The Western consensus re -liquidated the Iranian nuclear project, the question again about whether the Middle East region has the right to possess a nuclear weapon.
The Arab populist discourse, for decades and until now, believes that the veto, which usually raises in the face of dreams, that is, an Arab (or Muslim) country in the entry of the Nuclear Nuclear Club, represents an extension of the era of ancient Crusades (1096-1291).
This discourse – the founding of the “condemnation of the veto” – drew his mass legitimacy, from “evidence” in which this tendency has strengthened, towards “religious interpretation” to answer this great question: Why are Muslims alone, whose longings are suppressed in this context?! Especially since the “principle of reciprocity” inherent in international law and relations between countries does not confiscate their right legally and morally to possess weapons of mass destruction; Including nuclear weapons?
The fact is that the West itself has strengthened from a “credibility”, this populist discourse, enough, whether by unequal application, for international law, especially with regard to Israel, or for its knowledge that Islamic law does not have great influence in the field of application in the Middle Eastern countries, And that the job nuclear industries are still many years away from their achievement in most Arab countries.
However, – that is, the West – what raises doubts and concerns, by claiming that legitimacy, to the weapons of mass destruction, between religious intellectuals with government trends, shows a new level of Western anxiety, regarding what indicates the region’s endeavor, to obtain nuclear energy, under the cover of the official religious establishment.
The “populists” cannot resort to other areas, transcending the religious to what is political, related to the structure of the state, and successive political systems to judge it. And whether the western veto is based on fears, that it possesses non -democratic nuclear weapons systems, and the decision to use it in the hands of one person “the leader” who is not subject to any parliamentary or judicial accountability?!
However, the political interpretation lacks the foundations of persuasion, as it possesses non -democratic systems, such as China, North Korea and Russia, nuclear weapons, while the experiences of India and Pakistan remain the subject of legitimate questions about their escape from international censorship, strict and anxiety from the spread of nuclear weapons, and their accession to the nuclear club.
And if there is an explanation that sees that the success of Islamabad, “Muslim”, in possessing nuclear weapons, occurred in a short period of geopolitical instability, after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Perhaps the geographical dimension of Pakistan, and the limited western air force, are the only reasons for avoiding military intervention.
And Israel remains alone, the easiest model that can be called for, to demonstrate “religious bias”, or “religious sorting” of countries that receive “nuclear aid”, from the West that alone has the opening of “energy of fate” for any country in the world, who wants to possess nuclear weapons, or prevent it even by using force and military intervention (Iraq and Iran is model).
No observer can deny that Israel, whatever the regime of government, is a “religious minority/Jewish” state, in which the extreme right enjoys great influence, and the decision of the war and peace in it may be subject to satisfying this brutal and aggressive current, and during the aggression on Gaza, the option of the “nuclear bomb” was presented to come out with victory, it is difficult for them to achieve it, after entering the war, without the second year, without achieving one goal Its declared goals.
In November 2023, Israeli Heritage Minister Amihai Elihao said that one of the options was to throw a nuclear bomb on Gaza, to respond to the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7.
However, Western countries participated enthusiastically, in building their nuclear arsenal, for example:
France built the Dimouna nuclear reactor, the United Kingdom and Norway provided heavy water to the reactor, and the United States-directly and indirectly provided the enriched uranium, nuclear valves, and steering technologies (the technology of the Percyng-2 Rocket System) of the Jericho-3 missile, and advanced long-range fighter bombers, to launch nuclear bombs (F-15 and F-16).
Washington has also provided Israel with high -speed computers, used to simulate nuclear tests and verify the vitality of the arsenal, and Germany has provided Israel with advanced submarines (dolphin), capable of launching nuclear warhead cruise missiles, and Belgium provided the Jewish state, with uranium materials, from its former colony, Zayer.
In 1979, the French intelligence services, with the assistance of the Mossad, destroyed the heart of the nuclear reactor that France sold to Iraq before its shipment, and the NATO overthrowing Gaddafi, and Libya was also subjected to economic sanctions from the West.
Western policies are unable to “Al -Shuwarah” on any logical explanations, which exonerate their arenas, from resorting to “religious sorting” whenever the matter touched on the western veto on the Muslim East, in particular, whenever he wants to possess the nuclear weapon, as the justification believes that “the nuclear Middle East is not a safe Middle East.”
“Daniel Serreer”, a professor at the Foreign Policy Institute at the Johns Hopkins College for advanced international studies, argues that any decisive step on the part of Iran – for example – towards nuclear weapons, may open the door wide.
Pointing out that if it happens – and the situation as well – within months, we may witness four new nuclear powers in the region, in addition to the current nuclear capabilities in Israel.
He warned that only minutes from the time of the missile launch, the capitals of potential nuclear forces are separated in the Middle East, where mutual hostility is spread, and lack of understanding throughout the region.
No one here in the East, what is said there in the West, especially since the confusion between religious and political, with the weight of the first over the second, has what justifies it, as what is frequented by slogans, after the Second World War- and among them that the identity of Europe is “Christian- Jewish”- is still present, in the official Western political discourse, whenever it grows in Western capitals, the controversy of the fears of the symbolic Islamic expansion.
For example, the European Peoples Party- the largest political bloc in Europe- wrote in a statement that the European continent is involved in a “joint Jewish-Christian culture and heritage”, and that “we have to protect our European lifestyle by preserving our Christian values.”
In an opinion article, Flemish Prime Minister Jean Jambon emphasized this “Christian Jewish Heritage”, putting it side by side, with Greek democracy and the rule of Roman law as the three basic principles of European identity.
During the Israeli -American war on Iran, there were opinions based on what was settled in the Arab and Muslim conscience, regarding the western veto, on any Arab dreams, by possessing a nuclear umbrella, noting that Israel is not only an extension of this alleged Western identity, but also serves the aspirations of religious movements in the West, which fears the revival of Islamic civilization, and reaching the Zionist Christian movements, which believe that Jewish domination of the Middle East is necessary for the second coming of Christ.
These groups, which have a profound impact on American decision -making, see in every Arab or Islamic country – regardless of the identity of their leaders, a threat that must be contained.
Ultimately, the developments surrounding the Iranian nuclear program confirmed a greater reality, which is that the struggle for nuclear energy is part of a broader civilized conflict. And that the West has determined, to deprive the Islamic world, to reach nuclear energy, even if this requires resorting to war.
The opinions in the article do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al -Jazeera.