In Alexandria, warns against a covert nuclear arms race in the Middle East, reports Dina Ezzat is a name that is closely associated with efforts to forestall the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Beyond being a member of a high level international commission that works towards reducing the number of nuclear weapons and preventing further proliferation, Blix is former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency and former co-chair of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission that was in charge of keeping check on Iraq's alleged military nuclear programme. In the Middle East, Blix is famous for repeatedly saying there was no smoking gun in Iraq before the US ploughed on with its invasion in 2003. He is appreciated in many Arab quarters also for publicly and unhesitatingly referring to Israel's nuclear arsenal. On Monday, addressing an audience at the new Institute for Peace Studies in Alexandria, Blix made a fresh warning against the exclusion of Israeli nuclear facilities from safeguard inspections and warned of the implications of a new chapter of US miscalculations in the Middle East -- this time vis-à-vis Iran -- on prospects of declaring the region a zone free of weapons of mass destruction. Blix did not explicitly refer to a race towards nuclear armament in the Middle East. He warned, however, against the growing interest of many countries, including the Gulf Cooperation Council, Jordan and Egypt, to develop enriched uranium as a potential part of their peaceful energy planning. "I am not saying that this is illegal. I am just saying that this could create a cycle of uranium enrichment tension in the region," Blix said. Unlike many foreign commentators, Blix did not accuse Iran of triggering this tension. For Blix, the blame is distributed between Israel, who "as we definitely know possess atomic bombs", Iran who "insists on enriching uranium when it could buy it [at a much cheaper rate] for a peaceful nuclear programme," and the US which applies "double standards" in policy positions and has been reluctant to advance the cause of non-proliferation by working to reduce its nuclear arsenal or agree to a comprehensive test-ban treaty for weapons of mass destruction. It is the combination of the agendas of these three countries, and the growing aspirations of other regional players to build nuclear power plants that could be converted from peaceful to military application, that prompted Blix to exclude any possibility in his assessment of seeing the Middle East evolve to become a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction soon. "I think it is still very far off," he said. Blix argued that Tehran's file could be settled if the US was to offer Iran what it is offering North Korea; security guarantees of no aggression and generous economic incentives. However, concerning Israel, Blix is not confident about what could prompt a move towards the elimination of its weapons of mass destruction. He seemed hesitant to suggest that a peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians could lead Israel to even allow inspectors to access to its nuclear facilities, which already are known to be military even if Israel prefers to loosely uphold a policy of "nuclear ambiguity". Also on Monday, a senior Israeli official said that Israel reached the threshold of producing nuclear arms at least three decades ago. He stopped short, however, of confirming the widely-held belief that Israel possesses a substantial nuclear arsenal. Speaking at a security conference near Tel Aviv, Ariel Levite, deputy head of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission, was quoted by news agencies as referring to India, Pakistan and Israel as "nuclear threshold states". None of these countries is party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that limits the possession of nuclear weapons to states that developed them before 1967. The NPT, ratified by most countries, went into effect in 1970. It was largely successful in putting a brake on the nuclear arms race. However, it is widely noted that several countries, including the five main nuclear powers that until now have shown little interest in fully embracing the cause of non-proliferation, have violated this treaty. Levite later said that he was misunderstood. He is the second senior Israeli official to make overt references to Tel Aviv's nuclear arsenal before claiming otherwise. Last month, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert caused a stir with a remark he made on German television that was widely interpreted as confirming that Israel possesses nuclear weapons. Olmert said he had been misunderstood. For Blix, the statements of Israeli officials do not change the facts on the ground. What needs to be done is to "convince Israel that it could have its security" without having to have a nuclear arsenal. Otherwise, a nuclear domino effect might be inevitable.
