North Koreans rally in Kim Il Sung Square in Pyongyang in protest of the UN Security Council's threat of sanctions in response to North Korea's nuclear test in May. The December 1960 intelligence analysis of Israel's nuclear capabilities, which still has elements redacted, is interesting in today's context as the Obama administration confronts the nuclear weapon ambitions of North Korea and Iran.
(APTN/AP)Photos (1 of 1)
CIA declassifies report on Israel’s nukes
The 1960 report defends Israel's nuclear ambitions, offers guidance on handling today's nuclear-hopefuls.
By Walter Pincus | Washington Post/ June 16, 2009 edition
WASHINGTON
“We do not believe that Israel will embark on the development of nuclear weapons with the aim of actually starting a nuclear war,” reads the declassified 48-year-old CIA Special National Intelligence Estimate.
The estimate, publicly released June 5 by George Washington University’s National Security Archives, continues, “Possession of a nuclear weapon capability, or even the prospect of achieving it, would clearly give Israel a greater sense of security, self-confidence and assertiveness.”
“In any public announcement concerning their nuclear reactor program, the Israelis would almost certainly stress the peaceful nature of their efforts, but they would also, as time goes on, make plain that henceforth Israel is a power to be accorded more respect than either its friends or its enemies have hitherto given it,” reads the estimate.
The December 1960 intelligence analysis, which still has elements redacted, is interesting in today’s context as the Obama administration confronts the nuclear weapon ambitions of North Korea and Iran.
Does the understanding of why a friendly country seeks a nuclear weapon apply when the analysis involves two countries that are potential U.S. enemies? No, is the safe bet when public reaction is considered.
But shouldn’t intelligence analysts recognize that friends - and potential foes - may have similar reasoning for nuclear ambitions: to deter potential invaders and to promote their standing among allies and enemies alike? Wouldn’t that be worth understanding even in unpredictable and potentially unstable governments? It might when trying to talk them out of it - though it has to be noted that it didn’t help with Israel, a stable ally.
The authors of the 1960 estimate suggest the possession of a nuclear weapon - in this case, Israel’s - would be used to deter others from attacking it. “It probably would make it increasingly clear that an Arab attack on Israel would be met with nuclear retaliation,” reads the estimate.
On the diplomatic side, however, the analysts saw that a nuclear weapon could also make a country more of a challenge. The estimate noted: “Israel would be less inclined than ever to make concessions and would press its interests in the area more vigorously.”
That certainly rings true today for North Korea and Iran.
In another ironic twist, the estimate said Israel’s enemy, the UAR (United Arab Republic, the then-combination of Egypt and Syria) “as a last desperate resort … might try to destroy the Israeli program through preventive military action.”
U.S. military experts today have argued that any Israeli attempt to knock out Iran’s nuclear program would fail and create havoc. Back in 1960, American intelligence analysts believed that the main Arab leader attempting such an effort against Israel also would have been counterproductive. “Given present relative military capabilities,” the estimate said, Gen. Gamal Abdel Nasser, UAR president, “would almost certainly realize that such military action would precipitate a war which he is likely to lose.”
According to recent estimates, Israel has approximately 200 nuclear bombs and warheads.
Comments
2. Paul Conant | 06.17.09
Israel doesn’t want Syria or Iran to develop a nuclear capability, but it is unwilling to discuss a nuclear arms ban that would include itself. I do not like to see nuclear arms proliferation but it is difficult to comprehend how Israel expects others to be restrained while it retains a nuclear arms capability. I notice that Israel presses the United States to compel other nations to fully disclose their nuclear facilities while Israel refuses to even acknowledge its nuclear weaponry. This may seem like good policy to some, but obviously Israel’s mideast rivals will find this position unacceptable. A regional nuclear arms settlement may be a necessary objective.
3. Vicki Johnson | 06.17.09
This CS article is shallow and does not even hint at the dangers of the Israeli nuclear program, in the 1960’s or at present.
The National Security Archives has an memo by Kissinger, to Nixon, that discusses the dangers. See
http://nixon.archives.gov/virtuallibrary/documents/mr/071969_israel.pdf
A more recent study by the USAF, 1997, at
http://fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm
states:
Another speculative area concerns Israeli nuclear security and possible misuse. What is the chain of decision and control of Israel’s weapons? How susceptible are they to misuse or theft? With no open, frank, public debate on nuclear issues, there has accordingly been no debate or information on existing safeguards. This has led to accusations of “monolithic views and sinister intentions.”[136] Would a right wing military government decide to employ nuclear weapons recklessly? Ariel Sharon, an outspoken proponent of “Greater Israel” was quoted as saying, “Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches.”[137] Could the Gush Emunim, a right wing religious organization, or others, hijack a nuclear device to “liberate” the Temple Mount for the building of the third temple? Chances are small but could increase as radicals decry the peace process.[138] A 1997 article reviewing the Israeli Defense Force repeatedly stressed the possibilities of, and the need to guard against, a religious, right wing military coup, especially as the proportion of religious in the military increases.[139 ]
4. Wil Savery | 06.18.09
If you have a gun and you use it for self defense I don’t think you got to brag or say it to your whole neighborhood. This is only true unless you want to intimidate your neighbors. Israel is not in any way intimidating anyone like Iran and North Korea want to do to obtain what ever they want. You think we have gas prices high wait and see if when Iran gets its hands on a nuclear weapon. A nuclear Iran Will drive oil prices off the roof by just threating to nuke the Arab states.
5. brian fox | 06.18.09
Mr Kazmi - I have to take issue with your comments in regard to Iran at least. North Korea is indeed an anomoly. I think it is misleading, however, to suggest that Iran has no invaders on it’s borders “waiting to annihilate them.” America is certainly a threat to them - historically and currently - and is, in fact, at their borders to the west and east (as well as north and south.)And in light of actions of Israel of the last 10 years, I would hardly consider them a responsible enough government to control nuclear weapons themselves.
6. Patrick Sullivan | 06.18.09
It was understood in 1946 that to give the go ahead for a massive nuclear weapons build up would in one way or the other, lead to the destruction of the human race.
The plan is still in play.
7. sue | 06.19.09
i dont see israel talking about annialating its neighbors, nor wiping them off the map. however, i am a peaceful person, but, if one of my neighbors were consantly threatning me and my family, i would be stupid not to arm myself just in case they decided to try it. would have the right to bear arms even if i didnt intend to use them unless threatened. toname israel and iran in the same sentence is justabout the same to me as offering someone tar on thier toast.
8. Marek from Poland | 06.19.09
A good article, finally someone can see a human being in the so-called ‘enemy’. A fresh voice in times of ubiquitous propaganda.
Let’s not get dumbed down, the Iranians love their children, too.
9. Philip | 06.19.09
Why is it unacceptable for a mad mullah to have his finger on the nuclear button but acceptable for a mad rabbi to have his finger on the nuclear button?
10. kevan | 06.19.09
North korea is still at war with the entire world, there is a cease fire but no pease treaty, their communist friends are no more, I can see no country more deserving of the protection that nuclear weapons provide.
11. rightofreturn | 06.19.09
who wrote the CIA report? probably an israel sympathizer. you don’t have to read Mershemier et al. to know that US foreing policy is pretty much dictated by zionists.
as to israel using its arms to defend itself, one must be living under a rock to see the truth about its intentions. it has been demonstrably expansionist: from 0% in 1948, it occupies 100% of all of Palestine now. It is a myth that it was content with the 1948 partition. Its ongoing expansion and settlements belies that. Isreali supporters which includes all of the media deliberately omit the 1956 war of aggression against Egypt and repeated invasions of lebanon from israeli aggressions and turn the facts of 1967 war upside down. Moshe Dayan and Begin who had more integrity than the Isreal’s apologists long ago admitted that Isreal started that war.
12. hemanta mohan | 06.19.09
world powers specially China and USA must exert pressure on North Korea to come to negotiating table urgently or we expect deeper crisis to world peace.
13. bruce | 06.19.09
The question is did the US Taxpayer inadverdently finance Isral’s WMD Program.France did help Israel with nuclear technology in 1950’s in exchange for Israel attacking Egypt in 1956.Shimon Preses,Israel’s present day president was chief Nuke technology procurer.Israel hijacked uranium on high seas,stole nuclear triggers from US and was involved in Aparthied South Africa’s Nuclear testing in Indian ocean.
Yes the kettle is calling the pot black!!
14. George | 06.19.09
It appears that the only ‘peace’ that Israel wants is to murder all of the Palestinians and Arabs and to steal all of their landS - sort of what Joshua did to Jericho: murdered EVERY man, woman, child, and livestock. Israel blackmails Europe and the US by threatening the ‘Sampson option’ - nuclear war against its neighbors which would evolve into world wide nuclear war. Hitler wanted “living space” - Netanyahu wants “natural growth” - and the difference is?
15. Mossad | 06.19.09
Contrary to some of the comments here, Israel HAS constantly threatened Iran - almost daily, actually. Israel has carried our huge war games simulating an attack on Iran. Iran has not. Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons. Iran has none. Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Iran has. Iran has not started a war in several hundred years - Israel has. Iran is not a threat to anyone. Sadly, Israel is. It’s way past time to implement the Middle East as a nuclear free zone - and that includes Israel.
16. Max Cadenhead | 06.19.09
The solution is for nuclear states to guarantee retaliation against any attack on a not-nuclear state by any state using nuclear weapons. Without such quarantees, it is folly for a State to remain non-nuclear if said State has enemies or very potential enemies that are nuclear or trying to become so. It would, however, have to be an iron-clad guarantee to protect the non-nuclear states.
17. paul bass | 06.19.09
Faisal Kazmi - Where do we see foreign forces lined up on Iran’s borders or North Korea’s borders to annihilate them into oblivion?
are you being serious? does the most powerful armed force ever in history count?
does having the nation state with largest nuclear arsenal threatening to use them on you not seem slightly more pressing than mistranslates statements for a country with out any?
and to reverse the quesion where is the army that threatens Israel today? the american funded, and trained army of Egypt or the american funded and trained army of turkey or maybe the american funded of iraq or maybe the American funded army of saudi Arabia or maybe the American funded army of Lebanon or maybe the…
18. richard potter | 06.19.09
It is crucial that the United States continue to work toward nuclear reduction goals and non proliferation agreements as set forth in START and SALT treaties. Clearly, Israel should be included in these disarmament efforts and nuclear free zones encompassing the Middle East.
19. David Sare | 06.19.09
It is endlessly amusing that people who decry any attempt to find a commonality of purpose between Iran and Israel have entirely missed the point of the article AND the declassified analysis. Perhaps that is why we employ actual ANALYSTS that understand things through the application of logic instead of buzz-word happy, USA Today educated clowns.
“But shouldn’t intelligence analysts recognize that friends - and potential foes - may have similar reasoning for nuclear ambitions: to deter potential invaders and to promote their standing among allies and enemies alike? Wouldn’t that be worth understanding even in unpredictable and potentially unstable governments?” There answer there unequivocally should be a resounding YES! ringing from the rafters. How is it even possible for someone to suggest that understanding the motivations for actions, whether by a person or a nation, are not valuable?
Furthermore, basing the determination of such actions — ultimately leading to war, preventative or otherwise — upon such grounds as “I like you so it’s acceptable; I don’t like you so it’s unacceptable” is the very definition of discrimination (the bad kind). People who attribute “evil” motives to Iran simply because it’s Iran and correspondingly the opposite to Israel, lack the ability to distance themselves and their own ego/identity from the question at hand.
Oh, and just for the record, Israel HAS nukes — hundreds of them — which the US gave to them in crystal-clear violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty which Israel still refuses to sign. Iran on the other hand has no such weapons, has signed and ABIDED by the NPT (though not the UN SC’s biased and unjust resolutions), has called nuclear weapons an affront to Allah, and put forth banning all nuclear weapons from the entire Middle East.
Evil is because it ACTS Evil, not because you don’t like it.
20. Tara Murphy | 06.19.09
Can we all spell h-y-p-o-c-r-a-c-y ?! Israel is perceived to be ‘the only democracy in the middle east’ not because of its stellar democratic values and attendant behavior (see discrimination, land grabs, gaza, etc.) but simply because it is better armed than the others. There is no moral superiority here, which ought to be one of the featured yardsticks by which we measure ourselves.
21. Dale | 06.19.09
Iran and North Korea will keep on trying to push the worlds buttons until a country stands up to them, then reason will dictate a change in their tactics.
One nuclear missile attack on North Korea will let the Iranians know that they are next on the list.
22. Larry | 06.19.09
Nature (including the nature of man) is red in tooth and claw. The thin veneer of civilization is thin because it doesn’t fit our disposition. Right of return? Right to bear arms? The only true right that obtains to anyone is the right to fight for what we require. Everything else is provided by the benevolence of others. Now, as six thousand years ago, if you can take it and keep it - it’s yours…for the time being. Isreal holds the land it does because it can. When their success has bred sufficient intellectual sloth and martial atrophy, someone else will own Isreal. That being said, who one prefers to command the Lavant is a litmus test for good sense. Look beyond the symptoms; acknowledge the problem.
23. JustOneKalpa | 06.19.09
Only one country has ever used nukes and we did it twice. The first time will be always be subject to debate - would Japan have surrendered if we had dropped one away from a city as a warning, did it save many lives or only a few US ones etc. etc. But the second one was probably a mistake. The Japanese command did not really have time to digest what had happened. Mistakes do happen…
24. David | 06.19.09
Does anyone really believe that Israel is not a potential threat, and if they thought it necessary to gain US public support that they would readily place and detonate a nuclear weapon inside the USA as a false flag to create animosity towards the Iranians or Islamics? Countries have agendas of their own and Israel has overused the USA for its benefit.
25. Dave | 06.19.09
In recent years there were four people responsible for creating unnecessary war and turmoil in the world. Sharon/Netanyahu, GW Bush, Kim Jong-Il, Ahmadinejad, and possibly Osama Bin Laden
26. Yaniv | 06.20.09
Vicky: The idea of Gush Emunim using a nuclear weapon to somehow liberate the temple mount is ludicrous. Not that they couldn’t/wouldn’t use conventional explosives–that danger is real enough, but there’s no need to inject the nuclear issue in there as well.
Philip: Neither sounds good. The fact is that “Rabbis” don’t have their fingers on Israel’s nuclear buttons. Israel’s population is mostly secular. The army and government are in secular hands. That being said, I’m not so sure I buy the “Mad Mullah” idea either.
David: I couldn’t make out what you were trying to say exactly. A couple of points: the article notes (in fact it’s the last point made) that Israel is thought to have hundreds of nukes–so you didn’t really have to. Iran, as you state, signed the NPT, and Israel has not. This is not necessarily an argument in Iran’s favor, and I hope you would not argue that Iran is not in violation of the NPT or not trying to produce a nuclear weapon. Finally, Israel’s nukes were not “given” it by the US. Israel’s nuclear weapon program predates its “special” relationship with the United States. France had more to do with it. It would not have hurt to learn the facts before you speak with such authority.
Israel’s acquisition of a nuclear capability in the late 50’s and early 60’s needs to be viewed in light of the horrifying ordeal the Jewish people had just gone through in Europe. Some of the scientists who worked on the Israeli bomb were German refugees. Others no doubt lost family in the Holocaust. The sense of vulnerability and determination not to be at the mercy of others are not easy to appreciate today, but it would help in trying to understand this issue.
27. Jeremy (England) | 06.20.09
Well Done to the Christian Science Monitor for having the courage to put principles into practice, bringing important news to our attention, without fear or favour. Too often the corporate mainstream media are swayed by Realpolitik, sectarian tribalists & the ephemeral pressures of the adage that the “customer is king”. We should all realise that looking at issues with one eye covered does not give a correct perspective & may completely alter reality altogether. Because most people do not have the time to actually find out things for themselves firsthand, the media have a vital role in fostering a worldview, creating a virtual reality as opposed to reality.
28. Derek | 06.20.09
The bottom line is, I trust Israel and I deeply mistrust Iran, especially Mr. Ahmadinejad. Mr. Ahmadinejad repeatedly claims that the Holocaust never happened, and then in the very next breath says, “But I want to finish what Hitler began.” Israel has every right to defend herself against madmen like Ahmadinejad, just as America has every right to defend herself against madmen like Kim Jong Il of North Korea. Not to do so would be a grave failure to protect oneself, one’s family, and even the entire international community from evil madmen who seek to enslave others.
29. Dan | 06.20.09
All those who think that Israel should not have any nukes, and that it is unfair that they do not share any information regarding this subject with the rest of the world, I would sugest that you take your families, wife, children, parents, and move to Israel. Live there and learn how to live with the idea that your kids might be riding on a bus that explodes, and there is nothing much left to bury from the bodies, live with the rockets that you never know where and when will they land on your house, live with the button mines in the parks where children play, where even school is not a safe place for your kids, and more and more. Once you did that, then come tell us if you would let go of these nukes (to be used as deterent only), when Iran is aiming to use their nukes to do just that _ DESTROY ISRAEL.
It is very brave to sit in the USA or anywhere else in the world, and talk about something you never tried yourself, and have no idea what you you are talking about.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Faisal Kazmi | 06.17.09
Just wanted to comment on these interesting lines by you:
“Does the understanding of why a friendly country seeks a nuclear weapon apply when the analysis involves two countries that are potential U.S. enemies? No, is the safe bet when public reaction is considered.
But shouldn’t intelligence analysts recognize that friends - and potential foes - may have similar reasoning for nuclear ambitions: to deter potential invaders and to promote their standing among allies and enemies alike?”
Are you serious? We all know the history of Israel and what the Islamic nations around Israel have always wanted to do. The wars in 1948, 1967 and 1973 — to name the major ones — aren’t too distant in history.
Where do we see foreign forces lined up on Iran’s borders or North Korea’s borders to annihilate them into oblivion?
I am sorry to say that this comparison is a straw-man argument and doesn’t stand as an excuse at all.