Iran Israel Conflict: Does Israel have a nuclear arsenal? All you may want to know

Israel's recent strikes on Iran have renewed international focus on its own nuclear capabilities. While Iran's nuclear ambitions are monitored and widely debated, Israel maintains a long-standing policy of ambiguity regarding its nuclear arsenal. This development has raised concerns among global analysts and non-proliferation experts.
Israel Launches Strikes
Israel launched attacks on Iran on Friday. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Iran was close to developing a nuclear weapon. He stated that Israel had to act because a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a threat to the country.
According to US Senator Mark Warner, who leads the Senate Intelligence Committee, the American view on Iran's nuclear program has not changed since March. The US intelligence community believes Iran has enriched uranium but has not decided to build a bomb.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
An engineer reveals: 1 simple trick to get all TV channels
Techno Mag
Learn More
Undo
Also Read:
The Lincoln Lawyer Season 4: When will it release? Here's what to expect in upcoming season and all details about cast and production team
Israel's Nuclear Policy
Israel has never confirmed having nuclear weapons. Experts refer to this as a policy of 'opacity.' Jeffrey Lewis from the Middlebury Institute now calls it 'implausible deniability.'
Live Events
Israel is part of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) but has not signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Countries like India, Pakistan, North Korea, and South Sudan are also non-signatories.
To join the treaty, Israel would need to give up any nuclear weapons. The NPT recognizes only five nuclear states: the United States, Britain, Russia, China and France.
Historical Background
Groups like the Federation of American Scientists estimate that Israel has about 90 nuclear warheads. Due to Israel's secrecy, it is difficult to confirm this number.
Reports suggest that Israel began developing nuclear weapons after its founding in 1948. A 1969 US government memo revealed Israel agreed not to be the first to introduce nuclear weapons in the region, but the meaning remains unclear.
Also Read:
Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 Rivals Event: How to earn rewards? See start date, time, rewards and when is next scheduled event
Whistleblower's Disclosures and Policy Impacts
Mordechai Vanunu
, a former technician, exposed details about Israel's Dimona nuclear site in the Negev Desert. He was later jailed for treason. He claimed his actions were meant to protect Israel from future conflict.
Groups monitoring nuclear arms argue that Israel's lack of transparency makes it harder to promote peaceful nuclear use in the Middle East.
FAQs
Why does Israel not confirm its nuclear weapons program?
Israel follows a long-standing policy of ambiguity. This aims to maintain strategic advantage while avoiding direct international obligations or conflicts regarding nuclear disarmament.
How might Israel's actions affect Iran's nuclear plans?
Experts say Israel's strikes may push Iran to expand its nuclear efforts for defense, which could increase regional risks and fuel a nuclear arms race.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time of India

21 minutes ago

• Time of India

Israel-Iran Conflict: How another Middle East War is ripping MAGA apart - will Trump coalition survive?

As war clouds gather over Tehran, the 'America First' coalition fractures—from Carlson's outrage to Cruz's crusade, with Vice President JD Vance echoing the commander-in-chief's every word. The MAGA Movement Promised No More Wars—Now It's on the Brink of One Donald Trump didn't just win the 2024 election—he crushed it with a promise to rebuild America without stumbling into another foreign disaster. 'No more stupid wars' became doctrine. His base connected with this pledge, proud that he hadn't launched any new wars. But now, deep into 2025, that legacy is under pressure. In June, Israel struck Iran's nuclear facilities—and Trump responded by warning Iran's leaders to surrender 'unconditionally,' advising Tehran's civilians to evacuate, and boasting that the U.S. had 'total control of the skies.' The MAGA movement—defined by its distrust of foreign entanglements—is experiencing an identity crisis. The coalition that brought Trump back to power is now split, torn between instincts that fueled his rise. The Anti-War Wing: Carlson, Bannon, Greene, Gaetz—and the MAGA Grassroots Tucker Carlson: MAGA's Foreign Policy Firewall Carlson has emerged as the vocal anti-war leader within MAGA circles. He warned that war with Iran could end Trump's presidency. During a dramatic on-camera exchange with Senator Ted Cruz, he challenged his hawkish views by questioning basic facts about Iran—its population, its sectarian landscape—and called out what he sees as dangerous ignorance dressed up as resolve. To Carlson, this is Iraq 2.0. And allowing MAGA to shift toward intervention is nothing short of a betrayal. Tucker and Ted Cruz Get Into Heated Debate on AIPAC and Foreign Influence Steve Bannon: The Loyal Dissenter Bannon warned that a war with Iran could destroy the MAGA coalition. Yet he tempered the warning with neutrality, noting that even dissenting voices would ultimately fall in line behind Trump. His message: the base doesn't want war, but Trump remains the centre of gravity. Marjorie Taylor Greene: Culture Warrior, Peace Advocate Greene has remained firm in her opposition to escalation. She's made it clear that another conflict in the Middle East would betray the MAGA movement's core promise: to put America first—at home, not in yet another desert war. Matt Gaetz: The Populist Sceptic Gaetz has voiced deep scepticism over renewed interventionism, warning that MAGA should not fall for recycled Bush-era framing. He's dismissed hawkish rhetoric and cautioned that any move toward war must have a clearly defined exit strategy and real American interests at stake. His message is clear: military might is not a substitute for strategic clarity. The War Caucus: Cruz, Rubio, Levin, Hannity—Old Doctrine, New Labels Ted Cruz: Confident, But Clueless? Cruz maintained a hawkish stance in public appearances, even as he fumbled through basic facts about Iran. He's called Iran a threat and said the U.S. must act if necessary. His slip—confusing Israeli actions with American ones—highlighted the extent to which some MAGA hawks are ready for conflict, regardless of the details. Marco Rubio: From Miami to Mossad Now serving as Secretary of State, Rubio has become the administration's leading voice for a hardline Iran policy. He insists that Iran must be denied not just weapons, but even enrichment capacity. His doctrine is simple: Iran cannot even come close to the nuclear threshold. Mark Levin and Sean Hannity: Reagan-era Revivalists Both Levin and Hannity have called for strong action. Levin has floated the idea of regime change. Hannity has embraced the logic of preemptive strikes. They represent the older, more muscular conservatism that sees war not as a failure—but as assertion of American strength. JD Vance: The Loyal Lieutenant, Not the Peacemaker Vice President JD Vance, once the populist realist, now speaks with tight discipline. He hasn't condemned the hawks. He hasn't echoed the doves. He simply follows the President's lead—repeating Trump's lines, offering no deviation, and avoiding ideological entanglement. Vance is not acting as a bridge between factions. He's acting as a megaphone for Trump. His silence is strategic. His discipline is total with the belief that if he holds on long enough, he's a shoo-in to the be Trump's successor. Trump's Game: Maximum Pressure, Minimum Commitment—So Far Trump has long weaponised ambiguity. He's sent American forces into visible alert, named Iranian leaders, threatened air superiority—and yet, he hasn't fired a shot. This is vintage Trump: threatening force without deploying it, posturing without committing. But the longer this game stretches, the more pressure mounts. Hawks want action. The base wants peace. And Trump, ever the tactician, wants both. MAGA's Iraq Flashback: The Ghost That Haunts Them Still The language is all too familiar. Talks of WMDs. Warning of rogue regimes. Accusations of appeasement. MAGA was born in rebellion against this rhetoric. Trump won hearts by denouncing the Iraq War as a historic failure. Now, those ghosts are back. And the question is whether the movement has truly changed—or merely changed labels. The 2025 Test: Can MAGA Survive a Middle East War? Trump's current coalition—rooted in working-class values, suburban nationalism, and youth anti-establishment sentiment—says no to foreign adventures. Most polls show his base is wary of intervention. But a gamble remains: if Trump escalates, that coalition could fracture. The internal pressure is mounting. MAGA's future depends on whether it keeps its promise—or betrays the fierce anti-war impulse that helped redefine American politics in 2025. The Real War Is Inside MAGA This is more than a foreign policy debate—it's an ideological showdown. Anti-war bloc: Carlson, Bannon, Greene, Gaetz—warning against another Iraq, urging focus at home. War caucus: Cruz, Rubio, Levin, Hannity—championing confrontation and regime change. Intercepted by: JD Vance—standing in lockstep with Trump, no deviation. At the centre: Trump—wielding threats and uncertainties while testing the elasticity of a fractured coalition. A strike on Iran may win a skirmish—but MAGA's soul hangs in the balance. The real question now isn't just 'should we go to war?'—it's 'can MAGA survive it?'

Economic Times

22 minutes ago

• Economic Times

As US weighs Iran strike, Pakistan tries to recast itself as anti-terror ally — and India is watching closely

New Delhi: India is watching closely as Pakistan tries to reinvent itself as a victim of terrorism and is seeking to find a place as a key actor against extremism and a possible ally to the US in the conflict with several accounts, the meeting between Pakistani Field Marshal Asim Munir and US President Donald Trump lasted almost three hours, extending beyond the one hour allocated, and included key US administration advisors for West growing conflict in the region - with the attack on Iranian nuclear facilities by Israel overshadowing other issues and increasingly pointing towards a US intervention - has placed Pakistan in an advantageous position that it will try to leverage, people tracking the situation the core of Pakistani moves, sources feel, is an attempt to rebrand itself from a fountainhead of terrorism to a victim that is seeking Western help to counter outfits that present threats to the West. This is an old plot that Pakistan has successfully played against the West in the past before the discovery of Osama Bin Laden at Abbottabad and the subsequent distancing of the US administration and pulling back of military aid. A renewed attempt is being made, with the Iran crisis coming at a particularly fortunate time for Pakistan as the US looks for allies who can pressurise Tehran and provide support in case American forces decide to enter the battlefield. Sources said Pakistan has managed to find some success in getting to Washington DC by exploiting the gap in the Pentagon that exists due to the structuring of its military commands across the world. The US Central Command (CENTCOM), which deals with Pakistan, is at the centre of action right now due to the troubles in West Asia. The Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) which deals with India and China was earlier more central to decision-making and planning in Washington DC. Its views of Pakistan as a close partner of China, increasingly dependent on Beijing for military equipment, training and intelligence, were a counter to the CENTCOM's motives of using Pakistani support for anti-terror operations in its area of said Pakistan is likely to use the situation to play the US against China, though in the long term it will remain dependent on Beijing for weapons, training and funding. The worry is, that in the short run, Pakistan may bargain to get access to US equipment and technology in the garb of fighting terror. It has been seen in the past, including when India attacked terror camps in Balakot in 2019, that equipment provided to Pakistan to fight terrorism were used against at stake for India will be the partnership with the US that has been growing in the military sphere and includes plans to co-develop cutting edge weapon systems. India has been increasing its dependence on the US for critical defence equipment, including engines for indigenous LCAs, maritime surveillance equipment and satellite difference is that while India is seeking technology and equipment from the US to counter an increasingly aggressive China, Pakistan may try to seek the same against India, in the garb of fighting terrorism.

Mint

23 minutes ago

• Mint

America is making a dangerous bet by trading principles for short-term expediency in its engagement with Pakistan

Srinath Sridharan Washington under Trump opting to engage with Pakistan's military chief despite Rawalpindi's record on terror undermines the values the US champions. Transactional geopolitics may serve the short-term interests of some, but cannot shape the destiny of nations that seek dignity, stability and peace. The US–Pakistan relationship has long been a case study in diplomatic cynicism. Gift this article 'I love Pakistan," said US President Donald Trump this week, quickly following up with another flourish: 'I stopped the war." He was referring to the ceasefire that followed India's Operation Sindoor, implying that his intervention averted an escalation between two nuclear powers. 'I love Pakistan," said US President Donald Trump this week, quickly following up with another flourish: 'I stopped the war." He was referring to the ceasefire that followed India's Operation Sindoor, implying that his intervention averted an escalation between two nuclear powers. In a country where 'I love New York" or 'I love Boston" merchandise is part of pop-cultural retail tradition, it is perhaps the first time that a sitting American president has publicly professed such open affection—not for a US city but for a foreign nation, and one long entangled with terror networks and given to military overreach. Also Read: Pakistan's economy must escape the clutches of its armed forces Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi promptly corrected the record the same day, clarifying (yet another time) that it was Islamabad that had sought de-escalation unilaterally. But Trump's insistence on claiming credit for a crisis he neither resolved nor influenced reveals a deeper, far more disturbing pattern: America's habitual romanticism of tactical deals with regimes entangled in terrorism while ignoring the long-term consequences for regional stability. This is not just bad optics. It is bad policy. The US, once considered the torchbearer of democratic values, seems increasingly willing to bypass elected governments in favour of military establishments and shadow power centres. Nowhere is this more evident than in its dealings with Pakistan. A nation that has harboured extremist groups, undermined civilian authority and used terror as statecraft continues to enjoy relevance in Washington's foreign policy playbook. The White House praises the arrest of a single militant as evidence of cooperation, even as Pakistan's terror infrastructure remains intact—undisturbed, deliberate, and institutional. Also Read: Nitin Pai: How to dissuade Pakistan from deploying terrorism It is hard to ignore the irony. America claims to lead the free world, yet chooses to transact with regimes that represent the antithesis of the values it espouses. The consequence is moral abdication. This dynamic plays out repeatedly: from the resurgence of Taliban in Afghanistan to the safe haven for Osama bin Laden near a military cantonment in Abbottabad in Pakistan; from cross-border attacks in Mumbai, Pathankot, Pulwama and Uri to the continued radicalization in Pakistan's heartlands. The fingerprints are clear. So is the complicity. Yet, the US persists in treating Islamabad as a necessary partner—sometimes to broker influence in Kabul, other times to play the middleman in Kashmir, and often just to retain access and leverage in the region. It would be naïve to believe that the US-Pakistan relationship incentivizes reform. In truth, it legitimizes impunity. The Pakistani military, emboldened by its transactional value to Washington, continues to weaken democratic institutions at home and fund destabilizing proxies abroad. Every such engagement strengthens the perception that terrorism can be bartered for aid and extremism for arms. The contradiction becomes even sharper when viewed in the context of the Indo-Pacific. The US claims to rely on India as a democratic counterweight to China. It deepens defense ties, invests in the Quad and speaks of a free and open Indo-Pacific. Yet, it simultaneously chooses to ignore the very forces that threaten that vision by rewarding a regime that profits from regional unrest. This inconsistency is not lost on New Delhi. The US–Pakistan relationship has long been a case study in diplomatic cynicism. From selective partnerships to a repeated pattern of 'doing more" without consequence, Washington is an expert in the language of strategic necessity while turning a blind eye to long-term costs. But tactical flexibility cannot replace principled engagement. It does not produce allies; it breeds dependencies. Pakistan, meanwhile, has mastered the art of offering just enough cooperation to keep US interest alive while maintaining its core strategy of plausible deniability and proxy warfare. Credibility, not convenience, must now become the real currency of global order. Especially in a world grappling with great-power tensions—from Ukraine to the Taiwan Strait to West Asia—the US must ask itself a fundamental question: Can it afford to keep trading principles for short-term proximity? The answer becomes clearer when we examine Washington's recent diplomatic posturing over multiple global flashpoints—Ukraine-Russia, Israel-Iran and India-Pakistan. In each, the pattern is strikingly similar: choreographed pronouncements of peacemaking, fleeting moments of engagement and self-congratulatory claims of having 'brokered peace." For India, the implications are significant. A natural partner to the US, India must now calibrate its engagement with clarity and conviction. If the foundation of partnership is shared democratic values, then New Delhi must insist on consistency, not just in defence or economics but in principle. A rules-based international order cannot be built on selective amnesia or political expedience. It requires holding rule-breakers accountable. And it demands that peace not be sacrificed at the altar of tactical diplomacy. Affection in diplomacy is not measured by slogans, but by the values one chooses to embrace—and the silences one is willing to overlook. India, with its civilizational depth and global aspirations, must engage the world on its own terms. Our diplomacy must be grounded in self-respect, not shaped by shifting Washington moods. Because, at the end of the day, transactional geopolitics may serve the short-term interests of some, but cannot shape the destiny of nations that seek dignity, stability and real peace. The author is a corporate advisor and author of 'Family and Dhanda' Topics You May Be Interested In