In fact, since the 1960s, Israel has had a large, complex, and very secretive nuclear weapons program. This development is hugely consequential for regional and global security. This article explores the historical development of Israel’s arsenal. More importantly, it looks at the military goals and geopolitical history that’s fueling these changes.
Israel kicked off its nuclear weapons program in the first few years of its independence. Accounts indicate that they started much earlier, even before the state was declared in 1948. By 1958, Israel was inquiring about nuclear enrichment at a secret facility established near Dimona. This site would go on to become key to Israel’s nuclear ambitions.
Between 1966 and 1967, Israel fully integrated its first nuclear weapon, an irreversible step in attaining the utmost defensive asset. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) indicated in 1968 that Israel had begun producing nuclear weapons, solidifying its status as a nuclear-capable state. According to recent estimates, Israel currently possesses an arsenal of approximately 90 nuclear warheads. It has the capability—in terms of fissile material—to produce upwards of 300 nuclear weapons.
For decades, Israel’s nuclear capabilities have remained classified, as the U.S. and Israeli governments have kept a tight lid on them. In 1979, American seismologists detected what seemed like a secret atmospheric nuclear test the country carried out. This move served to promote its topical technological leadership even further. Israel is a signatory and ratifier of the 1963 Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. It has opted out of signing the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which aims to halt the proliferation of nuclear arms.
The Dimona nuclear power plant lies at the center of Israel’s nuclear strategic posture. An ongoing story Recent reports confirm that Israel is in the process of modernizing its plutonium production reactor complex at Dimona. This worrisome trend might point to a larger nuclear arsenal expansion.
Within the wider scope of regional security, Israel’s military aims are clearly focused on preventing future threats from Iran. Israeli leaders have publicly shown their willingness to go further and destroy every one of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Yet Israel has carried out several military campaigns focused on Iranian assets. These strikes have hit missile production locations as well as a new nuclear research facility located in Tehran.
Israel’s Defense Minister, Israel Katz, has made pointed remarks regarding Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, stating that “he cannot continue to exist.” These comments are indicative of the larger Israeli strategy of preemptive action to take out threats that they fear might one day become a reality.
Any military action to take out Iran’s Fordow nuclear site, which is deeply buried, would probably need U.S. support. The operational complexities of such an operation easily point out the geopolitical entanglements that are often at play when it comes to Middle Eastern security dynamics.
Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has underscored the urgency of addressing Iran’s nuclear capabilities, asserting that “no one in Iran should have immunity.” Such rhetoric lines up with Israel’s long-standing framing of its actions as responses to existential threats.
Global reactions to a possible military strike on Iran have been mixed. Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), noted that there is “hardly be a basis for any military action” based solely on Iran’s current activities. He commented on the political nature of military decisions, stating, “Military action, from wherever it comes, is a political decision that has nothing to do with what we’re saying.”
The United States has long held a unique and central role in politics and security in the Middle East. We agree with former President Donald Trump that diplomacy is essential to address our many concerns with Iran. He called on public officials to “give diplomacy two weeks.” His administration was committed to ensuring that military readiness complemented, rather than crowded out, diplomatic options.
The Kremlin has participated, too, in this growing discussion about U.S. military strikes against Iran. A potential escalation Russia’s Government Spokesman Dmitry Peskov similarly cautioned that any such moves would “open the Pandora’s box” of broader confrontation in the area. He went on to warn that Russia would “vigorously oppose” any military intervention.
