What Happens If Iran Strikes Israel's Dimona Nuclear Reactor?
H-Tayea
As tensions surge in the Middle East following U.S. strikes on Iran's top nuclear sites, Iranian officials have issued direct threats, including a possible attack on Israel's Dimona nuclear reactor. The facility, long believed to be the foundation of Israel's secretive nuclear weapons program, holds deep strategic and symbolic weight.
Dimona is not a civilian energy site—it was built to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, making it a "breeder reactor." Unlike civilian reactors such as Iran's Bushehr, it contains smaller amounts of nuclear fuel and operates with low-enriched uranium. Despite this, experts warn that striking Dimona could trigger an environmental catastrophe.
Israel is estimated to have around 90 nuclear warheads and enough fissile material for hundreds more. The Dimona facility has recently undergone security and technical upgrades. Reports from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) suggest that Israel has tested rocket propulsion systems possibly linked to Jericho-class ballistic missiles, capable of carrying nuclear payloads.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, a direct missile strike on the reactor could lead to the release of radioactive heavy water, sparking fires and explosions. These would produce radioactive clouds that could drift over populated areas, threatening human life, wildlife, agriculture, and long-term environmental health. Although the immediate danger zone around the reactor is relatively limited—about five kilometers—the effects of such a strike could extend far beyond.
The fallout from an attack would not only create a humanitarian and ecological disaster but could also escalate into a full-scale regional or even nuclear conflict. It would mark a dangerous shift in the ongoing confrontation between Iran and Israel, with irreversible global consequences.
read more
Analysis- Turkey Has 0 Regional Allies... Why?
Analysis: Russia, Turkey... Libya in Return For Syria?
Analysis: Who Will Gain Trump's Peace Plan Fruits?
Analysis: Will Turkey's Erdogan Resort to Snap Election?
Analysis: What Are Turkey's Aspirations in Iraq?
Opinion & Analysis
Analysis: Mercenaries In Libya... Who Should Be Blamed?
Opinion & Analysis
Analysis- How 'Libya Nightmare' Takes Erdogan to Algiers
Opinion & Analysis
Analysis: What Happens After Brexit?
Opinion & Analysis
Analysis: Strategic Significance of Libya's Sirte, Jufra!
News
China Launches Largest Ever Aircraft Carrier
Sports
Former Al Zamalek Player Ibrahim Shika Passes away after Long Battle with Cancer
Lifestyle
Get to Know 2025 Eid Al Adha Prayer Times in Egypt
Videos & Features
Tragedy Overshadows MC Alger Championship Celebration: One Fan Dead, 11 Injured After Stadium Fall
Business
Fear & Greed Index Plummets to Lowest Level Ever Recorded amid Global Trade War
Arts & Culture
Zahi Hawass: Claims of Columns Beneath the Pyramid of Khafre Are Lies
News
Flights suspended at Port Sudan Airport after Drone Attacks
Videos & Features
Video: Trending Lifestyle TikToker Valeria Márquez Shot Dead during Live Stream
News
Shell Unveils Cost-Cutting, LNG Growth Plan
Technology
50-Year Soviet Spacecraft 'Kosmos 482' Crashes into Indian Ocean
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Egypt Independent
31 minutes ago
- Egypt Independent
Carney says Trump is no longer interested in annexing Canada
CNN — Canada believes US President Donald Trump is no longer interested in turning it into the 51st state, Prime Minister Mark Carney said Tuesday. Asked by CNN's Christiane Amanpour on the sidelines of the NATO meeting in the Netherlands whether Trump is still saying he wants to annex Canada, Carney replied, 'No, he is not.' 'He admires Canada,' Carney told Amanpour. 'I think it's fair to say, maybe for a period of time (he) coveted Canada.' This is not the first time an official has pronounced the annexation saga over. On May 22, Peter Hoekstra, the US ambassador to Canada, told CNN's broadcast partner CBC that 'Donald Trump is not talking about' turning Canada into the 51st state anymore. (Days later, Trump posted on social media that Canada ought to become the 51st state to reap the benefits of the president's proposed missile defense system.) Carney has frequently pronounced the old, close partnership between Canada and the United States as 'over.' He began his term by courting European partners in the United Kingdom and France, and even collaborating with Australia on new radar systems for the Canadian Arctic. Still, Carney credited Trump for pushing Canada toward higher defense spending, especially meeting the defense spending benchmark for NATO members. 'The president is focused on changing a series of bilateral relations,' Carney told Amanpour. 'We're at NATO. He's been focused on making sure that all members, Canada included … pay their fair share. I think we're doing that now.' Trump now has the 'potential to be decisive' in the situation in the Middle East, Carney also told Amanpour. While a broader peace in the region is the ultimate goal, he added, the current priority should be getting 'the basics': a ceasefire, a full resumption of humanitarian aid and the release of all hostages held in the strip. 'He's used his influence and US power in other situations. We've just seen it in Iran. It does create possibility of moving forward and there's a moral imperative to move forward,' Carney added. The Canadian leader also credited Iran for its 'proportionate' response to the US having bombed three nuclear sites: a highly telegraphed strike on a regional US military base, which was largely intercepted. 'The military action was also a diplomatic move by Iran. We never welcome, obviously, hostilities and reactions, but it was proportionate, it was de-escalatory, it appears to have been previewed,' Carney said.
Egypt Independent
32 minutes ago
- Egypt Independent
NATO summit yields a big win on defense spending for Trump but key questions over the alliance remain
Noordwijk, Netherlands CNN — NATO leaders convening Wednesday NATO leaders convening Wednesday in the Netherlands were prepared to offer President Donald Trump a major win by boosting their defense spending targets. But comments he made while flying to the conference were raising fresh concerns about his commitment to the alliance's core principal of collective defense. The split dynamic — where leaders tailored their gathering to appeal to Trump, even as he questions the core provision of membership — made for a charged atmosphere as the conference was getting underway at The Hague. Trump vowed to stand alongside fellow NATO nations a day after hedging in his support for the alliance's Article 5 pact, which says an attack against one member is an attack against all. 'We're with them all the way,' Trump said. 'If you take a look at the numbers, we're with them.' He called a pledge to be agreed to Wednesday by NATO countries to increase their defense spending 'very big news.' 'NATO is going to become very strong with us,' he said. Trump, who spent the night at a Dutch royal palace after flying from Washington, was set to attend the summit's sole plenary session before meeting on the sidelines with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky and holding a press conference. He'll spend fewer than 24 hours in the Netherlands, an intentionally truncated visit that NATO leaders designed specially to keep Trump's attention and ensure he didn't have time to blow up the intended display of unity. The central outcome of the summit — a pledge by members to boost defense spending to 5 percent of GDP in a decade, up from the current target of 2 percent — is exactly what Trump has been demanding over the past several years. The final communiqué in which the spending target will be affirmed will be dramatically shortened, omitting any controversial language that might spark resistance from the United States. And while Ukraine and its president are still on the agenda, the country's war with Russia will take a far less prominent place than in NATO summits past, a sign of the differences emerging between Europe and Trump over how to resolve the conflict. NATO chief Mark Rutte, whose relationship with Trump extends back to his years as Dutch prime minister, elected to place the spending targets at the center of the summit and made sure to credit Trump for making it happen in a private message that Trump later posted on social media. 'You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done. Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win,' Rutte wrote, before wishing the US president a safe journey to the Netherlands. The fawning tone prompted some private eyebrow raising among European officials, but Rutte denied any discomfort when a reporter asked Wednesday whether the episode wasn't a little embarrassing. 'Absolutely not,' he said. 'What is in that text message is a statement of fact and I'm totally fine that he shared.' As it turned out, Trump didn't actually have to be at the NATO summit in order to raise fresh concerns about his commitment to the alliance, which he's not been shy about criticizing in the past. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump stopped well short of offering a full-throated endorsement of the alliance's cornerstone Article 5 pledge of collective defense. 'It depends on your definition. There are numerous definitions of Article 5,' Trump said when asked about his commitment to the pledge, before adding: 'I'm committed to being their friends and I'm committed to helping them.' It was not quite the show of support many European leaders had hoped for, though few officials voiced surprise at Trump's comments as the summit was getting underway. For his part, Rutte said he was unconcerned about Trump's NATO commitment. 'For me there is absolute clarity that the United States is totally committed to NATO, totally committed to Article 5, and yes, there is also an expectation — that will be fulfilled today — that the Canadians and Europeans will speed up their spending,' he said. This story has updated with additional developments.
Al-Ahram Weekly
an hour ago
- Al-Ahram Weekly
ANALYSIS: Will the fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel hold? One factor could be crucial to it sticking - Region
After 12 days of war, US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran that would bring to an end the most dramatic, direct conflict between the two nations in decades. Israel and Iran both agreed to adhere to the ceasefire, though they said they would respond with force to any breach. If the ceasefire holds – a big if – the key question will be whether this signals the start of lasting peace, or merely a brief pause before renewed conflict. As contemporary war studies show, peace tends to endure under one of two conditions: either the total defeat of one side or the establishment of mutual deterrence. This means both parties refrain from aggression because the expected costs of retaliation far outweigh any potential gains. What did each side gain? The war has marked a turning point for Israel in its decades-long confrontation with Iran. For the first time, Israel successfully brought a prolonged battle to Iranian soil, shifting the conflict from confrontations with Iranian-backed proxy militant groups to direct strikes on Iran itself. This was made possible largely due to Israel's success over the past two years in weakening Iran's regional proxy network, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shiite militias in Syria. Over the past two weeks, Israel has inflicted significant damage on Iran's military and scientific elite, killing several high-ranking commanders and nuclear scientists. The civilian toll was also high. Additionally, Israel achieved a major strategic objective by pulling the United States directly into the conflict. In coordination with Israel, the US launched strikes on three of Iran's primary nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Despite these gains, Israel has not accomplished all of its stated goals. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had voiced support for regime change, urging Iranians to rise up against Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's government, but the senior leadership in Iran remains intact. Additionally, Israel has not fully eliminated Iran's missile program. (Iran continued striking to the last minute before the ceasefire.) And Tehran did not acquiesce to Trump's pre-war demand to end uranium enrichment. Although Iran was caught off-guard by Israel's attacks — particularly as it was engaged in nuclear negotiations with the US — it responded by launching hundreds of missiles towards Israel. While many were intercepted, a significant number penetrated Israeli air defences, causing widespread destruction in major cities, dozens of fatalities and hundreds of injuries. Iran has demonstrated its capacity to strike back, though Israel has succeeded in destroying many of its air defence systems, some ballistic missile assets (including missile launchers) and multiple energy facilities. Since the beginning of the assault, Iranian officials have repeatedly called for a halt to resume negotiations. Under such intense pressure, Iran has realised it would not benefit from a prolonged war of attrition with Israel — especially as both nations face mounting costs and the risk of depleting their military stockpiles if the war continues. As theories of victory suggest, success in war is defined not only by the damage inflicted, but by achieving core strategic goals and weakening the enemy's will and capacity to resist. While Israel claims to have achieved the bulk of its objectives, the extent of the damage to Iran's nuclear program is not fully known, nor is its capacity to continue enriching uranium. Both sides could remain locked in a volatile standoff over Iran's nuclear program, with the conflict potentially reigniting whenever either side perceives a strategic opportunity. Sticking point over Iran's nuclear program Iran faces even greater challenges when it emerges from the war. With a heavy toll on its leadership and nuclear infrastructure, Tehran will likely prioritise rebuilding its deterrence capability. That includes acquiring new advanced air defence systems — potentially from China — and restoring key components of its missile and nuclear programs. (Some experts say Iran has not used some of its most powerful missiles to maintain this deterrence.) Iranian officials have claimed they safeguarded more than 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium before the attacks. This stockpile could theoretically be converted into nine to ten nuclear warheads if further enriched to 90%. Trump declared Iran's nuclear capacity had been 'totally obliterated', whereas Rafael Grossi, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog chief, said damage to Iran's facilities was 'very significant'. However, analysts have argued Iran will still have a depth of technical knowledge accumulated over decades. Depending on the extent of the damage to its underground facilities, Iran could be capable of restoring and even accelerating its program in a relatively short time frame. And the chances of reviving negotiations on Iran's nuclear program appear slimmer than ever. What might future deterrence look like? The war has fundamentally reshaped how both Iran and Israel perceive deterrence — and how they plan to secure it going forward. For Iran, the conflict has reinforced the belief that its survival is at stake. With regime change openly discussed during the war, Iran's leaders appear more convinced than ever that true deterrence requires two key pillars: nuclear weapons capability, and deeper strategic alignment with China and Russia. As a result, Iran is expected to move rapidly to restore and advance its nuclear program, potentially moving towards actual weaponisation — a step it had long avoided, officially. At the same time, Tehran is likely to accelerate military and economic cooperation with Beijing and Moscow to hedge against isolation. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi emphasised this close engagement with Russia during a visit to Moscow this week, particularly on nuclear matters. Israel, meanwhile, sees deterrence as requiring constant vigilance and a credible threat of overwhelming retaliation. In the absence of diplomatic breakthroughs, Israel may adopt a policy of immediate preemptive strikes on Iranian facilities or leadership figures if it detects any new escalation — particularly related to Iran's nuclear program. In this context, the current ceasefire already appears fragile. Without comprehensive negotiations that address the core issues — namely, Iran's nuclear capabilities — the pause in hostilities may prove temporary. Mutual deterrence may prevent a more protracted war for now, but the balance remains precarious and could collapse with little warning. *Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University **This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:
