Superpowers Urged to Begin Contingency Planning for Nuclear Confrontation in Mideast

The world’s superpowers should immediately begin contingency planning for a nuclear confrontation in the Middle East so that effects of any such event do not spread to world atomic war, two international defense experts warn. Drs, Robert J. Pranger and Dale R. Tahtinen, authors of “Nuclear Threat in the Middle East,” a 57-page study released by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, analyze the possibilities of a nuclear confrontation between the Arab states and Israel and conclude that if war is not curbed in the Middle East, it will eventually become nuclear.

Pranger and Tahtinen are, respectively. director and assistant director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. They also have coauthored “Toward a Realistic Military Assistance Program.” Pranger, former deputy assistant secretary for defense for international security affairs, also is author of “American Policy for Peace in the Middle East, 1969-1971.” Tahtinen, author of “Arms in the Persian Gulf,” is a former assistant for research and legislative analysis to Sen. Robert P. Griffin (R. Mich.).

The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research is a non-partisan, non-profit, publicly supported educational and research organization which itself takes no positions on issues studied by its scholars and associates.

“The best national security option for the United States, the Soviet Union, the Arab countries and Israel is a just and lasting peace settlement at the earliest possible date,” the authors stress in a preface to the volume. But they recommend that the U.S. prepare unilaterally and in consultation with the Soviet Union for possible nuclear war in the Middle East, the consultation being on “an informal, low-key basis.” Included in such preparation, they state, “should be contingency planning for severely isolating the zone of atomic warfare and for terminating hostilities at the earliest possible date.”

The authors do not find nuclear war in the Middle East inevitable, nor do they suggest that a fifth round of conventional warfare is inescapable. The study looks toward the worst possible case, in which warfare continues and escalates into the use of nuclear weapons.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS MAY ALREADY BE IN MIDEAST

There are indications mounting in their persuasiveness that nuclear weapons may already be present in the Mideast, the authors say. They cite programs of research and other peaceful applications of nuclear energy underway for some time in Egypt, Iraq and Israel (Including Israel’s advances in the new technology of laser enrichment of uranium) and note the mystery surrounding current operations in at least one Middle East reactor center–Israel’s Dimona facility.

The authors also emphasize the importance of any tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East since, given the very short distances involved between countries, what is tactical in the NATO or Eastern European context can easily become strategic in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Even more so than in Europe where these weapons are present, the possible escalation of their use from conventional to nuclear war is a distinct threat because of the constant state of no-war, no-peace in the Middle East. The authors make note of the dearth of information on what would be Soviet reactions to American use of nuclear weapons in Europe, to say nothing of Soviet response to any such usage by Israel in the Middle East.

Nuclear war could be prompted by a number of factors, Pranger and Tahtinen say. They examine several scenarios, including a feeling by one side or the other that its national survival is threatened; the use of tactical nuclear weapons for interdiction of the enemy’s approaching forces or behind the lines bases or supplies, and preemptive use when intelligence indicates that an opponent might strike first, leaving little chance for repulsing the enemy by conventional means.

A preemptive attack, the authors say, would be the most dangerous use of unconventional arms in the Middle East, with grave repercussions for both the region and the world.

“If Israel were to stage a preemptive strike against the Arabs, the Soviet Union might take drastic action against Israel, with the United States (depending on the nature of the Soviet retaliation) moving in turn against the USSR. If the Arab states were similarly to attack Israel, the United States might take retaliatory steps, leading to a Russian reaction of some kind,” they point out.

FOUR-PART PLAN SUGGESTED

The authors lay out a four-part plan which they suggest should constitute American’s response to nuclear war in the Middle East. First they suggest examination of the “nuclear code of good conduct” between Moscow and Washington to see if it is strong enough to withstand corrosive forces once medium powers use nuclear weapons.

Second, they raise the possibility of rationing technology which could lead to a nuclear weapons capability. “Can progress in the development of nuclear weapons be slowed down. If not stopped entirely?” they ask. Thirdly, the authors discuss the possibility of strengthening controls on supplying nuclear-capable military equipment by the superpowers. Finally, the best means of isolating a Mideast nuclear confrontation–and terminating it–they suggest, is the full-scale preparation of an American peacekeeping force, perhaps in cooperation with a Soviet one, capable of dealing with all aspects of an environment ravaged by nuclear weapons.

“Without the suggested contingency planning…nuclear war in the Middle East could well spread to world atomic war, a wildfire whose only containment would come when it devoured itself.” they conclude.