Israel’s 90 nuclear warheads make any strike on Iran ‘really dangerous’: expert

The hostilities in the Middle East have renewed concerns about Israel’s widely known but officially unacknowledged nuclear arsenal, with an expert warning of catastrophic consequences if the weapons were used in the armed conflict.

According to Alicia Sanders-Zakre, head of policy at the Geneva-based International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), it is “widely acknowledged among experts that Israel is a nuclear-armed country, but this has never been formally acknowledged by Israel or by the United States”.

“This is, of course, really dangerous because as long as a country possesses a nuclear arsenal, there’s a risk that nuclear weapons might be used intentionally or accidentally,” Sanders-Zakre said on Tuesday.

In 2023, fears arose over whether Israel would introduce nuclear weapons into the war in Gaza after Israeli lawmaker Revital Gotliv urged the unleashing of a “doomsday weapon” carried by Israel’s Jericho ballistic missiles.

While many international organisations and countries say that Israel has a nuclear arsenal, the country has long maintained a policy of nuclear ambiguity.

Israel is estimated to have a nuclear arsenal of about 90 warheads, according to ICAN.

According to the US-based non-profit Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, “Israel is widely believed to possess 90 plutonium-based nuclear warheads and to have produced enough plutonium for 100–200 weapons”.

The warheads could be launched by Israel’s US-made aircraft and German-made submarines, as both can carry nuclear weapons.

Israel also has its own Jericho ballistic missiles that could deliver nuclear warheads, according to the centre.

Sanders-Zakre said Israel had not made an explicit or implicit nuclear threat in the Iran conflict but given the “secrecy” of Israel’s nuclear arsenal, “it’s not something that they really will openly threaten or talk about”.

Any use of nuclear weapons would be “catastrophic”, she added, saying it could lead to a death toll numbering in the hundreds of thousands or even millions if detonated in a populated area.

Sanders-Zakre said it could also lead to lasting consequences such as environmental contamination and intergenerational health impacts like cancer.

She added that it was difficult to quantify the likelihood of nuclear use, citing a constant risk of accidents, miscalculations or unintentional use.

“While we certainly hope that there wouldn’t be any intentional move in recognition of just how catastrophic any use of nuclear weapons would be, the truth is there’s always a risk that nuclear weapons can be used as long as they exist.”

Only Britain, China, France, Russia and the US are legally recognised as “nuclear-weapon states” under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. This specific designation exists because these five countries manufactured and tested a nuclear explosive device before 1967.

While the treaty has near-universal membership – including Iran – India, Israel and Pakistan have never signed it. North Korea was originally a party to the treaty but withdrew in 2003.

The treaty requires international inspections on non-nuclear-armed countries to ensure nuclear material is not moved to a weapons programme, which Sanders-Zakre said was “nearly impossible” to do in the context of the war involving Iran.

Sanders-Zakre said that, following the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal, Tehran breached the agreement’s constraints by ramping up uranium enrichment to levels that could be further refined into weapons-grade material.

However, she noted “there’s still really no credible evidence that [Iran] has taken a step to actually develop a weapons programme”.

According to Sanders-Zakre, for Israel, the important agreement to note was the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which any country, including nuclear-armed countries, could join to work towards dismantling their nuclear arsenal.

Under Article 4, any nuclear-armed country that joins the TPNW must immediately remove its nuclear arsenal from operational status. Furthermore, within 60 days of the treaty’s entry into force for that state, it must submit a draft of a legally binding, time-bound plan for the verified and irreversible destruction of its nuclear weapons programme.

Yet, none of the nine nuclear-armed states is a party to the TPNW.

“The majority of countries around the world do not provide security for their citizens through nuclear weapons,” Sanders-Zakre said.

“They understand that these weapons are simply too catastrophic, too risky to consider possessing and take another lesson to ensure their security through other means.”