The section on the Middle East in the Final Document of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference did not establish a link between Israel's arsenal and the peace process, as had been suggested by a joint US-Russian document backed by a European stance that had been leaked at the beginning of the conference, a conference which lasted for a month at the United Nations in New York. Yet such a link remains implicit, in spite of the obscurity shown by Israel in this respect. The linking element resides in calling on Israel by name to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to place its facilities under the authority of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Indeed, the possibility of the Hebrew state complying with such a call, a nearly inexistent possibility in any case, will be in exchange for ending the state of enmity and for obtaining guarantees in this regard, not mere negotiations and peace treaties with Arab countries. Perhaps this matter is what stood behind the US's approval of Israel's name being mentioned in the document, which was not merely the expression of the new direction taken by the Obama Administration in terms of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and of making the Middle East a region free of such weapons. Arab diplomacy can count such US approval as to its benefit, especially since it has waged difficult negotiations in order to obtain for Israel to be brought into the framework of efforts aiming at the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, as it has obtained the approval of a special conference in 2012 intended to follow up on the implementation of the section regarding the Middle East. Yet on the other hand, the United States has dealt with this issue from a point of view that exceeds Arab concerns regarding Israel's arsenal. Indeed, it has offered a concession by mentioning Israel's name, complying with Arab demands, in order to prepare the climate for UN sanctions, and perhaps US and European sanctions, against Iran's nuclear plans. On the other hand, if Israel is not forced to comply with the terms of the IAEA because it is not a member, Iran, which is a member of the IAEA, is forced by virtue of such membership to comply with these terms. Moreover, Iran, which has been invited to this conference alongside Israel, will have to comply with the invitation and to present a disclosure of its program and guarantees regarding its peaceful aims. Such a diplomatic “gain” counts for the US plan which, by slipping Israel's name on a document which is not binding for it, falls within the framework of confronting Iran to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons. At the same time, and assuming that Israel has agreed to attend such a conference under US pressure, it will have obtained the implicit acknowledgement that it is an integral part of this region, the countries – particularly Arab countries – of which seek to make into one free of nuclear weapons. Thus Israel would become part of the regional system at a time when it still faces official Arab refusal to recognize it as a state (by virtue of its non-compliance with the requirements of just and permanent peace), and indeed faces doubts being shed – especially by Iran and Arab movements allied to it – over its right to exist in the first place. If the US-Russian document, which linked making the Middle East free of nuclear weapons with comprehensive peace and imposed on countries of the region the non-proliferation of all kinds of weapons of mass destruction, has been abandoned, due to the Arabs rejecting its content and its conclusion, then placing any restriction on armament in this region, which is witnessing a surge in obtaining all kinds of weapons, including weapons of mass destruction, will not convince any of its countries as long as the Arab-Israeli conflict is raging.
