The spectre of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons has been causing apprehension in the West lately. There has been much concern about the potential consequences of Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons. There has been concern about the security of Israel, especially after the rise to power of conservative politicians in Iran, who have made clear their disdain for Israel. In addition, the fear of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East has been much touted. The Middle East is unstable at this moment in time as a result of a range of socio-economic and political factors; this has raised the dilemma of a nuclear Iran acting as a catalyst of further regional instability by stimulating the nuclearisation of neighbouring states. This article aims to explore the plausibility of the notion that Iran “going nuclear” would set in motion a process of frantic acquisition of nuclear weapons by the surrounding states. The key Muslim states in the region at this moment in time are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey. These countries will be analysed in order to explore whether a nuclear Iran would lead to attempts by these countries to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq will not be included as it is in no state to attempt anything at the moment in time due to internal security problems and Libya will not be analysed due to its abandonment of its nuclear programme in 2003 and subsequent rapprochement with the West.

Amongst other things, government implies: the existence of state machinery, functioning and utilising viable methods of finance and a competent administration and security apparatus.  It also requires having control over all these areas.  A cursory look at the Palestinian situation is enough to conclude that there is little semblance of sovereignty – actual power, both political and economic, rests outside the Palestinian parliament.  Hamas may have won the elections, but in reality, has it inherited a poisoned chalice? 

The shock of Hamas’s victory in the recent Palestinian elections has led many western commentators and politicians to re-consider their assumption that western style democracy should be brought to the Muslim world. Some have argued that Islamists such as Hamas should never have been allowed to participate in the elections and, moreover, that free elections are not appropriate in conservative Muslim countries where secular parties are weak. In contrast, others have argued that no such conclusion should be derived from the Palestinian election results, asserting instead that the results represented a protest vote against the corruption of Fatah and that with time Hamas will become more pragmatic when faced with the challenge of governing. On two issues vis-à-vis Hamas, however, there seems to be almost universal agreement amongst western commentators: firstly, that Hamas should repudiate the use of violence against Israel and secondly that Hamas should recognize the right of the Jewish state to exist.

In Arabic the word ‘Hamas’ literally means ‘Zeal’ and is also an acronym for ‘Islamic Resistance Movement’. Hamas is a Palestinian Islamic organisation, established in 1987 during the first intifada as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, declaring itself part of the Palestinian nationalist movement, but also arguing for the establishment of an Islamic state.Hamas coordinated its efforts as part of the al-Fatah (Palestinian Liberation Movement), which emphasised the common interests of those it saw as belonging to the nation Palestine. Operating primarily in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, Hamas has massive popular support, while the official number of members is unknown.Worldwide, Hamas has millions of sympathisers due to the just nature of its cause and the work it does in society.

US foreign policy in the Middle East historically has been directed towards the support of despotic and autocratic Arab states. Arab states were allowed to apply heavy handed tactics to silence political dissent and engage in the process of electoral engineering; so long as they secured US strategic interests in the region.These interests included provision of a constant supply of oil, preservation of the security of Israel and subduing ideological threats to US interests in the region.