Exclusive Interview
The Middle East and the NPT: Between Disillusionment, Iran, and the Search for Equal Security: Interview with Nabil Fahmy by Maxim Nosenko
Nabil Fahmy,
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary (retired), PIR Center Advisory Board member
May 18, 2026
PIR Center continues conducting a series of interviews with leading international experts amid the ongoing NPT Review Conference. We invite our readers to take a look at the Middle East. The guest of our new exclusive interview is Ambassador Nabil Fahmy, PIR Center Advisory Board member. During the interview, key aspects of the Middle Eastern agenda were addressed, specifically the establishment of a WMDFZ, proliferation risks, and the universalization of the NPT within the regional context. Attention was also devoted to the “disarmament” article of the NPT and the primary impasse – the situation surrounding Iran. This latter issue was examined within the broader framework of the Middle Eastern security agenda, including the recent Saudi proposal for a non-aggression pact.
The interview was conducted by Mr. Maksim Nosenko, PIR Center intern.
Mr. Maksim Nosenko: As the 11th NPT Review Conference draws to a close, the League of Arab States is actively participating in the proceedings. Could you elaborate on the primary issues that the League of Arab States is focusing on at this conference?
Mr. Nabil Fahmy: Well, let me be careful here. I will not speak on behalf of the League of Arab States, because I’m not yet a member, as the Secretary General of the Arab League. I will speak as an Arab, knowing what concerns Arab countries generally, not per se as the League of Arab States. The basic position is that in the Middle East, all the Arab countries are members of the NPT, and the overwhelming majority, those who have nuclear programs, have accepted the full-scope safeguards agreement applying to them. The only country in the Middle East that is not a member of the NPT is Israel. The other exception, though different, concerns Iran’s nuclear program: it is a member of the NPT and has even accepted the full-scope safeguards. So, Arabs want equal security for everybody in the region; they want universal adherence to the NPT by non-nuclear states across the region; and they want greater transparency in the region’s nuclear programs. That’s in the context of the region.
Arabs are also full-fledged active members of the NPT in the global context, so yes, the Arabs also want to see serious and active negotiations between the nuclear weapon states parties to the NPT – the three depositories, plus France and, of course, China. They want them to negotiate more arms control agreements, whether they are strategic or tactical, vis-à-vis nuclear weapons, and we are very disappointed that the provisions of the treaty are not being faithfully respected. The original provisions of the treaty call openly for the nuclear states to negotiate in good faith towards general and complete disarmament, not only nuclear, and to be told now, as has been the case in the past, that we’re trying and moving forward – that was not credible in the past. It’s less credible now with the different agreements being frozen or not extended.
Mr. Maksim Nosenko: What is the current status of establishing a Middle East weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone? Is it a question on the table, or is it low priority now?
Mr. Nabil Fahmy: It’s definitely not a low-priority question. The reality is that the war against Iran is about a nuclear issue. Frankly, if the general public had really pursued general and complete disarmament or universality in the NPT, we would have been able to add to the NPT process a regional component, where the regional states, all of whom had the same legal obligations regarding nuclear weapons, would then also add to that other weapons of mass destruction. Let me be careful here. The proposal on weapons of mass destruction actually says to prevent nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, so even that proposal emphasizes the priority of nuclear issues. That’s the position of the Arab countries; Israel has not responded for a generation now in a positive sense. Iran, of course, is in the state of complete flux, but I would add to that I think the five nuclear weapon states are delinquent in their responsibilities, because, when the NPT was extended indefinitely in 1995, the parties adopted the resolution there in 1995 that NPT members would pursue practical steps towards creating a weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone in the Middle East, and the sponsors of that resolution were not the Arab countries, it was actually the three depositories of the NPT, so it’s been now 30 years, and the depositories of the NPT, who sponsored the resolution then, have not really pursued it seriously the same way they have not been seriously pursuing arms control agreements between them, so my long answer to your question is we are very, very frustrated, but this is a problem that is the responsibility of Arab and non-Arab countries in the Middle East, but also of the members of the NPT, and we are all responsible to move this forward, especially the three depositories. Three depositories are Russia, America, and Britain.
Mr. Maksim Nosenko: As for Iran, is it possible for the countries to facilitate the peace process at the NPT Review Conference? Perhaps some initiatives are being discussed at the conference, or similar frameworks?
Mr. Nabil Fahmy: In all candidness, no. In these politically tense phases, private diplomacy is probably more effective than public diplomacy. Coming up with a proposal at a public conference is not really the traditional process or the way to deal with these problems, because issues become linked. The nuclear issue is one aspect, but then somebody will say, “But it’s nuclear, and it’s also missiles,” and then somebody will say, “It’s also Iran’s regional posture in the Middle East, not only the nuclear issue and missiles.” A third or fourth party would say, “Well, it’s also about the Strait of Hormuz waterway, which is also a valid question to raise.” A fifth person will say, “Well, yes, it should apply to Iran, but it also should apply to Israel.” So, I don’t see a conference coming up with a negotiating solution, although it would be helpful if the NPT States Parties at the conference stood by their commitments to pursue a zone free of nuclear weapons in the Middle East and to actually engage in serious arms control talks among themselves.
Mr. Maksim Noseno: Amidst the ongoing escalation, coordinating actions is of fundamental importance. In what ways are the Arab states coordinating their steps?
Mr. Nabil Fahmy: The NPT conference is a global context, so Arab countries are coordinating their positions very carefully as a region. They’re also coordinating their positions as non-nuclear-weapon States in the NPT, but their focus here is on how to address the implementation of the NPT’s provisions. This is a review conference of the NPT. It’s not a review conference of Middle East conflicts or Middle East politics, so we realize that the tensions in the Middle East are on everybody’s mind, but they’re not going to be solved at the NPT conference. The NPT conference should focus on fully implementing and respecting the NPT’s provisions.
Mr. Maksim Nosenko: If we are talking about escalation, leaving the NPT Conference aside, how do the Arab states coordinate their actions?
Nabil Fahmy: You are correct in raising the point that there is no question that the situation in Iran creates a cloud over the NPT; that is correct – you’re 100% correct on this point. However, you’re not going to resolve the situation in Iran at the NPT conference; the problems in Iran should serve as an additional motivation for NPT States Parties to take the provisions of the NPT seriously and implement them faithfully, without prejudice or preference for anyone. They should pursue universal non-proliferation principles seriously, not pursue them with adversaries and ignore them with friends. The Arab countries are coordinating their call for disarmament at the NPT. They’re coordinating on calls for peaceful uses and assurances, and on the NPT, and they’re coordinating on what can or cannot be submitted to the NPT regarding the Middle East region, per se, but they’re not trying to solve the Iran situation at the NPT Review Conference.
Mr. Maksim Nosenko: As for the situation in the Middle East in general, reports surfaced yesterday that Saudi Arabia has floated the idea of a non-aggression pact between Middle Eastern states and Iran. How do you evaluate the prospects of achieving such an agreement?
Mr. Nabil Fahmy: I think it’s a good and smart proposal. I think it reflects the consistent pattern among Arab states: they want a peaceful and stable Middle East. They were against the military operations against Iran before they started, and they tried to convince the parties not to start them, and they were also engaged with the Iranians, telling them to recalibrate their policies – recalibrate what they do – to make sure that their policies do not infringe on the security of other states in the region, whether in the Gulf area or whether in other parts of the Middle East, like the Levant. There was a process of détente between some of the major Arab states, in particular in the Gulf, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and even before that, with Oman, so the proposal is consistent with Arab policy towards security for all, but it will have to be part and parcel of a larger agreement where the adversarial parties – America and Israel, vis-à-vis Iran – engage in their agreements as well.
Mr. Maksim Nosenko: Apart from multilateral agreements, let us address bilateral agreements. Can bilateral security guarantees, such as those between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, become a solution to regional conflicts?
Mr. Nabil Fahmy: This is a great question, and my answer is that they become part of the solution, but not the entire solution. In other words, you have to have equal security for all in the region, with no preference, no exceptions, and one set of rules for everybody. Even if you achieve that, some states will occasionally try to extend the rules or ignore the rules, while other states will try to ensure that everyone respects the rules. What governs the balance here is what I call the political balance of power – not the military balance of power. The political balance of power, for me, means political influence, economic influence, and military influence; furthermore, the more we have regional states enhancing their capacity to express and enforce this political balance of power, the more we will have an environment where the different parties will want to come to terms with each other. However, if you have a situation where one state in the region is allowed to remain outside the NPT, while another state in the region is not even allowed to exercise its basic rights within the NPT, or if a state in the region violates international law by trying to control waterways when it is not allowed to do so – if you have that kind of “do whatever you can do” approach – you are creating chaos. That chaos is never a formula for security, because balances of power shift over time. So, what states would agree to now, because of a balance of power not in their favor, or one in their favor, may be affected five to ten years down the line when the balance of power shifts. If I may be very candid and use your platform as an example – frankly – the balance of power between East and West post-Cold War shifted, and therefore the calculations between Russia – and before that, the Soviet Union – and the West had to take into account different components from what they were before the Cold War ended. The same applies also, from another perspective, between the West and China. In the past, the West was not really engaged with or focused on China; however, while China repeatedly says that it is not pursuing a global hegemonic policy and does not want to be the policeman of the world, its economic and technical strength is asseen by many abroad to a source of adversarial competition. So, here, the calculation is not military-to-military per se; it is military-to-military, but also economic-to-economic and technology-to-technology. Therefore, we all need to look at our relations in a more comprehensive fashion, and use diplomacy as our main tool to solve conflicts, not military force.
Mr. Maksim Nosenko: How do you evaluate the risks of the potential proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East? Given that some observers view a potential outbreak of military operations against Iran as a trigger, what is your perspective on this matter?
Mr. Nabil Fahmy: Let me add to that. The first problem is that the international community is not consistent in fulfilling its legal obligations; it is not holding states accountable. The international community calls for nonproliferation, non-nuclear proliferation. It calls for not accepting more nuclear-weapon states, and then it does. It calls for the Middle East to be free of nuclear weapons, but then it allows for one exception to that rule. Ultimately, what’s happening here is you’re teaching and encouraging states that if they decide to go against the rules, they can get away with it. Once you apply that kind of standard, you’re really creating, or you’re planting the seeds of chaos in the future, because anytime that there’s an assessment that your adversary is weak or busy, you will try to shift the balance. We need to go back to universal norms, same rules, same obligations for everybody, serious arms control negotiations, and ultimately, international law has to be the governing parameter between our relations.
Mr. Maksim Nosenko: Let me turn back to the NPT Review Conference. What are the preconditions set by the Arab states for adopting the Final Document of the ongoing Review Conference regarding the Middle East agenda?
Mr. Nabil Fahmy: It is very difficult in the middle of negotiations to tell you a precondition, and then while the negotiations are happening, something may change even while we’re speaking, and you will get different results. My answer to you, however, is: give me a credible document, not simply the least common denominator, which can pass without objection. I want the least – I want a credible document that actually helps us move towards non-proliferation, helps us move towards respecting the objectives of the NPT, and provides all of us in the region protection from any source of concern on nuclear issues, be they from Israel or be they from Iran – but I’m not going to get into these. As for the conditions, we just want people to be consistent – that’s the main condition.
Keywords: NPT; Nuclear nonproliferation; RevCon 2026
NPT
E16/SHAH – 26/05/18
