impose Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's idea that the best way to disarm Iraq was to invade it.

There are indications that the US administration is considering a similar use of force against Iran. Intense political pressure is being exerted on any state in the area suspected of possessing WMDs -such as Syria and Libya-, and on those alleged to cooperate with them or provide them with supplies. There is a marked absence of any attempt to influence such countries through the use of incentives, or to enter into direct negotiations with them.

While such policies impose a de facto embargo on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in the area, the issue is complicated by the question of Israel's nuclear capability. It cannot be ignored, yet at the same time it is not being addressed because of strong US support for Israel.

The central focus of the US approach to the Middle East has become the war on terrorism. This has also had a drastic effect on the framework of addressing arms control in the region, as it involves issues such as the black nuclear market and the widespread availability of small arms, which are not covered by traditional arms control arrangements. Therefore, the focus on arms control will give way to stress on bilateral security arrangements and domestic measures. The virtual absence of WMDs in the region, with the continuing exception of Israel, will also weaken the need for regional arms control arrangements. With the fall of Iraq, the establishment of an unprecedented number of new military bases and the emergence of new military alliances, the strategic map of the Middle East has changed. The regional centre of gravity has now moved to the Gulf area, and a different framework for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict has been introduced. These conditions provide a completely new framework for arms control in the region, but will not lessen the difficulty of the task.