Produced by the Monterey Institute's Center for Nonproliferation Studies

updated July 29, 2003

Israel vs. Regional Adversary (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria)

Proponents Say: Reduce Regional Tensions.

• Keep the Middle East Peace Process a top priority of U.S. foreign policy.
• Actively seek improved U.S. relations with Iran, Libya, and Syria in return for moderate behavior and full compliance with the nonproliferation treaties they have joined. Encourage them to become parties to nonproliferation treaties they have not yet joined, such as the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
• Take steps to establish a Middle East WMD-free zone by promoting a ban on missile flight tests and universal adherence to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC), the CWC, and eventually the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Opponents Say: U.S. Intervention in the Middle East is Unlikely to Produce Results.

• The Middle East Peace Process is stalled. Further pressure by the United States will make the situation worse until the two sides are ready to negotiate.
• The appearance of more moderate behavior by Iran, Libya, and Syria is not a true reflection of what is happening. The moderates in Iran do not control the more hard-line elements that are responsible for the country's foreign policy and WMD/missile programs. The appearance of moderation by long-time radical governments in Libya and Syria may be a deception, aimed at buying time while these countries build more powerful WMD and missile capabilities.
• As long as Israel maintains a suspected nuclear capability, no other country in the region will be prepared to accept additional treaties or agreements limiting other WMD and missile capabilities.