What to know about Israel's nuclear weapons program
The Federation of American Scientists and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, an independent international organization dedicated to researching arms control and disarmament, estimate that Israel has around 90 nuclear warheads.
Due to Israel's official stance of ambiguity regarding its nuclear program, the organizations note the difficulties in determining the extent of the country's nuclear capabilities.
"They are intentionally secretive about their nuclear capabilities and that's part of the policy that they follow," John Erath, senior policy director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, said in a phone interview Wednesday.
He said that policy was likely in part to ensure Israel's "potential adversaries would not know what they can do in the event of a crisis."
How it began
Historical records suggest Israeli leaders had hoped to build a nuclear arsenal to help ensure the country's safety after it was founded in 1948 in the years after the Holocaust, according to the Jewish Virtual Library, an online encyclopedia published by the American foreign policy analyst Mitchell Bard's nonprofit organization American–Israeli Cooperative Enterprise.
In a July 1969 declassified memo to President Richard Nixon, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said that Israel had committed "not to be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Near East," when buying the U.S.' Phantom aircraft, though it has never been made clear precisely what that means.
Mordechai Vanunu, a former Israeli nuclear technician who worked at Israel's atomic reactor in Dimona in the Negev Desert in the late 1960s and early 1970s, sent shock waves around the world when he disclosed details and photographs of the reactor to Britain's Sunday Times newspaper.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Is Iran about to choke the West's energy supply?
Nato has learned nothing from Russia's energy blackmail – and Iran is about to prove it. With precision warheads and hypersonic payloads tearing Israeli and Iranian skies, you might think we're witnessing the next frontier in modern warfare. But it's an old game, played with old rules. And once again, Tehran reaches for its well-worn lever of power: energy blackmail. Already, markets are twitching. Crude has jumped over 10 per cent Senior Iranian officials, including Revolutionary Guard commander Esmail Kowsari, have warned that, if Israeli attacks continue, Tehran will not only exit the non-proliferation treaty (thus tearing up its last fig-leaf of nuclear restraint), but will also close the Strait of Hormuz. That's no idle bluster. A third of the world's oil and a fifth of its liquefied natural gas flows through this 21-mile corridor. Already, markets are twitching. Crude has jumped over 10 per cent. Should the blockade materialise, some project $150-a-barrel oil: a level unseen even during the early days of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Faced with this looming storm, Nato has chosen…silence. There's been the usual call for de-escalation, but Secretary-General Mark Rutte leans on Washington to act. As for the upcoming Nato summit next week, the agenda appears to be more focused on Russia and defence budgets. Iran barely makes a footnote. This is staggering. Europe's last encounter with Moscow's weaponisation of energy should have been a wake-up call. Cyberattacks and sabotage targeted LNG terminals, undersea pipelines, and critical infrastructure. It devastated industrial output and cost Europe hundreds of billions of pounds. Yet Nato's energy strategy remains anaemic, overly reactive and built around tabletop scenarios rather than hardened defences. Space and cyberspace are treated as frontline domains. Energy, bizarrely, isn't. That strategic blind spot has consequences. All Iran needs to do is plant doubt. The markets will recoil. Oil prices will spike. Russia, as Tehran's close ally, will pocket the windfall, doubling down in Ukraine with fresh funds. And while Hamas and Hezbollah may now be spent forces from Tehran's perspective, Iran still has foxes in the field, particularly in Africa, where the Polisario Front remains a useful partner. This is why Nato cannot afford to palm off responsibility to the Americans and sleepwalk into another energy crisis. The economic and political costs are simply too high. What's needed is a harder-nosed energy doctrine. The long-term answer lies in renewables. The West must sprint, not stumble, toward clean energy independence. But in the short term, we must secure reliable energy flows from more reliable partners in North Africa and North America. It also means investing heavily in dual-use energy-defence infrastructure. LNG ports like those in Świnoujście and Klaipėda on the Baltic, sit at the fault lines of the next potential hybrid assault. These sites must be shielded with cybersecurity and military bulwarks, especially as energy routes become prime targets in future conflicts. If one ally's energy infrastructure is sabotaged, it must trigger a collective Nato response Nato must also draw a new red line. A legislative revolution, no less: an Energy Article 5. If one ally's energy infrastructure is sabotaged, it must trigger a collective Nato response. This would signal clearly that energy blackmail won't be tolerated. Of course, this demands more than lofty declarations. Political will is one thing; paying for it is another. Nato's push for 5 per cent of GDP on defence sounds bold until you remember it took decades just to drag most members to the 2 per cent baseline. But for all the alarm it causes with Hormuz sabre-rattling, the Gulf region may hold the solution to the problem, becoming one of the West's most important energy investors. After all, Gulf states like the UAE and Saudi Arabia are awash with capital. They know the clock is ticking on oil. That's why they're pouring billions into renewables, infrastructure, and energy technology across the West. Look at Masdar, the UAE's clean energy powerhouse, which recently raised $1 billion (£740 million) to fund 100 GW of renewables, including major projects in Germany and the Baltic Sea. Or Qatar's 20-year LNG deal with Germany, signed at the height of the energy panic. Then there's ADNOC, Abu Dhabi's national oil company. It recently finalised a $16 billion (£12 billion) deal to acquire Covestro, a German chemicals firm battered by the gas crisis. It's also planning to invest a staggering $440 billion (£320 billion) over the next decade in U.S. energy, spanning LNG terminals, renewables, and petrochemicals. Its current $19 billion (£14 billion) bid for Australian gas producer Santos further expands this global footprint. These are vital acts of strategic underwriting. They help insulate Western economies from hostile actors, and they show that energy security needn't rest solely on the state's shoulders. Private capital, deployed wisely, can be a force multiplier. The U.S. has already secured over $2 trillion (£1.5 trilion) in Gulf investment, so why the sluggishness elsewhere? Nato should be chasing these deals with equal urgency. There's a clear path here: a hybrid strategy of asymmetric leverage, using capital to reinforce energy defences. If Nato can't spend its way to resilience, it must attract the money that will. We cannot delay until the next crisis comes knocking. Because once Iran shows the West how energy can humble empires, every rogue regime will come hunting for the spigot.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Why Muslim-majority countries have turned against Iran
Swift condemnations have poured in from the Muslim world castigating Israel for bombing Iran. The UAE condemned Israel 'in the strongest terms', Jordan spoke up against Israeli attacks 'threatening regional stability', Saudi Arabia denounced 'blatant Israeli aggressions', Turkey espoused 'an end to Israel's banditry', while various Muslim diplomatic groups, including the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), demanded 'international action' against the Jewish State. But cloaked underneath this predictably farcical rhetoric of 'Muslim unity' are the evolving interests of many of these states, which today align seamlessly with Israel. Saudi Arabia has described 'evil' Iran as the 'head of the snake' In Israel's immediate neighbourhood, Lebanese officials are blocking the depleted Iranian jihadist proxy Hezbollah from taking action against Israel. Meanwhile, the Ahmed al-Sharaa-led Syria, after toppling the pro-Iran Bashar al-Assad regime, has been negotiating a peace deal to recognise Israel and allow Syrian territory to be used to block Iranian attacks. Jordan, meanwhile, is directly intercepting Iranian missiles. This is similar to its downing of drones last year, as part of a regional military coalition featuring Saudi Arabia and the UAE that provided key intelligence against Iran. Turkey, too, reportedly had prior knowledge of Israeli strikes on Iran. Sunni Gulf states have seen Shia Iran as an imperial threat in the region since clerics took over Tehran following the Iranian revolution in 1979. They accuse Iran of backing Shia uprisings against Sunni rulers in countries like Bahrain, along with pushing militia in Iraq and Yemen to aspire to propel Shia regimes. Of course, these Sunni states, led by Saudi Arabia, have long used jihadist proxies to exploit the same Sunni–Shia fault-lines and thwart Iranian plans in order to maintain their own regional hegemony. Riyadh went a step further by formulating a military alliance of Sunni states, the Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition, aimed at Iran and its Shia allies. But while the Sunni–Shia sectarian divide within Islam is 14 centuries old, in recent years the antagonism has crossed the weapons-grade threshold following the advent of a very modern threat: the nuclear bomb. When Israel struck Iranian nuclear sites and eliminated scientists along with key generals, it also inadvertently did so on behalf of leading Sunni regimes that have long been petrified by the prospect of Iran building a nuclear weapon. Saudi Arabia, which has described 'evil' Iran as the 'head of the snake', has repeatedly condemned the US nuclear deal with Iran in 2015. It has also regularly urged other Muslim-majority countries to reject 'Iranian terrorism'. Only a couple of weeks ago, Saudi defence minister Prince Khalid bin Salman warned Iranian officials to accept US president Donald Trump's offer of a new nuclear agreement or face the Israeli strikes that followed a little over a fortnight later. A similar message was delivered by the UAE to Iran in March. The Gulf states normalising relations with Israel are doing so as part of their modernising bids. This entails shunning violent Islamic laws and codes, from which their erstwhile antisemitic rhetoric against the Jewish State originates. This move is critical in order to diversify their petro-economies, which require regional stability to attract global investment. While sanctions-hit Iran has even more to gain financially by embracing moderation and peace in the region, it does not have a monarchy that could simply flip the switch on decades of spreading radical Islam and jihadist militancy. Self-identifying as 'resistance' against the West and Israel and flying the 'flag of Islam against infidels' is a matter of survival for the clerics in Tehran, even as the writing is on the wall for Iran's rulers following the fall of their proxies in Syria and Lebanon. If the Iranian regime is to go, it should ideally be toppled by the Iranians, who have lived under its brutalities for almost half a century, with local protests and attacks against the clergy increasing in recent years. While there are fears among the Iranian populace that the war could cause destruction similar to that seen in Gaza, there are millions of Muslims across the region who have suffered at the hands of Iran and its militias, and who would celebrate the demise of Iranian clerical rule – even if it is Israel that is to deal the final blow. And the Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, have already laid the groundwork to pose as the saviours and custodians of these Muslims in the aftermath of Israeli strikes they are officially condemning. Saudi Arabia has conveniently distanced itself from what is, in effect, the execution of its plans against Iran by officially normalising relations with Tehran following a China-brokered deal in 2023, after seven years of severed ties. This has allowed Riyadh to publicly pose as a mediator in Iran's nuclear talks with the US, while it covertly delivers Israeli threats to Tehran and continues to inform Washington of its intention to acquire nuclear arms. Like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and Turkey have their own plans to lead the Muslim world once the only non-Sunni claimant for the same – Iran – is effectively sidelined. All of these states, however, need Israel to eliminate the Iranian regime so as not to completely alienate Shia populations. Public hostility towards Israel will continue to grow in these countries as they quietly celebrate the gains of the Jewish state.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Casual threats of annihilation from Trump are not reality TV stunts
The spectacle is as grotesque as it is predictable. Here we have a man whose entire career is built on graft and bluster, a conman who has spent decades swindling contractors, stiffing workers, and peddling conspiracy theories, now playing at empire with the lives of millions. READ MORE: Donald Trump on whether US will strike Iran: 'I may do it' His rhetoric – equal parts mob boss and megalomaniac –would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous. When he boasts of 'complete and total control of the skies over Iran' and casually threatens to assassinate the country's supreme leader, one half-expects him to segue into a plug for Trump Steaks or a rant about 'fake news.' But this is no reality TV stunt. The consequences of Trump's bloodlust are horrifyingly real. The US military, that vast engine of imperial violence, is surging bombers, warships, and God knows what else into the region, while Trump all but dares Tehran to retaliate so he can justify an even greater bloodbath. His demand that Tehran's citizens 'evacuate' carries the unmistakable whiff of nuclear menace – a threat as reckless as it is depraved. READ MORE: Angela Rayner does not rule out following US into war with Iran Of course, the usual suspects are lining up to cheer this madness. The G7, that club of imperialist powers, has dutifully parroted the lie that Iran – not the nuclear-armed Israel, not the US with its endless regime-change wars – is the 'principal source of regional instability'. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party, ever eager to prove its bipartisan commitment to militarism, has offered its full-throated support. Adam Schiff, that perennial windbag of the liberal establishment, has already greenlit further aggression, proving once again that when it comes to war, there is no opposition party in America. The truth is, this war is not about nukes, or terrorism, or any of the other threadbare pretexts trotted out by Washington. It is about oil, about empire, about the desperate flailing of a capitalist system in terminal decay. Trump, that bloated avatar of American decline, is hurtling toward catastrophe because he – like the oligarchs he serves – has no other cards left to play. Alan Hinnrichs Dundee IRAN doesn't want nukes to destroy Israel, it wants nukes to deter the West from doing to Iran what it has done to the rest of the Middle East. Who can blame Iran? Iran is one of the world's oldest countries, and whether they have proxies in other countries or do bad things to their people, the fact is that Iran has had one war in the last 200 years and it was started by Saddam's Iraq. Google how many wars the USA has had in its 320 or so years, then google how many military bases the USA has around the planet. READ MORE: Kelly Given: Israel's aggression makes mockery of self defence claims The fact is, it's the West that is the warmongering terrorist. Israel attacks Iran out of hate, the USA helps due to its liking for other countries' oil. The UK tags along trying to look like a continent, but like Trump, ends up looking incontinent. Scotland AND England need independence from these warmongering British nationalists who keep power and who have sold their souls to the donor at the expense of the voter. They can't feed or heat pensioners, who already have the worst pensions in the developed world, but here we are fighting two proxy wars against Russia and Iran. British nationalism and its unaffordable world stage must go. The UK must return to being independent countries. The days of England's huge Westminster majority controlling everything must be brought to an end. British nationalism is a disease, and there is a cure. Independence. Bill Robertson via email THE US-Israel war against Iran (Trump using 'we' on Tuesday confirms this) is reminiscent of the Iraq war, where the smokescreen of imaginary weapons of mass destruction was really about regime change. Deja vu! Trump and his administration lack the diplomatic nous to prevent wars and genocide. Trump declared there would have been no Ukraine invasion if he had been in power, bravado chest-beating but he has failed to stop it or reign in Israel's war in Iran and genocide in Palestine, so it is unlikely he would have stopped the Ukraine war – not until his good friend Putin had achieved his objectives, just like now. A Wilson Stirlingshire I AM writing in response to Peter Thomson's letter in Wednesday's National. I made no comment on Peter's letter of the 16th in my letter, my comments referred to Leah Gunn Barrett's from the 16th. Norman Robertson via email
