Why attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities have placed Israel’s own secret arsenal in the spotlight

File picture dated September 8, 2002 shows a partial view of the Dimona nuclear power plant in the southern Israeli Negev desert. (AFP)
Short Url
Updated 17 June 2025
Follow

Why attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities have placed Israel’s own secret arsenal in the spotlight

  • Estimates suggest Israel possesses at least 90 nuclear warheads, deliverable by aircraft, land-based missiles,
  • Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses to place its facilities under international safeguards

LONDON: To this day, Israel maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity in regard to its nuclear capabilities, but it is a fact accepted by experts worldwide that Israel has had the bomb since just before the Six Day War in 1967.

And not just one bomb. Recent estimates by the independent Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which has kept tabs on the world’s nuclear weapons and the states that possess them since 1966, suggest Israel has at least 90 nuclear warheads.

SIPRI believes that these warheads are capable of being delivered anywhere within a maximum radius of 4,500 km by its F-15, F-161, and F-35I “Adir” aircraft, its 50 land-based Jericho II and III missiles, and by about 20 Popeye Turbo cruise missiles, launched from submarines.




A woman looks at a wall decorated with national flags during the IAEA's Board of Governors meeting at the agency's headquarters in Vienna, Austria on June 3, 2024. (AFP)

While Iran is a signatory to the international nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Israel is not, which begs the question: while Israel is wreaking havoc in Iran, with the declared aim of crippling a nuclear development program, which the International Atomic Energy Authority says is about energy, not weaponry, why is the international community not questioning Israel’s?

In March, during a meeting of the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Jassim Yacoub Al-Hammadi, Qatar’s ambassador to Austria, announced that Qatar was calling for “intensified international efforts” to bring all Israeli nuclear facilities “under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency and for Israel to join the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-nuclear state.”

Israel refuses to sign up to the NPT or cooperate with the IAEA. Furthermore, it is a little remembered fact that since 1981 Israel has been in breach of UN Resolution 487.

This was prompted by an attack on a nuclear research facility in Iraq by Israel on June 7, 1981, which was condemned by the UN Security Council as a “clear violation of the Charter of the UN and the norms of international conduct.”

Iraq, as the Security Council pointed out, had been a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty since it came into force in 1970.

Like all states, especially those developing, Iraq had the “inalienable sovereign right …  to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes in accordance with their present and future needs and consistent with the internationally accepted objectives of preventing nuclear-weapons proliferation.”




Iran won’t permit the blood of its martyrs to go unavenged, nor ignore violation of its airspace, says Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader

The resolution, which remains in force, called on Israel “urgently to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency.”

Israel has never complied with Resolution 487.

That ambiguity extends to Israel’s only officially stated position on nuclear weapons, which it has repeated since the 1960s, that it “won’t be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East.”




A picture shows the unrecognised Bedouin village of Ras Jrabah, east of Dimona city (background) in southern Israel, on May 29, 2024. (AFP)

Israeli policymakers, SIPRI says, “have previously interpreted ‘introduce nuclear weapons’ as publicly declaring, testing or actually using the nuclear capability, which Israel says it has not yet done.”

In November 2023, about a month after the Hamas-led attack on Israel triggered the war in Gaza, Israeli Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu, a member of the ultra-nationalist Jewish Power party, said Israel should drop “some kind of atomic bomb” on Gaza, “to kill everyone.”

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu quickly suspended Eliyahu from the cabinet. Eliyahu’s statements “were not based in reality,” Netanyahu said, while Eliyah himself took to X to say that it was “clear to all sensible people” that his statement was “metaphorical.”




Buildings of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) headquarters reflect in doors with the agency's logo during the IAEA’s Board of Governors meeting in Vienna, Austria on June 13, 2025. (AFP)

Arsen Ostrovsky, an international human rights lawyer who on X describes himself as a “proud Zionist,” replied: “It is clear to all sensible people that you are a stupid idiot. Even if metaphorical, it was inexcusable. You need to know when to keep your mouth shut.”

Israel has no nuclear electricity generating plants, but it does have what experts agree is a vast nuclear facility.

The Shimon Peres Negev Nuclear Research Center — built in the late 1950s and early 1960s, allegedly with French assistance, and renamed for the former Israeli prime minister following his death in 2016 — is a heavily guarded complex in the Negev Desert barely 70 km from the border with Egypt.

Iran has ballistic missiles that are capable of reaching the Negev Nuclear Research Center, approximately 1,500 km from Tehran. Why is Tehran hitting Israeli cities in retaliation to Israel’s attempt to destroy Iran’s nuclear industry, when it could attack Israel’s nuclear facility?

The answer, most likely, comes down to the “Samson Option.”

The Samson Option is a protocol for mutual destruction, the existence of which Israel has never admitted, but has never denied.

As Arab News reported in March, Israel is believed to have twice come close to using its nuclear weaponry.

In 2017, a claim emerged that on the eve of the Arab-Israeli war in 1967 Israel had been on the cusp of unleashing a “demonstration” nuclear blast designed to intimidate its enemies.

The plan was revealed in interviews with retired general Itzhak Yaakov, conducted by Avner Cohen, an Israeli-American historian and leading scholar of Israel’s nuclear history, and published only after Yaakov’s death.

In 2003, Cohen revealed that during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when it again appeared that Israeli forces were about to be overrun, then Prime Minister Golda Meir had authorized the use of nuclear bombs and missiles as a last-stand defense.

This doomsday plan, codenamed Samson, was named for the Israelite strongman who, captured by the Philistines, pulled down the pillars of their temple, destroying himself along with his enemies.

Mordecha Vanunu, an Israeli nuclear technician and peace activist, revealed Israel’s nuclear secrets back in 1986.

Ensnared in the UK by a female Israeli agent, Mordechai was lured to Rome, where he was kidnapped by Mossad agents and taken back to Israel on an Israeli navy ship.

Vanunu, charged with treason, was sentenced to 18 years in prison, much of which he spent in solitary confinement. Released in April 2004, he remains under a series of strictly enforced restrictions, which prevent him from leaving Israel or even speaking to any foreigner.

“We all believe that Israel has a nuclear capability,” Ahron Bregman, a senior teaching fellow in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London’s Institute of Middle East Studies, told Arab News in March.

“The fact that Israel found it necessary to catch Vanunu and put him in jail, and continues to impose strict limitations on him, just proves that it has probably got it.”

The emergence of another Vanunu, especially in the current climate, is highly unlikely.

“Israelis are scared,” said Bregman, who served in the Israeli army for six years in the 1980s.

“Even if you believe it is a good idea to restrict Israel’s behavior and make sure it doesn’t do anything stupid, you are scared to act because you know they will abduct you and put you in jail.

“Israel is very tough on those who reveal its secrets.”

 


Israel’s Somaliland gambit: what’s at risk for the region?

Updated 28 December 2025
Follow

Israel’s Somaliland gambit: what’s at risk for the region?

  • Somaliland’s strategic location near the Bab Al-Mandab raises fears an Israeli security presence could turn the Red Sea into a powder keg
  • Critics argue the decision revives Israel’s “periphery” strategy, encouraging fragmentation of Arab and Muslim states for strategic advantage

RIYADH: It perhaps comes as no surprise to seasoned regional observers that Israel has become the first and only UN member state to formally recognize the Republic of Somaliland as an independent and sovereign nation.

On Dec. 26, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar signed a joint declaration of mutual recognition alongside Somaliland’s President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi.

For a region that has existed in a state of diplomatic limbo since declaring independence from Somalia in 1991, this development is, as Abdullahi described it, “a historic moment.” But beneath the surface lies a calculated and high-stakes geopolitical gamble.

While several nations, including the UK, Ethiopia, Turkiye, and the UAE, have maintained liaison offices in the capital of Hargeisa, none had been willing to cross the Rubicon of formal state recognition.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, assisted by Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, signs the document formally recognizing Somalia's breakaway Somaliland region on Dec. 26, 2025. (AFP)

Israel’s decision to break this decades-long international consensus is a deliberate departure from the status quo.

By taking this step, Israel has positioned itself as the primary benefactor of a state that has long sought a seat at the international table. As Dya-Eddine Said Bamakhrama, the ambassador of Djibouti to Saudi Arabia, told Arab News, such a move is deeply disruptive.

“A unilateral declaration of separation is neither a purely legal nor an isolated political act. Rather, it carries profound structural consequences, foremost among them the deepening of internal divisions and rivalries among citizens of the same nation, the erosion of the social and political fabric of the state, and the opening of the door to protracted conflicts,” he said.

Critics argue that Israel has long lobbied for the further carving up of the region under various guises.

This recognition of Somaliland is seen by many in the Arab world as a continuation of a strategy aimed at weakening centralized Arab and Muslim states by encouraging peripheral secessionist movements.

Somaliland’s President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi. (AFP file photo)

In the Somali context, this path is perceived not as a humanitarian gesture, but as a method to undermine the national understandings reached within the framework of a federal Somalia.

According to Ambassador Bamakhrama, the international community has historically resisted such moves to prioritize regional stability over “separatist tendencies whose dangers and high costs history has repeatedly demonstrated.”

By ignoring this precedent, Israel is accused of using recognition as a tool to fragment regional cohesion.

In the past, Israel has often framed its support for non-state actors or separatist groups under the pretext of protecting vulnerable minorities — such as the Druze in the Levant or Maronites in Lebanon.

This “Periphery Doctrine” served a dual purpose: it created regional allies and supported Israel’s own claim of being a Jewish state by validating the idea of ethnic or religious self-determination.

However, in the case of Somaliland, the gloves are off completely. The argument here is not about protecting a religious minority, as Somaliland is a staunchly Muslim-majority territory. Instead, the rationale is nakedly geopolitical.

Israel appears to be seeking strategic depth in a region where it has historically been isolated. Netanyahu explicitly linked the move to “the spirit of the Abraham Accords,” signaling that the primary drivers are security, maritime control, and intelligence gathering rather than the internal demographics of the Horn of Africa.

The first major win for Israel in this maneuver is the expansion of its diplomatic orbit. It could be argued that the refusal of the federal government in Mogadishu to join the Abraham Accords was an artificial barrier.

The evidence for this claim, from the Israeli perspective, is that Somaliland — a territory with a population of nearly six million and its own functioning democratic institutions — was eager to join.

Abdullahi said Somaliland would join the Abraham Accords as a “step toward regional and global peace.” Yet, this peace comes with a clear quid pro quo — formal recognition.

Residents wave Somaliland flags as they gather in downtown Hargeisa on December 26, 2025, to celebrate Israel's announcement recognizing Somaliland's statehood. (AFP)

Israel can now argue that the “Somaliland model” proves that many other Arab and Muslim entities are willing to normalize relations if their specific political or territorial interests are met.

This challenges the unified stance of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which maintain that normalization must be tied to the resolution of the Palestinian conflict.

The second major gain for Israel is the potential for a military presence in the Horn of Africa. Somaliland’s strategic position on the Gulf of Aden, near the Bab Al-Mandab Strait, makes it a prime location for monitoring maritime traffic.

This is a ticking time bomb given that just across the narrow sea lies Yemen, where the Houthi movement — whose slogan includes “Death to Israel” — controls significant territory.

Israel may claim that a military or intelligence presence in Somaliland will boost regional security by countering Houthi threats to shipping. However, regional neighbors fear it will likely inflame tensions.

Ambassador Bamakhrama warned that an Israeli military presence would “effectively turn the region into a powder keg.”

Ambassador Dya-Eddine Said Bamakhrama, Djibouti's envoy to Saudi Arabia. (Supplied)

“Should Israel proceed with establishing a military base in a geopolitically sensitive location... such a move would be perceived in Tel Aviv as a strategic gain directed against the Arab states bordering the Red Sea — namely Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, and Djibouti,” he said.

The Red Sea is a “vital international maritime corridor,” and any shift in its geopolitical balance would have “repercussions extending far beyond the region,” he added.

The recognition is also a clear violation of international law and the principle of territorial integrity as enshrined in the UN Charter.

While proponents point to exceptions like South Sudan or Kosovo, those cases involved vastly different circumstances, including prolonged genocidal conflicts and extensive UN-led transitions.

In contrast, the African Union has been firm that Somaliland remains an integral part of Somalia.

The backlash has been swift and severe. The Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the OIC have all decried the move. Even US President Donald Trump, despite his role in the original Abraham Accords, has not endorsed Israel’s decision.

When asked whether Washington would follow suit, Trump replied with a blunt “no,” adding, “Does anyone know what Somaliland is, really?”

This lack of support from Washington highlights the isolation of Israel’s position. The OIC and the foreign ministers of 21 countries have issued a joint statement warning of “serious repercussions” and rejecting any potential link between this recognition and reported plans to displace Palestinians from Gaza to the African region.

Israel’s recognition of Somaliland appears to be a calculated gamble to trade diplomatic norms for strategic advantage.

While Hargeisa celebrates a long-awaited milestone, the rest of the world sees a dangerous precedent that threatens to destabilize one of the world’s most volatile corridors.

As Ambassador Bamakhrama says, the establishment of such ties “would render (Israel) the first and only state to break with the international consensus” — a move that prioritizes “narrow strategic calculations” over the stability of the international system.