The repeated claim that “Iran is approaching prohibited weapons” relies more on political and media tools than on technical reality, serving primarily to legitimize Israel’s unconventional secrecy and nuclear exemption in West Asia.
Tehran- IranView24
In the official narrative of the Israeli regime, the main focus of political pressure and psychological warfare against Iran is built on repeated assertions: that Tehran is approaching the “threshold of acquiring nuclear weapons,” developing missile technology, and other claims. These statements are repeated continuously without questioning the underlying reality. Meanwhile, in the region itself, the only actor that consistently operates outside all nuclear, chemical, and biological verification regimes—while simultaneously benefiting from asymmetric deterrence—is Israel.
Estimates from reputable international arms control institutions suggest that Israel possessed approximately 90 to 200 nuclear warheads illegally at the beginning of 2024. Although this figure is not precise due to Tel Aviv’s deliberate policy of “non-disclosure,” even this conservative estimate is sufficient to understand the real dimensions of Israel’s nuclear threat. Israel deliberately avoids transparency to both maintain its deterrent capability and evade international accountability.
From a legal perspective, the situation is clear: Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has not subjected a significant portion of its nuclear activities to comprehensive International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. This legal gap allows Tel Aviv to maintain a regional nuclear monopoly while politically managing the costs of this status with the direct and unconditional support of the United States.
The “Unwritten 1969 Agreement” and the Consolidation of Israel’s Nuclear Immunity
Over the decades, Israel has maintained a so-called policy of “nuclear ambiguity” as the backbone of its strategic deterrence; a policy that neither officially confirms nor denies the existence of nuclear weapons. Within this framework, Tel Aviv has maintained enough signaling to preserve deterrence while avoiding any clear legal or oversight commitments. In arms control terminology, the institutionalization of this situation traces back to the secret 1969 understanding between the United States and Israel. Under this understanding, Washington effectively refrained from publicly pressing for transparency in Israel’s nuclear program, while Tel Aviv committed to keeping the program politically and publicly “invisible.”
The practical outcome of this understanding has been the creation of a structural exception in the non-proliferation order. An order based on formal declarations, international verification, and mutual obligations diverged in Israel’s case; a pathway where strategic advantage is maintained without the transparency obligations. As a result, Iran, as an NPT member, faces the strictest oversight and political pressure, while Israel maintains its nuclear capacity outside the same framework.
Israel’s Exemption from IAEA Oversight
Technical assessments in specialized sources indicate that Israel’s nuclear program, centered on the Dimona facility in the Negev Desert, had approximately 0.9 tons of weapons-grade plutonium (±0.1 ton) at the beginning of 2024. Theoretically, this amount could support the production of more warheads, though operational limitations reduce the actual number.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Yearbook confirms that Israel had around 90 nuclear warheads at the start of 2024 and warns that the regime not only preserves its hidden arsenal but also continues to modernize its nuclear infrastructure.
Satellite images released by the Associated Press showing extensive construction at the Negev nuclear complex since 2021 reinforce these assessments, demonstrating ongoing infrastructure development in one of the most secretive nuclear programs in the world.
UN Secretary-General reports also highlight a serious oversight gap: most of Israel’s nuclear program lies outside comprehensive IAEA safeguards. The agency’s limited inspections are confined to a minor research center and never include the Dimona facility—the heart of Israel’s nuclear program. The result is an effective absence of any functional verification mechanism.
Delivery Capabilities and the “Second-Strike” Doctrine
SIPRI assessments indicate that Israel has potentially achieved a nuclear triad: air-based delivery, land-based Jericho ballistic missiles, and sea-based capability via Dolphin-class submarines reportedly capable of carrying cruise missiles. This combination provides a “second-strike” capability, while continued ambiguity reduces the associated political costs. Military analysts view this structure not merely as defensive but as part of an offensive deterrence doctrine.
Refusal to Join Chemical and Biological Treaties
Israel’s scope is not limited to nuclear weapons. According to international arms control bodies, while the Chemical Weapons Convention has had 193 members since 1997, Israel has still not ratified it. A similar situation exists for the Biological Weapons Convention, with Israel among the few countries not party to it. This refusal heightens concerns over the absence of any transparent oversight framework.
Advanced Military Technologies and Political Immunity
Reports published in April 2024 indicate that Israel used AI-based systems for wide-scale identification and targeting in military operations in Gaza. Critics argue that combining these technologies with political immunity reduces incentives for accountability and self-restraint, increasing the risk of these patterns spilling over to other regional fronts.
Another example was the simultaneous detonation of pagers and then radios in Lebanon in September 2024. Reuters reported that thousands of communication devices exploded in two successive waves, causing dozens of deaths and thousands of injuries. From a technical perspective, this demonstrated Israel’s ability to combine intelligence operations, supply chain manipulation, and remote activation on a large scale—a capability with security implications far beyond any single battlefield.
The Determining Role of U.S. Military Aid
Israel’s unconventional secrecy could not be sustained without U.S. political, financial, and technological support. Politically and legally, U.S. backing is expressed through repeated use of the veto in the Security Council and punitive measures against international judicial bodies. Reuters and AP reports on multiple vetoes of Gaza-related resolutions and sanctions against certain International Criminal Court judges indicate Washington’s efforts to preserve Israel’s immunity from legal accountability.
Analytical Conclusion
Taken together, these data indicate that Israel’s claims of an “Iranian nuclear threat” or “Iranian missile threat” are, in Israeli policy, less a description of technical reality and more a tool to legitimize political pressure, military operations, and the preservation of Israel’s nuclear exemption. In contrast, the regional strategic reality shows that the only actor with an opaque nuclear arsenal, significant fissile material, and updated infrastructure outside comprehensive international oversight is Israel. Analysts warn that as long as this “structural exception” in West Asian security persists, any regional security initiative will face serious challenges.
