In the realm of global nuclear politics, few topics are as contentious and shrouded in secrecy as Israel's nuclear capabilities. Despite widespread speculation and expert assumptions, Israel maintains a policy known as "amimut," or "deliberate ambiguity." This article delves into the intricacies of Israel's nuclear policy, its historical context, and the implications it holds for regional and global security.

What is amimut?

Amimut, the Hebrew term for "deliberate ambiguity," encapsulates Israel's approach to its nuclear capabilities. This policy is designed to keep both allies and adversaries guessing about the extent of its nuclear arsenal. Media outside Israel claim it could possess between 80 and 400 nuclear warheads, but Israel neither confirms nor denies these claims. This ambiguity serves as a strategic deterrent, particularly against hostile neighbors.

David Ben-Gurion, Israel's founding father, was reportedly obsessed with the idea of developing nuclear weapons. He viewed them as essential for the survival of the Jewish state. The early years of Israel were marked by a series of conflicts with neighboring Arab nations, which fueled Ben-Gurion's determination to secure a nuclear capability.

In collaboration with France, Israel embarked on a nuclear program that led to the establishment of two research centers: Dimona and Soreq.

During a crucial meeting in 1962 with President John F. Kennedy, Shimon Peres, then Israel's deputy minister of defense, articulated a statement that would define the country's nuclear stance: "I can tell you most clearly that we will not introduce nuclear weapons to the region, and certainly we will not be the first." This declaration marked the formal adoption of amimut as Israel's nuclear policy.

Despite differing opinions among other prime ministers like Golda Meir and Levi Eshkol, the essence of Peres' statement resonated deeply. By maintaining a stance of ambiguity, Israel effectively communicated its intentions without revealing its capabilities, allowing it to deter potential threats without provoking an arms race.

In the decades following the adoption of amimut, Israel's Arab neighbors grew increasingly concerned about the possibility of Israel possessing nuclear weapons. The uncertainty surrounding Israel's nuclear arsenal led to a climate of fear and speculation. This ambiguity played a crucial role in altering the dynamics of conflict in the region.

As Peres noted in his autobiography, "We learned there is tremendous power in ambiguity... Doubt was a powerful deterrent to those who desired a second Holocaust." The fear of a nuclear-armed Israel led to a decrease in overt military confrontations from neighboring states, as they weighed the potential consequences of engaging with a nuclear power.

The Samson Option

One of the more dramatic elements of Israel's alleged nuclear policy is what is referred to as the "Samson Option." This concept draws upon the biblical figure Samson, who famously brought down the Philistines at the cost of his own life. In the context of nuclear deterrence, this option implies that Israel would resort to nuclear weapons only in an existential crisis, potentially taking down itself along with its enemies. This concept underscores the seriousness with which Israel views its nuclear capabilities, framing them not as a tool for aggression but as a last line of defense.

Pros and cons of amimut

While amimut has its proponents, it is not without its critics. Detractors argue that this policy allows Israel to evade international scrutiny regarding its nuclear program. As one of the few UN member states not to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), Israel's position raises questions about accountability and transparency.

Critics contend that the lack of openness hinders global efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation.

Supporters of amimut argue that abandoning this policy could lead to an escalation of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. They maintain that revealing Israel's nuclear capabilities could trigger an arms race, particularly with Iran, which has been a focal point of concern for Israeli security.

Israel's primary objective is to prevent nuclear proliferation at all costs. This often means taking proactive measures, including military actions against perceived threats. For instance, Israeli forces have conducted airstrikes on nuclear facilities in Syria and Iraq to dismantle emerging nuclear programs.

The Stuxnet Operation

In the early 2000s, it is believed that Israel collaborated with the United States to develop the malware known as Stuxnet. This sophisticated cyber weapon targeted Iran's nuclear facilities, causing significant disruptions and delays in their nuclear program.

Such actions align with the overarching goal of amimut: to ensure that nuclear weapons remain out of the hands of hostile nations. While cyber operations may not be as overtly aggressive as military strikes, they reflect a strategic approach to national security that prioritizes secrecy and deterrence.

Conclusion

Today, the global landscape of nuclear weapons continues to evolve. Many countries are engaged in research and development related to nuclear capabilities, and while the threat of nuclear war may not be imminent, the potential for conflict remains. Israel's approach to nuclear deterrence is characterized by a level of secrecy that sets it apart from other nations.

Israel's policy of amimut has been a deliberate strategy to maintain peace and stability in a volatile region. The question remains: what would happen if Israel were to abandon this policy and disclose its capabilities? Such a move could suggest a dramatic shift in the security landscape, either indicating a new era of trust and cooperation or a heightened threat of nuclear conflict.

The post Why is Israel so secretive about nuclear capabilities? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

A day after the negotiations to renew the Iranian nuclear deal restarted in Vienna, Public Security Minister Omer Barlev told Radio 103 on Tuesday that "It's obvious the military option is on the table."

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

In a separate interview to Army Radio, Alon Bar, Deputy Director General for Strategic Affairs at the Foreign Ministry, discussed the distance between Israel and the US's stances when it came to the Iran issue, saying, "There are in-depth talks with the Americans, and there is distance between us. I don't think that it's right to stress this distance, especially since the US is an especially important country for us. The right thing for us to do is talk with them directly."

Bar added, "Our influence on the world's powerful nations doesn't start the day the talks do, but with the contact we have had thus far. This influence is, of course, limited, but it exists. There is no choice other than to walk back the Iranian nuclear program. It would be wrong for us to despair and give up on the attempt to prevent Iran from securing enough enriched material [uranium] for a nuclear bomb, because that is definitely part of the military plan."

IDF Spokesperson Brig. Gen. Ran Kochav also touched on the relaunched Iranian talks. In an interview to Kan 11 News, Kochav said, "I'm not going to get into diplomatic matters. As I've said in the past, we are prepared for all eventualities and we have stepped up preparedness on the matter. The military and operational questions are our top priority, both in terms of preventing Iran from entrenching itself to the north and preventing it from becoming a [nuclear] threshold state."

After the first round of renewed talks on Monday, it appeared that any progress on the issue of Iran's nuclear program was far off and the two sides seemed to be at an impasse. Work teams are expected to continue meeting this week to discuss technical points, but not the core issues of the dispute.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Military option against Iran 'on the table,' public security minister warns appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The increasingly warm relations between Iran and a number of moderate state in the reason is causing worry in Israel, as frustration increases in Jerusalem over what is being termed the US' "passive policy" on Iran's nuclear program and Israel's expectation that Washington take more aggressive action against Tehran.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Since Ebrahim Raisi was elected president of Iran, the country has been investing considerable effort in rebuilding its ties with other Middle East nations, including ones considered moderate. The most notable of these is Saudi Arabia, after years of a break between Iran and the Saudis, it is becoming increasingly likely that the two nations might renew diplomatic relations, and even open consulates. Meanwhile, Iranian-Qatari relations are also strengthening, and Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian has held a surprising first conversation with his Jordanian counterpart.

Israel is following these developments with concern. They signify not only growing Iranian confidence in the regional and international arenas, but also the Iranians' realization that the US abandoning the region created a major space in which they can operate and exert influence. Among other things, the Iranians can work to counter-balance the Abraham Accords, which Iran sees as a huge threat to its own interests in the region.

In the past few weeks, the issue has been raised a few times in contacts between high-ranking Israeli and American officials. The Israeli side made it clear that American influence and support were needed to balance the Iranians' efforts to bring some of the countries toward them. The prevailing belief is that Washington will try to help Israel and its other regional allies, but could demand in return certain progress on the Palestinian issue.

'The Americans are naïve'

Iran's regional activity is taking place as it is maneuvering to postpone rejoining the negotiations for a new nuclear deal. In recent week, Iran has increased its uranium enrichment, although the assessment in Israel and the west is that the enrichment activity was not designated to reach breakout time for a nuclear weapons, but rather to secure additional assets to use as bargaining chips to reach an improved deal with the Americans.

In talks with the Americans, Israeli officials received the impression that the two sides were closer than in the past when it came to Iran's nuclear project and its various components. However, considerable distance remains between Jerusalem and Washington when it comes to what conclusions should be drawn and what steps should be taken in future.

Israel would like to see the US set a deadline for the Iranians to stop playing for time, one that would carry a clear threat of heavy sanctions, and possibly a military operation. The Americans made it clear that the second option was not currently on the table, and until a few days ago, it appeared that Washington would only resort to sanctions as a last possible measure.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

This led to considerable frustration in Israel. Off the records, senior government officials called the Americans "naïve," and expressed worry that Washington's "passive policy," as they called it, is being exploited to the hilt by Iran so it can make progress on its nuclear plans. Still, recent days have seen new messages conveyed to Israel indicating that Washington's patience with Iran's delaying tactics is about to run out and if no progress toward a deal is made soon, the Americans will adopt a series of new diplomatic and economic steps against Iran, the Iranian regime, and its interests.

On Monday, a senior Israeli official said he thought that the Iranians would try to "drag it out for a few more weeks" before returning to the negotiating table. The working assumption is that Iran will not sign an agreement different from the 2015 JCPOA, despite the Israeli demand for significant changes to the 2015 deal, most of which have to do with its end date and other matters pertaining to oversight. Still, it's doubtful the US administration will insist on changes to the deal, as they have already said they will try to improve it "on the way."

The Israeli effort to reach maximal cooperation with the US is under way, among other reasons, because of the fact that Israel has very few options left. The Netanyahu government's pressure – which led to the US withdrawing from the 2015 deal – was based on the assumption that Iran would collapse under heavy economic sanctions an sign onto a better deal, or if not, that the US would attack it or at least threaten to attack. These assumptions (along with the hope that former President Trump would be reelected) turned out to be incorrect, and thus Israel now realizes that a return to the original deal is the only way to buy time Israel can use to make a diplomatic effort and step up military preparations to keep Iran away from a nuclear bomb, now and in the future.

The post Iran is cozying up to moderate states, and Israel is worried appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.