Reading the SOAS report I think its important to emphasize one of their solutions for peace with Iran:
The potential for a major regional war over Iran should
give greater impetus to all sides to avoid conflict and act on
previously agreed objectives for security in the region as a whole. In
this respect the UNSC (687, 1540) objective of establishing a WMD Free Zone in the Middle East should be given far greater political investment by all parties.
According to Joseph Cirincione, director for non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, most weapons programs in the Middle East began in direct response to Israel’s decision to go nuclear in the 1950s and 1960s.
Despite this analysis, I think the calls for a Free Zone in the Middle
East as a way for curbing Iran’s appetite for nuclear technology is
faulty. Iran is not responding to any Israeli threat, but to a US threat.
Israel will never threaten Iran’s territory like it does to other
bordering Arab states. If anything, Israel’s dispute with Iran is
premised on ideology and regional dominance rather than territory. As Ray Takeyh rightfully points out:
If Israel’s nuclear arsenal features in the Iranian
debate, it is mainly in the context of international and American
hypocrisy in perennially criticizing Iran’s nuclear efforts yet
maintaining a curious silence on Israel’s atomic bombs.
As such, a WMD zone does not do anything to prevent Iran from
pursuing WMDs. What is needed is direct and unconditional negotiations
with the US.
