
Explainer: Israel's secretive nuclear programme
Israel has said it is determined to destroy Iran's nuclear programme because its rival's secretive efforts to build an atomic weapon are a 'threat to its existence'.
But what's not-so-secret is that Israel is believed to be the only nation in West Asia or the Middle East with nuclear weapons for decades. Its leaders have refused to confirm or deny their existence.
Israel's ambiguity has enabled it to maintain its deterrence against Iran and other enemies, experts have said, without triggering a regional nuclear arms race or inviting pre-emptive attacks.
Israel is one of just five countries that are not party to a global nuclear non-proliferation treaty. That relieves it of international pressure to disarm or even to allow inspectors to scrutinise its facilities.
Critics in Iran and elsewhere have accused Western countries of hypocrisy for keeping strict tabs on Iran's nuclear programme – which its leaders insist is only for peaceful purposes – while effectively giving Israel's suspected arsenal a free pass.
On Sunday, the United States military struck three nuclear sites in Iran, inserting itself into Israel's effort to destroy Iran's programme.
Here is a closer look at Israel's nuclear programme.
Israel and Iran trade fire for fifth day, Trump leaves G7 summit
A history of nuclear ambiguity
Israel opened its Negev Nuclear Research Centre in the remote desert city of Dimona in 1958 under the country's first leader, Prime Minister David Ben Gurion. He believed the tiny fledgling country was surrounded by hostile neighbours and needed nuclear deterrence as an extra measure of security.
After it opened, Israel kept the work at Dimona hidden for a decade, telling United States officials it was a textile factory, according to a 2022 article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, an academic journal.
Relying on plutonium produced at Dimona, Israel has been able to fire nuclear warheads since the early 1970s, according to that article, co-authored by Hans M. Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project with the Federation of American Scientists, and Matt Korda, a researcher at the same organisation.
Israel's policy of ambiguity suffered a major setback in 1986, when Dimona's activities were exposed by Mordechai Vanunu, a former technician at the site. He provided photographs and descriptions of the reactor to Britain's Sunday Times newspaper.
Vanunu served 18 years in prison for treason and is not allowed to meet with foreigners or leave the country.
Mourners carry a body of a Palestinian killed in an Israeli air strike in Gaza City on June 25, 2025. Photo: Reuters
Israel possesses dozens of nuclear warheads, experts say
Experts estimate Israel has between 80 and 200 nuclear warheads, although they say the lower end of that range is more likely.
Israel also has stockpiled as much as 1,110kg (2,425 pounds) of plutonium, potentially enough to make 277 nuclear weapons, according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a global security organisation.
It has six submarines believed to be capable of launching nuclear cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles believed to be capable of launching a nuclear warhead up to 6,500km (4,000 miles), the organisation says.
Germany has supplied all of the submarines to Israel, which are docked in the northern city of Haifa, according to the article by Kristensen and Korda.
March 2025: Israel launches intense air strikes on Gaza, killing at least 200 after truce talks stall
In the Middle East – where conflicts abound, governments are often unstable, and regional alliances frequently shift – nuclear proliferation is particularly dangerous, said Or Rabinowitz, a scholar at Jerusalem's Hebrew University and a visiting associate professor at Stanford University.
'When nuclear-armed states are at war, the world always takes notice because we don't like it when nuclear arsenals … are available for decision-makers,' she said.
Rabinowitz says Israel's military leaders could consider deploying a nuclear weapon if they found themselves facing an extreme threat, such as a weapon of mass destruction being used against them.
Three countries other than Israel have refused to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: India, Pakistan and South Sudan. North Korea has withdrawn. Iran has signed the treaty, but it was censured earlier this month, shortly before Israel launched its operation, by the UN's nuclear watchdog – a day before Israel attacked – for violating its obligations.
People celebrate the ceasefire between Iran and Israeal at Enghelab Square in Tehran, Iran, on June 24, 2025. The ceasefire was declared on Tuesday. Photo: Xinhua
Israel's policy of ambiguity has helped it evade greater scrutiny, said Susie Snyder at the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a group that works to promote adherence to the UN treaty.
Its policy has also shone a light on the failure of Western countries to rein in nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, she said.
They 'prefer not to be reminded of their own complicity', she said.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


South China Morning Post
26 minutes ago
- South China Morning Post
Congratulations to Iran and the occasional flash of Trump genius
I love Mexican food, especially Tacos. So it pains me and spoils my appetite whenever media pundits mention the acronym for 'Trump always chickens out'. It must be admitted that most of the time, the president's erratic pronouncements and obsessive-compulsive tweets, from universal tariffs and China sanctions to military support, or the lack thereof, for Ukraine betray a complete absence of clear thinking and actual policy. But with his highly controversial strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, you have to wonder whether he had not been thinking or at least hoping a few steps ahead of most others, for once. Maybe Taco this time isn't so bad. Let me, for argument's sake, just put it on the table. Trump, against most of his advisers – both the supposedly wise as well as foolish ones, whether Maga or neocons – has escalated to de-escalate. And Tehran gets the message and is playing ball, hence its latest missile volley, in a symbolic retaliatory gesture, on an American military base in Qatar in which everyone came out relatively unscathed. Consider the previous sequence of events. First, Trump forced the Iranians to negotiate. Then, when the Israelis attacked, he tried to use that as leverage and continued negotiations. Then he joined the Israelis with the heavy US strike on nuclear-related targets and threatened to broaden the war to impose regime change in Tehran. The Iranians talked tough but responded with remarkable restraint, having warned friendly Qatar and therefore the Americans, about its forthcoming attack. Trump immediately reciprocated afterwards, and tweeted for world peace. He thanked Iran 'for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost, and nobody to be injured'. 'CONGRATULATIONS WORLD,' he wrote in all caps. 'IT'S TIME FOR PEACE!'


South China Morning Post
27 minutes ago
- South China Morning Post
Trump's Iran strikes: will short-term gains end in more long-term pain?
US President Donald Trump claimed victory after US forces attacked three key nuclear sites in Iran last weekend, but the operation might not translate into diplomatic gains – at least for now, observers said. Whether the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Iran would hold remained uncertain, they added, while Trump's unpredictable rhetoric and actions made it increasingly difficult for foreign governments, including Beijing, to trust Washington. 'In the short-run it appeared to be a gain for Trump, as the attacks dealt a significant blow to Iran's nuclear programme, but in the long term this could also make Iran determined that the only path is to pursue nuclear weapons; otherwise it would continue to be oppressed by the US and Israel,' said Wu Xinbo, director of the Centre for American Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai. Tehran's hostility with the US and Israel was unlikely to end, he added. 'Whether it is the conflict with Israel or the tensions with the US, none of these issues have been resolved … so in the short term, it may be a gain, but in the long run, it could turn into pain for the US.' Citing a preliminary classified US intelligence assessment, CNN reported on Wednesday that the US military strikes on three of Iran's key nuclear facilities did not destroy the core components of the country's nuclear programme but instead likely set it back by only a few months.


South China Morning Post
an hour ago
- South China Morning Post
Can US military adventurism outcompete China's ‘long peace' strategy?
The United States' strike on Iran's nuclear facilities on June 22 – followed abruptly by US President Donald Trump's announcement of a fragile 'complete and total ceasefire' between Israel and Iran – exposes a critical nuance in America's changing strategic posture. Where Washington pursues global primacy through continuous military intervention, gambling that overwhelming force can prompt capitulation, China charts a different course. Beijing follows a 'long peace' path, having leveraged economic statecraft and diplomacy while avoiding major military entanglements since its 1979 border war with Vietnam . This difference reflects profoundly contrasting visions of national power and international order, with profound implications for the next phase of great power competition. Trump's gambit – contingent on Iran accepting de-escalation after its retaliatory strikes on a US base in Qatar – signals a tactical shift towards limited force as a bargaining chip. This manoeuvre may diverge from past 'forever wars' but hinges on Tehran's restraint and Israel's acceptance. If Iran continues working on its internationally contested nuclear programme and support of regional insurgencies , Washington could either lose credibility or face renewed escalation. This would reaffirm the 'long war' paradigm's persistent volatility. Afghanistan , Iraq , Libya , The US attack on Iran fits its decades-long pattern of military interventions. Since the Cold War ended, the US has engaged in near-continuous operations, intervening in the Balkans Syria and Yemen This state of constant war sustains American dominance but demands colossal resources. US military spending in 20204 amounted to US$997 billion, more than the spending of the next nine militaries combined. Trump's hybrid tactic of simultaneous escalation and ceasefire proclamations reveals strategic schizophrenia: attempting to balance military deterrence with selective disengagement, yet still risking entanglement in the very quagmire it seeks to avoid.