The 2023 controversy involving Israeli Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu’s nuclear bomb comment starkly spotlighted a paradox that has long defined Israel’s nuclear doctrine: a vocal alarm over Iran’s nuclear aspirations juxtaposed with silence and secrecy around its own arsenal. The fallout from Eliyahu’s statement—swift suspension by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and international condemnation—highlighted the taboo surrounding any open discussion of Israel's nuclear capabilities.
Israel’s Longstanding Policy: “Nuclear Opacity”
For decades, Israel has followed a “neither confirm nor deny” policy regarding its nuclear weapons program. This strategic ambiguity, often referred to as nuclear opacity, allows Israel to deter adversaries without openly violating regional or international norms—particularly the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which it has never signed.
The state’s official position is that it “will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East,” a phrase crafted to reassure allies and deter enemies without affirming possession of such arms.
Global Estimates and Intelligence Assessments
Despite its silence, numerous international organizations and intelligence reports believe:
-
Israel possesses at least 90 nuclear warheads (according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute – SIPRI).
-
These are most likely produced using plutonium from the Dimona facility, with delivery systems ranging from aircraft to submarines to Jericho ballistic missiles.
The Dimona nuclear facility—officially the Negev Nuclear Research Centre—has been at the heart of speculation since the late 1950s. First acknowledged as a research reactor, satellite images and declassified U.S. intelligence later revealed that plutonium reprocessing capabilities had been established there by the early 1960s. By the 1970s, the U.S. was convinced Israel had built nuclear weapons.
Calls for Transparency and International Oversight
In March 2024, at a meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors in Vienna, Qatar renewed its call for Israel to:
-
Join the NPT as a non-nuclear state.
-
Place all its nuclear facilities, particularly Dimona, under IAEA safeguards.
Israel has ignored similar demands in the past, including UN Security Council Resolution 487 (1981), which urged inspections following Israel’s bombing of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor. To date, the IAEA has never inspected the Dimona site, and no formal mechanism allows such oversight.
Satellite Evidence of Modernization
Over the past five years, satellite imagery and expert analysis (reported by The New York Times and others) have shown:
-
Significant construction and expansion at the Dimona complex.
-
Speculation of a new reactor being built, potentially enhancing Israel’s plutonium production—which could serve both military and space-related purposes.
This aligns with SIPRI's assessment that Israel may be modernizing its nuclear infrastructure, possibly in response to regional shifts or as part of broader strategic recalibration.
Strategic Independence from the U.S. Nuclear Umbrella
Interestingly, Israel is not part of the U.S. nuclear umbrella, a security arrangement that extends deterrence to American allies. This absence underscores two realities:
-
Israel’s perceived self-sufficiency in nuclear deterrence.
-
A deliberate distance maintained between Israel’s undeclared arsenal and U.S. formal commitments, likely to avoid diplomatic or legal complications under the NPT regime.
Political and Strategic Implications
Eliyahu’s 2023 remark, though condemned by Israeli leadership, inadvertently revealed the latent fears around Israel’s regional posture:
-
The use of nuclear language, even rhetorically, suggests heightened anxiety within Israel’s security establishment during intense conflict phases.
-
It also underscores the delicate balance Israel must maintain: leveraging deterrence through ambiguity while avoiding provocations that could invite scrutiny or escalation.
Conclusion
Israel’s nuclear program remains one of the world’s most open secrets—a doctrine wrapped in ambiguity, sustained by geopolitical necessity, and shielded by a policy of calculated silence. However, as calls for accountability grow, especially amid heightened regional tensions and global focus on non-proliferation, the pressure for transparency may intensify. Whether Israel will continue to successfully resist that pressure remains a defining question in Middle East security discourse.
