Does Israel possess nuclear weapons? It is a simple question indeed. Israel has never declared that it has nuclear weapons. But it is a well known fact worldwide that Israel possesses advanced nuclear weapons, but no one speaks about it. And if anyone does speak, Israel has never refuted the existence of her arsenal. It is generally estimated that Israel has between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated delivery system.
The Israeli nuclear program began in the late 1940s under the direction of Ernst David Bergmann, “the father of the Israeli bomb.” Ernst David Bergmann was born in Germany in a Zionist family. He earned the doctorate in 1927 under the supervision of Prof. W. Schlenk at the University of Berlin and continued on the staff. Subsequently he moved to Palestine and worked at the Sieff Institute until the period of World War II. He then participated in defense related projects in France, England and in the United States. Ben-Gurion, the charismatic leader, was supported by Bergmann. In August 1948 Ben-Gurion appointed Bergmann as the head of the scientific department of the newly founded Israel Defense Forces, and three years later he became the prime minister’s scientific advisor at the Ministry of Defense. He founded the Israel Atomic Energy Commission in 1952 and shaped its early activities.
It was not possible for Israel to pursue her nuclear objectives without foreign assistance. Major assistance was provided by France which helped Israel in the construction of Dimona, a heavy water moderated, natural uranium reactor and plutonium reprocessing factory situated near Bersheeba in the Negev Desert. Israel participated in the French nuclear programme right from the start. The collaboration continued when Israel launched her nuclear programme and French assistance was critical in the development of Israeli nuclear weapons. Dimona become operational in 1964 and plutonium reprocessing began shortly thereafter. In order to hide such activities from the inspectors, a fake wall was built which was designed to conceal the lifts leading to six floors underground where plutonium and spare parts for nuclear bombs were produced. In fact the concealment made the job of inspectors easier as they conveniently ignored the clandestine activity going on underground. Despite various Israeli claims that Dimona was “a manganese plant, or a textile factory,” the extreme security measures employed told a far different story. The high security can be judged from the fact that Israel downed one of its mirage fighter in 1967 and a Libyan civil aircraft in 1973 when they strayed over the facility. It is assumed that Israel exploded several nuclear devices in the Negev near the Israeli-Egyptian border in the mid 1960s and participated actively in French nuclear tests in Algeria. Israel is thought to have possessed several nuclear bombs when the “Yom Kippur War” broke out in 1973.
France was not alone in assisting Israel build nuclear weapons. According to an August 2005 Haaretz report, documents at the British National Archives dating back to the late 1950s show the United Kingdom sold Israel 20 tons of heavy water, a substance used to produce nuclear bombs, at a cost of around £1.5 million. The heavy water surplus from a consignment bought from Norway in 1956 was shipped from a British port to Israel. Officials presented it as a deal between Norway and Israel. Heavy water is used in the production of plutonium, a key step in the process of creating nuclear weapons.
While Israel continued to develop nuclear weapons with plutonium, she also strived to procure uranium. Israel had phosphate deposits in the Negev but they were insufficient for the programme. In the late 1960s, Israel solved the uranium problem by developing close ties with South Africa. Israel supplied nuclear technology and expertise for the “Apartheid Bomb,” while South Africa provided Israel with uranium.
South Africa also provided Israel with facilities to test her nuclear weapons. This was proved on 22 September 1979, when a US satellite detected an atmospheric test of a small thermonuclear bomb in the Indian Ocean off South Africa. But, because of Israel’s apparent involvement, the report was promptly concealed. Although the French and South Africans were primarily responsible for the Israeli nuclear program, the U.S. is not far behind. Mark Gaffney wrote (Gaffney, op. cit., 1989, p. 34), “The Israeli nuclear program was possible only because of calculated deception on the part of Israel and willing complicity on the part of the U.S.”
From the very beginning, the U.S. was heavily involved in the Israeli nuclear program, providing nuclear related technology such as a small research reactor in 1955 under the “Atoms for Peace Program.” Israeli scientists were largely trained at U.S. universities and were generally welcomed at the nuclear weapons labs. In the early 1960s, the controls for the Dimona reactor were obtained clandestinely from a company called Tracer Lab, the main supplier of U.S. military reactor control panels, purchased through a Belgian subsidiary, apparently with the acquiescence of the National Security Agency (NSA). In 1971, the Nixon administration approved the sale of hundreds of krytons (a type of high speed switch necessary to the development of sophisticated nuclear bombs) to Israel. And, in 1979, Carter provided ultra high resolution photos from a KH-11 spy satellite, used 2 years later to bomb the Iraqi Osirak Reactor. Throughout the Nixon and Carter administrations, and accelerating dramatically under Reagan, U.S. advanced technology transfers to Israel have continued unabated to the present.
Israel has never confirmed it has the capability to make nuclear weapons. What is known about the Israeli program comes, primarily, from two sources: a nuclear technician who leaked the existence of the program to the London Times in 1986 (which landed the 31-year-old in prison for 18 years) and the 1998 book “Israel and the Bomb” by Israeli scholar Avner Cohen. These two sources, coupled with piecemeal intelligence and reporting, outline a massive nuclear program that has developed some of the most sophisticated nuclear weapons, at par with France, Britain and China. In addition to the plutonium and uranium bombs, Israel also has neutron bombs. Theses are miniaturized thermonuclear bombs designed to maximize deadly gamma radiation while minimizing blast effects and long term radiation. These bombs are to kill people while leaving property intact.
It is quite evident that it was not possible for Israel to build up a sophisticated nuclear arsenal without the assistance of France, South Africa, U.K., Norway and the United States. Should we call this nuclear proliferation? As far as the definition goes, nuclear proliferation is the spread from nation to nation of nuclear technology, including nuclear power plants but especially nuclear weapons. The primary focus of anti-proliferation efforts is to maintain control over the specialized materials necessary to build such devices because this is the most difficult and expensive part of a nuclear weapons program. Hence we can say ‘sans doute’ that these countries have grossly proliferated, and proliferation is not a new trend. It is manipulation of the media that blows up nuclear activities of some countries while it blankets the capabilities of others. The latest act of nuclear proliferation is again by the US and UK who have agreed to provide India with nuclear technology for civilian purposes. This is much the same as the explosion of a ‘peaceful nuclear device’ by India in 1974.
Hence non-proliferation may be considered more of a political tool than any other instrument. Because of Israel’s stance, it is never asked to sign the NPT. Israel is acknowledged as a nuclear weapon state but is never questioned on the issue. Israeli military authorities openly discuss the usage of its nuclear arsenal. And if Israel chooses to use its nuclear weapons, it would not be blamed as it would deny possession of such weapons. Whatever the case may be, one thing is for sure; Israel’s nuclear weapons are worthy to be dreaded and are no hoax but a reality, and a threat to world peace.

India jilts ally Iran
Shahid Saleem Afzal

The board of governors of the IAEA put an EU-3 sponsored and US backed resolution on Iran’s nuclear programme to vote on 24 September 2005. The resolution passed by the IAEA’s governing board in Vienna requires Iran to be reported to the UN Security Council at an unspecified date if it fails to convince the Agency that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful. Pakistan and India are both members of the 35-member board of governors of the IAEA that put the resolution on Iran to vote.
Pakistan was among 12 countries, including China and Russia that abstained from the vote on the resolution on Iran’s controversial nuclear programme. In a surprise move India voted in favour of the resolution. Soon after the resolution was passed the US undersecretary of State thanked India for supporting Washington’s position on Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, met top Indian leaders earlier on 31st August 2005 as part of an effort to rally support for its nuclear programme. According to the statements coming out of New Delhi, India was determined to back Iran in her nuclear pursuits. But India suddenly took a U-turn and voted for the resolution which has shocked Iran. Some analysts are of the opinion that India’s decision was a deliberate and well thought move, in line with the wishes of its new strategic partner, the USA.
Historically, Iran has enjoyed a very warm relationship with India. This can be gauged from the fact that President Mohammed Khatami was the chief guest at India’s Republic Day Parade on 26th January 2003. This honour is reserved for New Delhi’s most trusted friends. Both countries signed the “New Delhi Declaration” promising to expand trade. Bilateral trade is over a billion dollars and is increasing. Cooperation in military and security affairs has also grown which worries the United States and Israel.
Iran-India friendship has been based on mutual political and economic interests. Both, Iran and India have been against the Taliban and instead support the Northern Alliance, whereas Pakistan had a soft corner for Taliban as most of them were Pashtuns and shared cultural background with their counterparts in Pakistan. But by the late 1990s the Pakistani establishment grew weary of the Taliban due to its stubborn and extremist policies. Pakistan found that the Taliban had transformed from a subservient political client into an independent regime that had become something of a Frankenstein monster for Islamabad. When the Taliban regime was ousted from power in the fall of 2001, it was good riddance of a bigoted regime that freed both Pakistan and Afghanistan. The foremost objective of Pakistan has been to establish a friendly government in Kabul that at the minimum does not pose a threat to the security of Pakistan. Karzai, a Pashtun, came to power as a result of the Bonn agreement, but the Panjsheris have been able to dominate the government in Kabul. Iran continues to support the Panjsheris due to ethnic reasons and India supports them as they are sympathetic to Indian interests; hence, the confluence of interests between Iran and India.
Iran and India are desirous of establishing the North-South corridor. The North-South transit corridor is a multi-modal transportation route which connects southern hemisphere waters to the Caspian Sea through the Islamic Republic of Iran and from there to St. Petersburg through the Russian Federation and finally through Moscow to Helsinki, the capital of Finland in the northern hemisphere. The underlying motive has been creation of a connecting bridge between South and South Eastern Asian countries with the North European countries, through the soil of Russia. Pakistan on the other hand favours a route from its Arabian Sea port of Gwadar to the CARs through Afghanistan.
Iran-India relations in the economic field have grown at a phenomenal pace during the recent past. India’s National Security Advisor J.N.Dixit visited Iran in October 2004 and reaffirmed his country’s commitment to intensify cooperation, particularly in energy, transit and trade. The visit was undertaken as India had decided not to be swayed by Western criticism of Iran’s nuclear programme. Indian officials had said Iran’s nuclear programme was focussed on peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The Iranian leadership showed their appreciation of the Dixit visit, with President Mohammad Khatami himself receiving him and conveying his greetings to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Dixit also called on Chairman of the Expediency Council Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, Speaker of the Majlis (parliament) Gholam Ali Haddad Adel and Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi. Dixit’s visit was part of the regular consultations on security and other bilateral interests between the two countries, which share views on most regional and international developments, including Iraq and Afghanistan.
Political analysts are of the opinion that despite the deep rooted Iran-India relations, the decision by India to vote against Iran came as a major policy shift by New Delhi. The civilian nuclear deal between India and the U.S. has begun taking a toll of New Delhi’s “independent” foreign policy. While it is still in the form of a promise for Washington, India has already begun delivering its side of the deal. U.S. Congressman Tom Lantos, in recent remarks before the House International Relations Committee, said India had to choose between the “ayatollahs” of terror in Tehran and the U.S. India has finally chosen the US at the cost of Iran by jilting its old time ally. Iran-India relations are already in the doldrums. Statements coming from Tehran also indicate a shift in Iran’s foreign policy. Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, said on 27 September that Tehran would reconsider economic ties with countries that voted against it at the board meeting of the UN atomic watchdog. Iran signed a deal in June 2005 to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) annually for 25 years with deliveries from Iran starting in 2009. Iran has decided to cancel the deal and the decision was conveyed to India’s permanent representative, Sheelkant Sharma, at the IAEA by Iran’s ambassador in Vienna. But Iran should know well that India is not interested in the project now as its energy needs would be met through transfer of nuclear technology from the US. Iran-India relations have touched an all time low and are likely to further deteriorate in wake of US pressure.