A CADEMIC P EACE O RCHESTRA M IDDLE E AST P OLICY B RIEF F OR THE M IDDLE E AST C ONFERENCE ON A WMD/DV S F REE Z ONE N O . 2• D ECEMBER 2011 Getting the Middle East Conference Started Opportunities for Israel and Iran to Join the Process Bernd W. Kubbig and Christian Weidlich in Cooperation with Gawdat Bahgat and Ephraim Kam T he 2010 Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty(NPT) proposed for 2012 a Conference on the establishment of a Middle Eastern zone free of weapons of mass destruction(WMD) and their delivery vehicles(DVs). The latter category is mentioned in the mandate (see Box No. 1) with reference to the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East. Egypt was the primary diplomatic driving force at the Review Conference: in speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement and chairing the New Agenda Coalition, Cairo has shown that its interests extend beyond mere ‘Israel bashing’. Since 1990, the country has broadened its agenda from the narrow demand for Israeli nuclear disarmament to a comprehensive approach for eliminating all WMD from the Middle East. Furthermore regarding the upcoming Middle East Conference(MEC), Egypt favors a confe­rence process instead of a single event. In its final statement, Egypt’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Maged Abdelaziz, called the 2010 NPT Review Conference a“historical juncture” which gave new impetus to the idea“to establish a zone free from nuclear weapons as well as other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East” 1 . New Impetus to a Long-Established Idea Although no Middle Eastern state has openly declared its possession of any kind of WMD, the question of weapons of mass destruction affects the entire region. In general, compliance with WMD-related treaties in the Middle East leaves much to be desired – the region’s record with regard to the biological and chemical weapons conventions as well as the NPT is unsatis­factory. Several states have not signed or ratified these legal documents and some countries did use chemical weapons against their own population and/or against their adversaries. Hence, the envisaged Middle East Conference is a unique opportunity to contribute to the creation of a sustai­nable security architecture for the Middle East and to overcome the“particularly pronounced” 2 regional security dilemma characterized by strong mutual threat perceptions, intense arms build-ups, unila­teral self-help, and permanent zero-sum thinking. Reducing and eliminating WMD in the region and eventually overcoming the current security dilemma requires lowering tensions as well as increasing arms race and crisis stability – both could lead to a reduction of the likelihood of war. The NPT mandate for the MEC clearly states that the Conference should“be attended by all States of the Middle East” 3 . The tremendous turmoil in the Arab world, metaphorically described as “Arab Spring”, pose a great challenge to meet this requirement. Furthermore and unfortunately, diplomatic relations between many Middle Eastern states do not give hope that assembling all governments at one table will be easily achieved. Hence, one of the challenges for the Finnish Facilitator Ambassador Jaakko Laajava(see our forthcoming P OLICY B RIEF No. 6) and the planning of the MEC is to convince all regional states to participate primarily in view of their self-interest in security. Their cooperative Abstract The participation of Israel and Iran, two major conflicting parties in the Middle East, is vital for convening a successful Middle East Conference on a regional zone free of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery vehicles. This P OLICY B RIEF presents motivating reasons for both states to join this important international gathering. The authors emphasize opportunities included in the mandate for the planned Middle East Conference and identify key national interests on the part of both countries for participating in that event. This P OLICY B RIEF argues that the participation of both Israel and Iran would create a win-win situation not only between these two major conflicting parties but for the Middle East as a whole.  Acknowledgements This P OLICY B RIEF is based on oral and written contributions made at the Working Group meetings of the A CADEMIC P EACE O RCHESTRA M IDDLE E AST in Malta(February 2011) and Vienna(July 2011). The Working Groups on the Middle East Conference included academics as well as former and current officials from Egypt, Germany, Greece, Iran, Israel, Italy, and the United States. A one-day seminar at the Friedrich Ebert Foundation in Herzliya(October 2010) attended by a dozen Israeli colleagues from five different institu­tions has been instrumental in writing this paper. The same applies to a discussion at the Friedrich Ebert Foundation in Berlin on May 31, 2010, which included Nabil Fahmy (Ambassador at Large at the Egyptian Foreign Ministry), Ariel Levite(Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), and Michael Eisenstadt(The Washington Institute for Near East Policy). 