Israel’s Foreign Policy Analysis on Iran’s Nuclear Agreement using

National Attribute Level of Analysis

Wirasena Mahesha and Annisa Pratamasari

International Relations Department, Faculty of Social and Political Science, Universitas Airlangga

Keywords: State, Foreign Policy Analysis, National Attribute, Israel.

Abstract: It has been known that all actions taken by the state are based on their national interests. In the struggle to get

their national interest, states make foreign decision-making which is decided by many considerations in terms

of statehood possessed by the state and external state actors. In this paper, the author will attempt to analyze

the foreign policy Israel pursues in response to Iran’s nuclear deal in 2015 using one level of analysis in the

foreign policy analysis study, namely national attribute. The author will first explain the background of the

case as well as what foreign policy Israel made towards a nuclear Iran. The discussion then proceeds to the

theoretical review of the level of analysis of national attributes and their coverage variables. Then, the author

will analyze Israeli foreign policy by using national attribute coverage variable and closed by the final

conclusion of the author’s analysis.

1 INTRODUCTION

In international relations, state as the main actor play

an important role in maintaining good relations but

also able to bear the national interest of the country.

Achieving the national interest itself can be done

through the country’s foreign policy making.

According to Breuning’s (2007) statement in his

writings, foreign policy is a state policy against an

environment outside his territorial boundaries.

Traditionally, the purpose of policy-making is to

safeguard and enhance the strength and security of a

country or be equated as its national interest. Issues

relating to foreign policy are generally about

economic, security, environment, human rights,

population, energy, and humanitarianism. The action

decided by the head of state itself is also undertaken

by every country in the world including Israel.

Israel is the only country in the world located in

the Middle East region and ruled by Islamic countries

such as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. Besides

that, there are also Palestinians who are still involved

in a conflict with Israel related to the state. Moreover,

the issues are increasingly aggravated by Trump’s

recognition of the Palestinian city of Jerusalem as the

capital of Israel, reflecting the terms of the United

Nations that previously agreed them (Masters and

Halasz 2017). Back to the discussion, Israel in its

region is called the most developed country with high

economic capability. This then encourages the

country to increase its military budget because of the

border conflicts with Palestinians that involving

armed action.

However, in this paper, the author focus will be

more directed to Iran’s nuclear deal that considered

unsatisfactory by Israel. Judging from its background,

Iran has had nuclear weapons from the 1950s, aided

by Western support with claims that its development

is based on the interests of peace (Bruno 2010). This

is certainly not necessarily shared by other countries,

especially the Middle East countries that are

neighbors of Iran because of their suspicion and fear

of nuclear abuses for weapons development. This can

be seen by the rapid increase of the country’s uranium

enrichment that can be used to form nuclear weapons,

the Shahab-3 whose range of fire is expected to reach

Israel and its surrounding countries (Kuperwasser

2015). This has certainly raised concern for Israel’s

national security and thus, Israel intervened with the

P5+1 countries, namely the United States, Britain,

China, France, Russia and Germany, in negotiations

to reach agreement on Iran’s nuclear development.

Nuclear development by Iran as an Islamic state is

considered as a big threat by Israel as there is a

negative view of Muslims against the Jews. This is

related to the border conflict between Israel and the

Palestinians as a Muslim country. Moreover, the

supreme leader of Israel, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in

2015 once declared that if all Muslims and

Palestinians are united, Israel will not exist within 25

Mahesha, W. and Pratamasari, A.

Israel’s Foreign Policy Analysis on Iran’s Nuclear Agreement using National Attribute Level of Analysis.

DOI: 10.5220/0010281000002309

In Proceedings of Airlangga Conference on International Relations (ACIR 2018) - Politics, Economy, and Security in Changing Indo-Paciﬁc Region, pages 609-614

ISBN: 978-989-758-493-0

609

years so that the Jewish state should be destroyed

(Deardem 2016: TOI Staff 2015). In response,

although Israel is not a country actively involved in

Iranian nuclear talks held by the P5+1 countries,

Israel has some of its foreign policy in response to

Iran’s nuclear deal to tense down and eliminated war

potential in the region.

Based on Kuperwasser’s work (2015), Israel has

proximity to the United States in many ways

including Iran’s nuclear deal. However, it turns out

that both countries are in different perspective related

to what policies should be applied to Iran in order to

create regional stability. The United States seeks to

ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons

while Israel is more to prevent Iran from having

capabilities in the production of nuclear weapons and

this can only be done through coercive measures such

as a combination of preventive operations, diplomatic

pressure, economic sanctions, and credible military

threats. In addition, Israel also has several policy

frameworks addressed to Israel such as preventing the

development and research of Iran’s nuclear, removing

uranium enrichment materials from Iran, closing the

nuclear development facility at Fordow, and reducing

the number of nuclear development machines at

Natanz. Furthermore, Israel also compels Iran to

provide all the requested data related to its nuclear

development activities and seeks the US congress to

re-evaluate the deal that Israel considers to be less

significant in stopping Iran’s nuclear development

(Kuperwasser 2015; Kaye 2016).

The author then will analyze the policies using

one of the analytical tools available in foreign policy

analysis studies. The tool is the national attributes

level of analysis by looking at the elements or

variables that are present in it and then make the

element or variable as the reason behind the decision

of foreign policy of the country. In this case, the

author will attempt to elaborate Israel’s foreign policy

on Iran’s nuclear deal through the variables at the

national attribute level of analysis. The authors then

continue to discuss the explanation about the basic

principles and the theoretical consequences of

national attributes the level of analysis in the next

section.

2 THEORITICAL REVIEW OF

NATIONAL ATTRIBUTE

LEVEL OF ANALYSIS

Hudson (2014) in his writing sees the level of analysis

as an approach at the macro level in understanding the

foreign policy of a country. The purpose of the

explanatory mode is be able able to show how certain

values at this macro level lead to the probability

distribution of the particular types of foreign policy

choices and how they can influence the decision-

making of foreign policy in a particular context.

Furthermore, the national attribute is a national power

possessed by a tangible and intangible state. The

elements that make up the national power are the size

of the country, natural resources, geographic

conditions, demographics, political systems, military

forces, and economic capabilities (Hudson 2014). All

these elements then used by the state in forming its

national image that determines the national behavior

of the country itself in the eyes of the international

community (Lebovic 1985).

Basically, there are no countries that do not have

national attributes. Nevertheless, the elements of the

national attributes possessed by every country in the

world are relative in nature so generalizations can not

be made in the context of this level of analysis

(Hudson 2014). For example, in this world there are

countries with large geographical size like China, and

also small like Singapore, as well as core countries

with excellent economic power such as the United

States, and periphery countries with weak economic

power like Bangladesh. The capabilities possessed by

each country have influential element in decision-

making from foreign policy in international politics.

Therefore, the author will further discuss about each

of the national attributes’ elements of countries.

Generally, countries with superior capability are more

noticed in comparison with the inferior power states

(Lebovic 1985, Elman 1995).

The first element is size that becomes one of the

factors of a country’s decision-making. Countries with

large areas primarily play more actively in foreign

policy making. On the other hand, countries with

small areas have only limited resources, so their

national strength is low with the exception of certain

countries such as Singapore. Small countries generally

make alliance with a larger country in order to survive.

However, neutral options may also be selected if the

country is between two major conflicting states

(Hudson 2014). The second element is the existence

of natural resources in foreign policy making which is

seen from its availability, such as petroleum, mineral,

agriculture, and so on. Natural resources are the main

requirement of each country so that this element has

the power to control other needy parties like for

example in China which halt its export of earth metal

to Japan because Japan detains Chinese fishermen on

illegal fishing charges in Japanese waters.

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

610

The third element is the geography like the

boundaries between countries that play an important

role in the formation of foreign policy in relation to

geopolitics. Countries with more restrictions are

generally more often involved in regional conflicts

than countries with few borders. As an example is

Russia where border conflicts have become a matter

of security in this contemporary era given its vast

territory so that its border touches many countries

(Hudson 2014). The fourth is a demographic that is

identical with the characteristics of the people of the

country. Some of the variables seen in this element

are gender, age, wealth, ethnicity, religion, and so on.

Then, this distributions used by the government to

formulate their foreign policy. For example, Canada

began to experience graying population so that its

government facilitated the flow of migration into the

country to meet the needs of jobs that lack human

resources.

The fifth element is the political system that forms

the system of government of a country. The political

system can be formed from a pre-existing heritage or

from the condition of the international system so that

its foreign policy making is also based on some of

these (Lebovic 1985). As an example is a democratic

state that is generally in harmony with other

democratic states and this situation create a

democratic peace. The sixth element is the military

capability that becomes the most important national

attribute in the formulation of a country’s foreign

policy. This is because superior military force

generally leads to coercive diplomacy that can be

used to force a particular party to obey (Hudson

2014). The possession of mass destructive weapons

then becomes a distinct strategic advantage for the

owner country and has a major influence on changing

the foreign policy situation of other countries as it did

in the case of North Korea. The last element is the

economic capability that becomes variable in the

behavior of a country by looking at the pattern of

dependency and interdependence of its economy.

How the state uses its economic instruments as aid,

lending, investment, currency manipulation, debt,

embargoes, sanctions, etc. then depends on the

capabilities of the country’s economy (Blanchard et

al. 2000 in Hudson 2014). Countries with high

economic power then able to use these capabilities to

secure their foreign policy objectives.

3 NATIONAL ATTRIBUTES

ANALYSIS WITH ISRAEL’S

POLICY ON IRAN’S NUCLEAR

As the authors have pointed out in the previous

section, all variables in the national attributes level of

analysis such as state size, natural resources,

geography, demographic characteristics, political

systems and economic and military capabilities can

be used to explain why a country choose a certain

foreign policy. However, in related to these variables,

when associated with Israel’s foreign policy towards

Iran, the authors chose to use geographical variables,

demographic characteristics, political systems, and

military capabilities that possessed by Israel. The

explanation behind the author decision to choose

these variables will be explain in this section along

with the others variables that the author does not use.

Viewing from its geography, Israel is one of the

sovereign nations located in the east of the

Mediterranean Sea and is in the same region as Iran,

the Middle East region. The two countries essentially

have the same geopolitical interest, namely to protect

themselves and fend off the presence of Soviet

communism during the Cold War, as well as the Pan-

Arabism dispersion (Kaye et al., 2011). However, this

is instantly changing with the fact that Iran is

developing its nuclear arsenal to destroy Israel as a

Jewish state that deprives the rights and territories of

the overwhelming majority of the Palestinian people.

Although the two countries do not directly border

territorially, they still engage in considerable tension

because Iran’s nuclear range that can include Israel is

seen from its geographical location not far behind,

which is about 1,500 kilometers. Thus, based on its

geographical considerations, Israel puts emphasis on

cessation of Iran’s nuclear profile for the security of

its country.

Furthermore, demographic characteristics also

become exploratory variables that are quite

interesting to discuss. In this element, the author is

more inclined to see that the religion adopted and

become the life guard of the vast majority of Israeli

society, Jews, has a great influence on Israeli foreign

policy making. Consciously surrounded by an Islamic

state with a poor perception of it due to the unfinished

border conflict with Palestine and also the deprivation

of the rights of Muslims in the land belonging to

Israel-Palestine, the Israeli government then really

upholds the principle that its territory is Eretz Yisrael,

namely the holy land of the Jews that God gave them

for each application of their foreign policy (Keith

1844).

Israel’s Foreign Policy Analysis on Iran’s Nuclear Agreement using National Attribute Level of Analysis

611

The author sees that Israel will not give up in

maintaining its regional identity. This is as part of the

national interest of the country to survive as the only

Jewish state in the world. Their strong will can be

traced to the Holocaust movement, the massacre of

Jews by Germany, which threatened the existence of

the Jews themselves. The condition then reflected in

Israeli policies in the Iran’s nuclear deal which is very

preventive. The policy aim to prevent Iran’s nuclear

capability that could destroy the country because

allegedly, the proliferation of Iran’s nuclear weapons

is aimed at the destruction of the Jews and form a new

formation of the Central Asian region that can change

the world order (Dearden 2016; Kuperwasser 2015).

Thus, Israel contributes as much as possible in taking

steps in Iran’s nuclear response to the United States

despite the difference of the two countries’ view of

what should be done to Iran.

The next element that will use to analyze is the

political system of Israel’s national attributes. Having

a parliamentary democratic government system,

Israel is indirectly close to the United States because

both countries are democratic countries. The political

understanding shared by the two countries then made

Israel not hesitate to ask for help from the United

States regarding what to do with Iran’s nuclear

proliferation in order to achieve international peace

and stability. One of Israel’s most intense policies on

democracy can be seen in its request to Iran to provide

all the data requested in related of all its nuclear

development activities (Kupperwasser 2015). This

policy requires transparency and openness that

available in the democratic systems.

Moreover, Israel also has no hesitation in asking

the United States to re-evaluate Iran’s nuclear deal.

This is because Israel feels lacks a deterrent effect on

Iran as a form of freedom of speech to fellow

democracies. In addition, Iran as an opposition

country has a political system with a weak democracy

or even the democracy of this country is only limited

to the outer wrapper alone, so this triggers a separate

problem for Israel and Iran given that the democratic

country will tend to conflict with non-democratic

countries as an effort to spread its democratic values.

This condition then illustrated by the coerciveness of

Israel’s policy. In democratic peace theory, the fellow

democratic countries do not conflict with each other.

Israel sees the one solution that can be applied to cope

with Iran’s nuclear deal is by replacing Iran’s current

regime with the pro-Western regime which is more

pragmatic (Kuperwasser 2015; Inbar 2008).

The discussion then goes on to the next element

of national attribute, namely military capability. In

this case, Israel can be categorized as a strong country

because of the military compulsory program for both

men and women as well as sophisticated weapons and

military equipment. In fact, the power of Israeli

military capability can explain the arbitrary behavior

of the country or often ignore the resolution

formulated by the United Nations in the use of

military force (Hudson 2014). Still related to military

power, some innovations have created by Israel, like

armed robot vehicles that used for its territorial border

patrol, missile batteries for detecting threats, mini

satellites for spies, Merkava secret tanks, and so forth

(Katz 2017). However, it should be noted that the

Israeli military capability is inseparable from the

large amount of military aid from its friendly country,

the United States. Thus, the arms of this country

considered advanced.

Israel’s policy-making on Iran certainly has a

strong influence because of this military capability

even though Israel is not a global actor and its ability

to directly confront Iran is limited. One of the reasons

for such strong influence is that of its intelligence

capabilities in the collection, research and operations

carried out by the Israeli military secret service which

has made a major contribution to Iran’s nuclear

development report primarily discussed by the P5+1

countries (Kupperwasser 2015). Israel believes that

military use is necessary in response to this case

because, when Iran realizes the power of military

capability possessed by Israel, it is unlikely that Iran

will halt its nuclear development. Thus, Israel

believes its increasingly strong military capability

will further encourage the regional stability without

Iran’s nuclear.

Military capabilities from Israel also can be used

to embody various behaviors and traits. Israel has a

policy that does not hesitate and even responds to the

need to act directly to Iran so that the Iran’s nuclear

can be eliminated immediately. This is also supported

by the fact that in 1988, 2003, and 2013 the United

States revealed its military security against Iran that

made Iran surrender in the attempt of destruction of

shipments in the Strait of Hormuz. In addition, the

military also did not create Iran from itself to raise its

20% uranium stock, a step-by-step that Israel needs

(Kuperwasser 2015). These things then explain why

Israel has a high power over military power

(Benziman and Romm 2014).

Some of the elements of the national attributes

that the authors describe earlier, in author’s opinion

are the reason behind Israel’s foreign policy making

that has a clear effect in responding to Iran’s nuclear

proliferation. The author does not include other

national attributes such as country size and the

presence of natural resources due to their lack of

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

612

relevance. The size of the unarguably large state of

Israel does not limit its international behavior, which

is categorized active because of the economic and

military factors of this country. In addition, Israel

located in an area that is slightly arid and makes water

limited. In fact, this is not a problem because of the

Israeli salinity system which makes the country’s

natural water resources sufficient although on the

other hand it should import food and oil. Given the

excellent economic capability of the country to get

the title of “very high developed”, the import is

certainly not a financial problem of the country.

Moreover, the United States also provides a great deal

of financial aid that became the reason for Israel’s

rapid progress.

The political leaders of Israel still consider Iran to

be a security challenge for their country. However,

with a focus that has shifted from Iran’s previous

nuclear issue, it is now become a regional problem

(Kaye 2016). The policy that result in Iran’s nuclear

deal by the P5+1 countries only makes Iran’s nuclear

become legitimate because it does not make Iran

abolish any nuclear elements owned by its country.

This will certainly make Iran even more dangerous

because the existing nuclear facilities and nuclear

development sites in the country can be re-developed

when the terms of the agreement are over. Israel has

become threatened again and based on this vision or

prediction, Israel then has this foreign policies that

have the author analyze using national attributes level

of analysis in this section.

4 CONCLUSION

From the various explanations the author has

explained earlier, it can be analyzed that some of

Israel’s national attributes can be used to explain the

state’s behavior in foreign policy making. Looking

back on the case, Iran and Israel see themselves as

opposed to each side that has influence in the region

(Kaye et al., 2011). Iran’s regime sees Israel as a

competitor since its country's revolution and on the

other hand, Israel sees Iran as its biggest challenge

and security threat in relation to contradictory

ideologies of the two countries. Not only that, Israel,

which initially only saw Iran as a nuclear weapons

challenge, is now a regional problem so its foreign

policy decisions tend to be coercive (Kaye 2016). In

relation to the condition of the case, some of the most

significant and prominent attributes of the author’s

view are the geography, demographic conditions,

political systems, and military capabilities based on

the explanations the author has described in the

previous section. Israel has a position and power that

can be classified advanced and strong. So, in this

case, the bargaining position can be considerably

strategic despite being in the shadow of the threat of

Iran’s nuclear attack that wants the abolition of Jews

from its existence in the world.

Nevertheless, the analysis of the author by using

some elements of this national attribute in fact still

has some weaknesses. This weakness is visible from

the reality in international relations that can not be

simplified or generalized. That happen because the

dynamics of international relations itself. From the

attributes the author has explained, it can be seen that

the policy-making of a country is not only focused

and sourced from the internal factors of the national

attributes of the country, but there are external

influences that able to make up the national attribute

itself. In the case of Iran’s nuclear deal, Israel has a

lot of influence from the United States which also

forms its foreign policy making. In addition, actors

can also act beyond the calculations that have been

made by the theoretical experts of the attributes of the

national attributes.

This is assumptions supported by Hudson (2014)

and Elman (1995) in their writings which states that

small countries generally have little influence and

tend to be weak in foreign policy making. This

condition is not correlated with the case of Israel

where, Israel is classified as a small country apart

from its border issue with Palestine. However, due to

its military capability as well as its well-established

economy, Israel was able to secure its position in the

constellation of international politics. Israel’s policy

making is also bold enough because of its coercive

nature. Some of the weaknesses of this national

attribute then make the author assume that

generalization can not be done considering the

characteristics possessed by each element and

country must be different and also depends on the

situation and conditions that take place.

Nevertheless, the use of this level of analysis has

contributed in oberving the country’s behavior in

determining the direction of their foreign policy. The

policy makers control their decisions to achieve their

national goals that are specifically set forth in the

terminology of national interest. The author sees that

the national power of the country, in this case is Israel,

has a very big role in foreign policy making. Elements

of the national attributes such as those which the

authors have described before will apply only when

interacting with other countries. Their presence is not

only attached to the country owner, but also has

interaction with other countries. Thus, the national

attribute that becomes the national power of a country

Israel’s Foreign Policy Analysis on Iran’s Nuclear Agreement using National Attribute Level of Analysis

613

can be considered in analyzing the foreign policy of a

country.

REFERENCES

Benziman, Yuval dan Lauren Romm, 2014. “Key Elements

of Israel’s Foreign Policy”, in The Israeli Institute for

Regional Foreign Policies, the Frances Brody Institute

for Applied Diplomacy, and the Friedrich-Ebert-

Stiftung, March 25. Tel Aviv University.

Dearden, Lizzie, 2016. Iran's Supreme Leader says Israel

'will not exist in 25 years' [online], in

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-

east/israel-not-exist-25-years-iran-ayatollah-

khamenei-threat-iran-benjamin-netanyahu-israel-tiger-

not-a7476341.html [accessed on December 12, 2017].

Elman, Miriam Fendius, 1985. “The Foreign Policies of

Small States: Challenging Neorealism in Its Own

Backyard”, British Journal of Political Science, 25(2);

pp. 171-217.

Hudson, Valerie M, 2014. Foreign Policy Analysis, Classic

and Contemporary Theory, Rowman & Littlefield.

Inbar, Efraim, 2008. Israel’s National Security, Routledge.

Katz, Yaakov, 2017. Why Israel has the Most

Technologically Advanced Military on Earth [online],

in https://nypost.com/2017/01/29/why-israel-has-the-

most-technologically-advanced-military-on-earth/

[accessed on December 12, 2017].

Kaye, Dalia Dassa et al., 2011. “Israel and Iran: A

Dangerous Rivalry”, RAND Corporation.

Kaye, Dalia Dassa, 2016. “Israel’s Iran Policies After the

Nuclear Deal”, RAND Corporation.

Keith, Alexander, 1844. The Land of Israel: According to

the Covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and Jacob, W,

Whyte & Co.

Kupperwasser, Yossi, 2015. “Israel’s Role in the Struggle

over the Iranian Nuclear Project”, The Begin-Sadat

Center for Strategis Studies, Mideast Security and

Policy Studies No. 114.

Lebovic, James, 1985. “Capabilities in Context: National

Attributes and Foreign Policy in the Middle East”,

Journal of Peace Research, 22(1); pp. 47-67.

Masters, James dan Stephanie Halasz, 2017. Netanyahu:

European Countries will Follow Trump on Jerusalem

[online], in

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/11/middleeast/netanya

hu-jerusalem-brussels/index.html [accessed on

December 12, 2017].

TOI Staff, 2015. Khamenei: Israel won’t survive next 25

years [online], in

https://www.timesofisrael.com/khamenei-israel-wont-

survive-next-25-years/ [accessed on December 12,

2017].

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

614