| Summary/Abstract |
Israel’s posture of nuclear ambiguity has achieved a high level of consensus among its security elite, but are there any alternative approaches and what circumstances could facilitate change? This article argues that the longevity of ambiguity has been buttressed by three external factors that may change in the future and lead to a reassessment: the lack of another nuclear state in the region, bipartisan support in the United States, and the lack of a well-established peace in the region. To gain insight into the ideas that would inform a broader reassessment, I outline the strategic logic of three alternative approaches that have existed continuously in Israel’s security discourse. Nuclear advocates seek to move toward an open posture; nuclear skeptics seek to prevent proliferation by joining international treaties; and nuclear pragmatists support maintaining ambiguity under a US umbrella. Based on interviews with former officials, primary sources of Israeli elite discourse, and a broad survey of previous research, this article provides new insights into the making of Israel’s nuclear strategy by highlighting the continuity of the basic predispositions of each approach over the past 70 years, demonstrating how external factors have upheld the core elements of the policy of ambiguity while allowing room for changes on its margins, and outlining the possible future scenarios that may facilitate a more substantial policy shift.
|