Iran and Related Geopolitical Defense Issues

[Beatmaster]

On a side note my wife just said:

Its all funny that Israel where to have problem with the nuclear program of Iran.
However what if Iran and the rest of the middle east would have problem with Israel being a nuclear power.
Will Israel then be next nation on the list of evil?
Love to see how Israel would dodge that....
Perhaps shutting down Israels nuclear drive would benefit the middle east a 1000 times more then any change to Iran could ever bring.

 

[Adam Neira]

Any strategist saying that it is ok if 300 Israelis, 3,000 American service men and women and 300,000 Iranians die in a "little" war is insane. Obviously if certain red lines are crossed Israel and its allies will need to use the military option, but there are a multitude of positive moves that can made before that date which will lead to the optimal outcome. The talks in Istanbul over the weekend are of supreme importance. The circuit breaker is for a reconvened NPT Conference to be held in Jerusalem by the end of 2012. The Helsinki proposal is a trial balloon.

Prayers for the Middle East.

 

[Beatmaster]

Any strategist saying that it is ok if 300 Israelis, 3,000 American service men and women and 300,000 Iranians die in a "little" war is insane. Obviously if certain red lines are crossed Israel and its allies will need to use the military option, but there are a multitude of positive moves that can made before that date which will lead to the optimal outcome. The talks in Istanbul over the weekend are of supreme importance. The circuit breaker is for a reconvened NPT Conference to be held in Jerusalem by the end of 2012. The Helsinki proposal is a trial balloon.

Prayers for the Middle East.

Thing is that so called military option is not legal, as there is not ground for it.
Perhaps if Iran where to disregard more vital treaties and sanctions that military action might be a option to force them into submission, however to be frankly the Iranian program is fully legal in that regard.
International law allows Iran to have a program, and if they would step out of the NPT (Not saying they ever will but just for the sake of the argument) then they are legally allowed to go fully nuclear as it is their sovereign right to do so.
And the thing is that the same " sovereignty" of a nation does not allow military action towards a nation that did not " unprovoked" attack you.
Also the hostile way of doing politics by the US and Israel does not contribute to a more willing Iran.

I strongly recommend to read this: LINK

However i will highlight a little piece:

Year after year, the club of nuclear-weapons countries keeps getting larger and larger as more countries embark upon a strategy of nuclear deterrence to protect themselves from larger countries that indicate openly their willingness to act as imperial powers, somewhat along the lines of the old empires of the 19th century. Understandingly, some governments think it is their paramount duty to protect their country from foreign imperial domination.

In principle, any nation is entitled to possess nuclear weapons for its own defense. But to avoid a dangerous proliferation of nuclear arms, many nations chose not to have them and elected instead to rely on international law to preserve national sovereignties.

That is what happened in 1968 when most sovereign nations signed the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Today, 188 nations have signed the NPT, but India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korean are not recognizing it. The purpose was to simultaneously attempt to reduce and disarm existing nuclear stockpiles without blocking the production of peaceful nuclear energy. Indeed, the Treaty contained three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the right to use nuclear technology peacefully. —This meant that non-nuclear nations accepted not to develop nuclear weapons on their own, while the existing so-called nuclear powers committed themselves not to "induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to ... acquire nuclear weapons." Implicitly, it was understood that no country would ever use or threaten to use nuclear weapons.

In 1975, in a parallel agreement, some 44 nuclear-supplier states voluntarily accepted to coordinate their controls regarding the export of nuclear-related materials, equipment, and technology. These so-called NSG members, including the United States, are expected to forgo nuclear trade with governments that do not subject themselves to the International Atomic Energy Agency Safeguards regime, while the IAEA has the responsibility for verifying that these countries' exports are not used by the importing state for any military purpose.

The Bush-Cheney administration is the principal culprit behind the present rush toward nuclear weapons because it has violated both the spirit and the letter of the Non proliferation treaty (NPT). Indeed, it gave a very bad example in announcing, in Its 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, that first, it was keeping its nuclear options wide open, including the use of nuclear weapons in response to chemical or biological attacks or unspecified "surprising military developments", and second, that the U.S could seek to develop, and possibly test, new types of nuclear weapons in the future, such as "mini-nukes" to attack underground bunkers.

Considering that the Bush-Cheney administration has adopted a policy of preemptive use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states as an integral part of its global military strategy, it should surprise no one that a nuclear weapons arms race is now going full speed ahead among some smaller nations, anxious to protect themselves from foreign interference or foreign blackmail.

Now you might think what has this to do with Iran, well actually a lot.
Because virtually everything the US tries to change world wide is to some degree based upon foreign interference or foreign blackmail which is a integral part of its global military strategy.
As it uses its military might exactly to the point that others want to protect them selfs against.
So the very same thing that is supposed to protect the US is being used to force others.
However when this particular " other" where to acquire nuclear weapons them self then this would be wrong.

But the unwritten rule: Every nation has its own sovereign right, but one nation is more sovereign then the other

Is in my personal opinion a bigger danger then the risk of war itself.

So my question here is: What right does the US/Israel have to deny Iran a nuclear program and even stop it and why would the international community go along with it?
Because till today none could give me a solid reply on that.
And on a personal note: Watching the news and listen to the crap coming from Washington is getting boring...as it claims this says that and wants another thing...but its all Mumbo Jumbo.
As long as it serves US interests then its okay but if its NOT?
Well then you always can fall back to the UN Council to make right wrong and wrong right.

Thing is if Iran would have a nuke, then sure its bad, but it would pretty much only hurt the US in its strategy.
I mean i do not see the Chinese or the Russians or Europeans sleep any less when Iran would have a bomb.
And they do not even have a bomb, they just have a program like nearly every other western nation has....

 

[STURM]

How exactly would that bomb get to Tel Aviv? It certainly won't be a small device like the "Back Pack" bombs we've read about from the cold war. But this scenario is exactly why Israel is freaking out over the Iranian nuclear program. Eventually Iran WILL have a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

First of all, we need to ask ourselves why would Iran want a nuke or why it would want to develop the capability that would enable it to assemble a nuke if required. And we need to examine the real reasons why Israel and the U.S. would not want Iran to have nukes. Upon close scrutiny and when logic is applied, the neo-con/pro-war theme that Iran wants a nuke to threaten Israel or to threaten the 'free world' doesn't make sense. Iran does not need a nuke missile to be able to safeguard itself against regime change, as the availability of a number of nuclear devices would be sufficient - that is not to say however that it might not get a nuclear tipped missile in the future. The knowledge that Iran may have a couple of nuclear devices will significantly alter the way Israel conducts itself with Syria and the Lebanon, both areas which are of supreme importance for Iran. I would argue that Uncle Sam, in partnership with Japan and South Korea, talking of strikes on that country, rather than on Iran.

Israel is extremely scared of a nuclear armed Muslim nation, especially one as hostile as Iran, and the U.S. needs to keep tensions in this area as low as possible to guarantee a constant flow of CHEAP oil.

A 'hostile' Iran? An objective analysis of events in the Middle East for the past 3 decades will show that it is not Iran that is 'hostile' but others. Until Iran starts invading other countries and start placing military assets in a host of countries in the region, I would not describe it as 'hostile'.

http://www.agenceglobal.com/article.asp?id=2771

http://ericmargolis.com/2012/02/stop-the-hysteria-before-war-erupts-with-iran/

 

[surpreme]

First of all, we need to ask ourselves why would Iran want a nuke or why it would want to develop the capability that would enable it to assemble a nuke if required. And we need to examine the real reasons why Israel and the U.S. would not want Iran to have nukes. Upon close scrutiny and when logic is applied, the neo-con/pro-war theme that Iran wants a nuke to threaten Israel or to threaten the 'free world' doesn't make sense. Iran does not need a nuke missile to be able to safeguard itself against regime change, as the availability of a number of nuclear devices would be sufficient - that is not to say however that it might not get a nuclear tipped missile in the future. The knowledge that Iran may have a couple of nuclear devices will significantly alter the way Israel conducts itself with Syria and the Lebanon, both areas which are of supreme importance for Iran. I would argue that Uncle Sam, in partnership with Japan and South Korea, talking of strikes on that country, rather than on Iran.



A 'hostile' Iran? An objective analysis of events in the Middle East for the past 3 decades will show that it is not Iran that is 'hostile' but others. Until Iran starts invading other countries and start placing military assets in a host of countries in the region, I would not describe it as 'hostile'.

Agence Global - Article

STOP THE HYSTERIA BEFORE WAR ERUPTS WITH IRAN « Eric Margolis

From what I seen and heard all Iran do talk a bunch of bull. I remember when Iranian official were kill in Afghanistan they put forces to the border but did they do anything. no!!!!. Yes Sturm you are right Iranian did not do any action or hostiles toward any nation except for some terrorist attack look at what someone doing to there scienists.

 

[Eeshaan]

From what I seen and heard all Iran do talk a bunch of bull. I remember when Iranian official were kill in Afghanistan they put forces to the border but did they do anything. no!!!!. Yes Sturm you are right Iranian did not do any action or hostiles toward any nation except for some terrorist attack look at what someone doing to there scienists.

The first thing that comes to mind regarding Iran's capablities is a large number of small-scale attacks conducted in several different places, to cause chaos & panic, rather than do real damage to the enemy's infrastructure/military capabilities.

I.E. Attacks like the USS Cole bombings & Mumbai's terror attacks.

On a larger scale than that, other than nuclear capability ( which it is trying to get ) a large volume of missles fired at a specific location ( like Riyadh or Tel Aviv) seems all that Iran is capable of TBQH.

 

[Eeshaan]

OK this is interesting :

Russia is positioning troops to Armenia, due to signs of Israel attacking Iran in summer :

Russia Is Massing Troops On Iran's Northern Border And Waiting For A Western Attack - Business Insider

I can't really comment on the authenticity of these rumors about Israel attacking Iran in summer, but who knows ?

 

[STURM]

From what I seen and heard all Iran do talk a bunch of bull. I remember when Iranian official were kill in Afghanistan they put forces to the border but did they do anything. no!!!!.

I'm assuming you're refferring to the Iranian consulate staff that were shot when the Taliban took over Mazar? And how would you have expected Iran to have responded, by invading perhaps?? By your logic, the U.S. would have invaded and occupied Pakistan several years ago.

Yes Sturm you are right Iranian did not do any action or hostiles toward any nation except for some terrorist attack look at what someone doing to there scienists.

It would be nice if you could provide some clarification because from your sentence, I have no idea what you're on about.

Found this interesting BBC video, made during 2002/03 about Israel's 'secret' weapons. I had no indea that the subject of Israel's nukes had been raised by an MP in the Knesset before. Not to get off topic but I've included this link as there has been some discussion on Israel's nukes and how it relates to Iran.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMOtvSGJVvc"]The BBC Film That Exposed Israel's Secret Illegal Nuclear Weapons (FULL Documentary) (Banned) - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[peterAustralia]

Some very good and well thought out posts in this thread

I would agree with some others, that Iran seems to be developing a contingency to make nuclear weapons, should a crisis develop. But at the same time not going all the way as that would be very detrimental to their interests. Note that Japan has the same capability, they could make one if they wished, it might take a few months, but they have the technology.

Iran has the knowledge to make centifuges by the thousand, is has them in at least two locations, and has the option of spreading the locations around ever more, by that I mean more locations of smaller size, hidden in tunnels under mountains, makes it hard to be attacked. Iran has lauched a satellite into orbit, has a large population and makes a lot of conventional weapons, (rifles, mortars, grenads, ATGMs etc), thus it is good at making the small things. These could be very useful should they decide to react to an air strike by sending infanty into Aghanistan and or Iraq, albeit dressed as civilians for deniability.

Iraq invaded Iran, not the other way round.

America and other powers have been interfering with Iran for decades, read up on the 'Reuter concession' as just one example. Britain has sent troops in multiple times, America supported a dictator 'The Shah' who had an appalling human rights record. America shot down an airliner in a civilain air corridor (not on purpose but that really does not make much of a difference to those killed)

All of these factors have resulted in a population and a government that is not overly fond of the west, and I cant really blame them for that reasoning.

Iran a demoracy, not sure. Think it is a quasi-democracy, last election if I recall correctly the reformists won, but the hard liners resorted to force to keep the status quo. At least they are having some sort of elections, which is better than nothing.

Iran spends quite modestly on defence, around 2 percent of GDP. You would think with all the threats they recieve they would inrcrease that to 3 percent or thereabouts, I have to admit that this puzzles me.

The high oil price means that Iran gets a lot of money for hte oil it sells, even if it is selling less than it used to. The profit margin of oil at 120 dollars a barrel is a lot more than selling oil at 15 dollars a barrel (1980s). Iran has large reserves of oil, even if the sanctions are affecting how much they can sell. Thus in the long term it has ways of making a lot of money.

Iran has a lot of missiles that would be very effective against oil tankers in the persian gulf.

All in all it is not an easy fix. One can sympathise with Iran to a degree in that they have been messed about my other powers for a long long time, and are now standing up for themselves. At the same time they support terrorist groups, and stifle real democracy in their own country.

I do fear if the sanctions against Iran get too restrictive, it will force them into a corner and they might lash out, develop a dozen or so nuclear weapons, test say two or three and then ask for what they feel is a fair go.

A lot depends on if other countries are still prepared to buy Iranian oil. Even if they sell it at 20 percent discount, there would be a lot of countries tempted to buy it, even if they get aggravation from other nations.

I dont really see an easy fix

 

[PCShogun]

From what I seen and heard all Iran do talk a bunch of bull. I remember when Iranian official were kill in Afghanistan they put forces to the border but did they do anything. no!!!!. Yes Sturm you are right Iranian did not do any action or hostiles toward any nation except for some terrorist attack look at what someone doing to there scienists.

Actually, Iran was serious about invading in retaliation to the deaths of their ministers. The United Nations and United States threatened to become involved and so Iran did not invade.

First of all, we need to ask ourselves why would Iran want a nuke or why it would want to develop the capability that would enable it to assemble a nuke if required.

Sorry, I was responding to another post. I do not have any evidence other than the small amount of HEU that has been enriched that would even hint that Iran is currently assembling a atomic weapon. The current amount of HEU reportedly manufactured is consistent with a medical research reactor

A 'hostile' Iran? An objective analysis of events in the Middle East for the past 3 decades will show that it is not Iran that is 'hostile' but others. Until Iran starts invading other countries and start placing military assets in a host of countries in the region, I would not describe it as 'hostile'.

Again, I was responding to another post in this comment. I meant to imply that Iran is hostile to Israel at the moment, politically, and possibly through use of Proxy forces in Lebanon. You are correct in that Iran has not invaded its neighbors in nearly 20+ years, and then as a result of a direct attack by Iraq.

 

[peterAustralia]

The following website has by far the best information on Iran's Nuclear capability
It is packed with information that I dont really claim to understand fully

Iran Watch: Iran's nuclear timetable

one thing of note is that Iran now has apparently 9000 working gas centrifuges, plus enough uranium enriched to 3.5 percent to make around 6 atomic bombs.They have enriched enough U235 to 20 percent to almost make one a-bomb.

They say that it would take Iran less than 2 months if they wanted to make a bomb, should they choose to. Obviously they would want more than one, they ideally would want around 15 or so (should they go down this route). A few to test fully, plus a number to have as a contingency.

With more and more centrifuges coming online, plus with more and more uranium being enriched to 20 percent, then the time needed to enrich to 93 percent as required for a n-bomb gets less and less. As each month goes bye they get more centrifuges built and more uranium enrinched to 20 percent. Its almost as though they have progressed so far, that if they were totally set on making an n-bomb it would be hard to stop them.

In some ways the genies out of the bottle, even if they bomb Natantz, and try and damage the centrifuges at Fordow (though vibrations), what is to stop them installing more cascades at mulitples secret locations deep undergound, where no one knows where they are.

I am reading a book at the moment Khomeni's Ghost. Shows a history of western nations interfering and messing about with Iran for a good 150 years. Invasions, coups, dirty tricks, concessions, forced monetary reparations, support for Iraq in a war where Iraq was the agressor, imposition of western values on a populace that did not have a say if they approved of those values etc etc. This history of western interference has not created goodwill among many in Iran to the west

However this does not excuse the Irans governments poor Humans right record, execution and imprisonment of dissidents and democracy activists, support of terrorist acts via Hizbollah and Isalmic Jihad (some claim these are one and the same?)

I am not sure there is really any totally right or wrong answer, makes it hard to say what is an easy fix.

We always tend to demonise the enemy, Vietcong in vietnam, Germans in WW1, Taliban etc.

A little aside, just maybe WW1 could have been averted though better diplomacy (did WW1 really achieve anything?). Ho Chi Minh first sought out the US to support Vietnamese independance from the French in 1945 (he was turned down), the Taliban were recognised by the US prior to 2001,and are a separate organisation to Al-Queda. I despise Al-Queda, as for the Taliban, I can understand their motives, even if my fellow country men are trying to kill them and vice versa. (please note I dont want more Australians, Americans or Afghans killed),.. ideally they could all just sit down and work out a compromise, but somehow I dont think that is going to happen.

 

[Beatmaster]

The following website has by far the best information on Iran's Nuclear capability
It is packed with information that I dont really claim to understand fully

Iran Watch: Iran's nuclear timetable

one thing of note is that Iran now has apparently 9000 working gas centrifuges, plus enough uranium enriched to 3.5 percent to make around 6 atomic bombs.They have enriched enough U235 to 20 percent to almost make one a-bomb.

They say that it would take Iran less than 2 months if they wanted to make a bomb, should they choose to. Obviously they would want more than one, they ideally would want around 15 or so (should they go down this route). A few to test fully, plus a number to have as a contingency.

With more and more centrifuges coming online, plus with more and more uranium being enriched to 20 percent, then the time needed to enrich to 93 percent as required for a n-bomb gets less and less. As each month goes bye they get more centrifuges built and more uranium enrinched to 20 percent. Its almost as though they have progressed so far, that if they were totally set on making an n-bomb it would be hard to stop them.

In some ways the genies out of the bottle, even if they bomb Natantz, and try and damage the centrifuges at Fordow (though vibrations), what is to stop them installing more cascades at mulitples secret locations deep undergound, where no one knows where they are.

I am reading a book at the moment Khomeni's Ghost. Shows a history of western nations interfering and messing about with Iran for a good 150 years. Invasions, coups, dirty tricks, concessions, forced monetary reparations, support for Iraq in a war where Iraq was the agressor, imposition of western values on a populace that did not have a say if they approved of those values etc etc. This history of western interference has not created goodwill among many in Iran to the west

However this does not excuse the Irans governments poor Humans right record, execution and imprisonment of dissidents and democracy activists, support of terrorist acts via Hizbollah and Isalmic Jihad (some claim these are one and the same?)

I am not sure there is really any totally right or wrong answer, makes it hard to say what is an easy fix.

We always tend to demonise the enemy, Vietcong in vietnam, Germans in WW1, Taliban etc.

A little aside, just maybe WW1 could have been averted though better diplomacy (did WW1 really achieve anything?). Ho Chi Minh first sought out the US to support Vietnamese independance from the French in 1945 (he was turned down), the Taliban were recognised by the US prior to 2001,and are a separate organisation to Al-Queda. I despise Al-Queda, as for the Taliban, I can understand their motives, even if my fellow country men are trying to kill them and vice versa. (please note I dont want more Australians, Americans or Afghans killed),.. ideally they could all just sit down and work out a compromise, but somehow I dont think that is going to happen.

Well those are valid points, but in regards to your last line you wrote: " I don't think that is going to happen"

Would this automatically or be a default observation and conclusion thanks to the Iranians? Or do you think that the US has a part to play here in giving some to be able to receive some? As obviously you cannot expect that every bit of good will must flow from one side and one side alone.
And from my point of view there is alot to be said about Iran and there is just as much to say about the US and it would be nice if the could meet in the middle, however from what i have seen so far Iran will never meet the US in the middle if the US aint prepared to take some " goodwill" steps

 

[STURM]

America shot down an airliner in a civilain air corridor (not on purpose but that really does not make much of a difference to those killed)

Despite the fact that the USS Vincennces was in Iranian waters and the Airbus was in Iranian airspace it was a genuine mistake.Considering the situation at that time, its is understandable why the USN crew were worried that it was an Iranian plane on a one way mission. Never mind the late and subdued apology and the initial attempts to pin the blame on Iran but if the reverse had happened and if it had been a Saudi or Western airliner that was shotdown by Iran, what would the response have been?

All in all it is not an easy fix. One can sympathise with Iran to a degree in that they have been messed about my other powers for a long long time, and are now standing up for themselves. At the same time they support terrorist groups, and stifle real democracy in their own country.

All the countries in the region have been 'messed' with by foreign powers for a longtime, not only Iran, I can't think of a country that hasn't. And all the countries, irespective of what they preach, practice in double standards and hyprocrisy when it suits them, as a means to an end. We are constantly reminded about 'Iran' involvement in terrorism, yet we hear almost nothing about attempts at weakening the Iranian leadership. And we hardly hear about the foreign support that Iranian Sunni groups, which have launched attacks in Iran, have received. These groups in Iran are called 'terrorists' but are referred to by others as 'dissidents'. When it comes to stiffling demoracy, Iran is not alone in the region, far from it. But then again so what? Just because the Iranian leadership does not comprise of liberal democrats, does that justify yet another war in the region based on dubious reasons?

However this does not excuse the Irans governments poor Humans right record, execution and imprisonment of dissidents and democracy activists, support of terrorist acts via Hizbollah and Isalmic Jihad (some claim these are one and the same?)

It does not excuse anything and should not play any bearing as to how Iran should be handled. The same stuff about human rights can also be said about a number of other countries in the region that are best mates with Uncle Sam and the West. Some of the reports coming out of Bahrain concerning treatment meted out to Shias are pretty shocking. Yet we apart from some criticism at State Department briefings, the Bahrain government is getting way with it - but then Bahrain plays host to the USN doesn't it? We keep hearing about how the world is so concerned about women's rights in Afghanistan and how the Taliban keeps women from working and getting an education, yet in Saudi Arabia, Uncle Sam's strategic ally in the region, women aren't allowed to work or even drive, unlike in 'evil' Iran.

P.S. 'All The Shah's Men' by Stephen Kinzer is also a good read. It's about the 1953 coup that led to the return of the Shah.

A number of interesting videos concerning Iran.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8IyV4iMnz0"]Robert_Fisk_speaks_to_Al_Jazeera about Syria, Iran and hypocrisy of the USA Admin. - YouTube[/nomedia]


[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS7p6d287TE"]Robert Fisk - Arab League trying to destroy Iranian Influence in Middle East - YouTube[/nomedia]


[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySaSMYyE_CE&feature=relmfu"]Package War? 'West to strike Iran, Syria & Hezbollah' - YouTube[/nomedia]


[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Pp6HRoYank&feature=related"]Can Israel use air bases near Iran? - YouTube[/nomedia]


[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFSdB9RsMDY&feature=relmfu"]'Attack on Iran will force it to pursue nukes' - British MP - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[SolarWind]

I am just curious. Can you prove that Israel has nuclear weapons? Or is it just assumed that since Israel is surrounded by hostile or potentially hostile Arab nations and hasn't signed the NPT it must have nuclear weapons?

On a side note my wife just said:

Its all funny that Israel where to have problem with the nuclear program of Iran.
However what if Iran and the rest of the middle east would have problem with Israel being a nuclear power.
Will Israel then be next nation on the list of evil?
Love to see how Israel would dodge that....
Perhaps shutting down Israels nuclear drive would benefit the middle east a 1000 times more then any change to Iran could ever bring.

 

[Beatmaster]

I am just curious. Can you prove that Israel has nuclear weapons? Or is it just assumed that since Israel is surrounded by hostile or potentially hostile Arab nations and hasn't signed the NPT it must have nuclear weapons?

The Soreq Nuclear Research Center is an applied R&D Institute affiliated to the Israel Atomic Energy Commission. Its R&D activities include laser and electro optics, nuclear medicine, radiopharmaceutics, non-destructive testing, space components characterization and testing, crystal growth, development of innovative radiation detectors and sophisticated equipment for contraband detection. It offers radiation protection training, and operates personal dosimetry service. It is a major distributor of radio-pharmaceuticals for medical diagnostics and therapy.

* This Soreq NRC is world wide known for its civilian applications and hightech research.


Negev Nuclear Research Center
is an Israeli nuclear installation located in the Negev desert, about thirteen kilometers to the south-east of the city of Dimona. The purpose of Dimona is widely assumed to be the manufacturing of nuclear weapons. It is also reported to manufacture depleted uranium for armor-piercing shells. Israel acknowledges the existence of the site, but refuses to either confirm or deny its suspected purpose in a policy known as nuclear ambiguity. Information about the facility remains highly classified.

* However the Negev NRC has been the center point for the past 30 years in regards to Israels nuclear program and despite the fact that Israel neither denied or agreed to the question if they have nuclear weapons its widely believed that they have between 50 and 200 operational warheads and a number of stored parts that could be assembled to bring additional warheads operational.
And its the birthplace of their nuclear program which has been pointed out by South African official documents.
So do they have or did have a program is proven beyond the doubt.
Do they have the bomb? I say yes and i can not prove it.
However i will give you a clear motivation why i think that they do, and also if i think that it has been proven.

As i said personally do not have the evidence that Israel does have nuclear weapons, however some time ago there was a documentary from the Dutch program NOVA which is world famous for its shocking and accurate programs and it was about the fear in Israel over Iran's possible nuclear weapons program.
And during that docu several key figures of the Israeli government and intellectual high placed people did have their say about Israel and Iran.
Later that show a air-force major was interviewed who participated during the hits on Syria and Iraq. (Forgot his name) the question was asked if Israel does have nuclear weapons, and he replied in full that Israel does have nuclear weapons.
Now regardless if this airforce major did speak the truth or not fact remains that out of the 11 key figures that where interviewed all of them replied to that question with a full YES.

Also there have been loads of stories out there and conspiracy theories out there, however history books state that after the Six-Day War (June 1967) it did become clear that Israel needed " other" means to secure its future and to make sure that Israel can avoid to be defeated and effectively being wiped out, and according to many on line sources this would have been the start of a program which involved South Africa and Israel starting a nuclear program.
History sources indicate that Israel did have their " bombs" tested during the South African tests.(Or together with them) so they always could deny to ever have carried out a test themselfs.
This has been pointed out by official documents released by Wikileaks and later when this info did came out South Africa did admit and released some info.

I did some digging and i found some parts of it at the guardian source:

Next to this it has been covered by all the major news agencies world wide.

Now if you put aside the question if Israel does have nuclear bombs, we can certain about the fact that they do have the tech, the infrastructure and everything else to have a successful program.
Having that said, back to your original question: Can i prove that Israel has N-Bombs/ Warheads answer: NO

However if i turn the question around: Do i believe that they have nuclear weapons and do i think it has been proven beyond the reasonable doubt?
Then i say YES YES YES in full.
Main reason for this is that Israel does not admit to have them, but everyone knows they have.
Next to that if you take a look at their military and the military assets then you will see that for example: Jericho intercontinental ballistic missiles, Dolphin-class submarine,
F-15I and F-16I Sufa fighter aircraft are all perfectly capable of delivering a or multi nuclear weapons.
Specially the Jericho ICBM and the Dolphin Class sub would be perfect to deliver such weapon.
And one other very important fact is that in 1986 a technical guy named: Mordechai Vanunu did actually sort of revealed that Israel has nuclear weapons.
He was one of the key technicians at the Negev Nuclear Research Center.
And last but least since 1960 there have been enough reports and direct/indirect evidence from key figures and political/military sources.
So for me its a proven fact.

 

[peterAustralia]

Israel has nuclear weapons and has had them for many, many decades. There is zero doubt

I have a book, called 'The bomb in the basement' which describes how Israel obtained the cabability from France. They have a heavy water reactor, these are used to make Plutonium. Extract the plutoniium from spent fuel rods, and this is the fuel for an atomic bomb.

Mordicai Vanunu (spelling from memory) was a technician there, spilt the beans, took heaps of photos and let the world know how many a-bombs Israel has. The answer to how many, is heaps (hundreds). They also have the H-bomb as well if my memory is correct.

Read a book years ago, the US basically confronted Israel over this issue in the 1970s, and Israel said straight up they have the a-bomb. They even tested one over the ocean South East of South Africa in an amazingly remote part of the ocean, this was back in the 1970s. It was hushed up at the time, the US said it was a meteorite... (cough cough)

A heavy water reactor can make enough plutonium to make around 10 a-bombs a year. They have had a heavy water reactor for around 40 years, you do the maths

There is not one serious commentator that says that Israel does not have them. it is accepted as fact.

The israeli line that they wont be the first to introduce them to the region is public relations bulldust. USA introduced a-bombs to the region in the 1950s, on ships in the gulf, and also into Turkey on Jupiter missiles.

So next time you hear Israel spout out its public relattions bulldust on this issue, you can tell them categorically they are talking out of their a**

Same thing happened with India and Pakistan. Actually India tested an a-bomb undergound around 1972. It was kept quiet. They were refrerred to threshold nuclear powers. Though everyone that mattered knew they both had them.

Eventually India got sick of playing the stupid game and detonated a couple, Pakistan replied and detonated a few (might have been two or 3), Inida replied with a few more underground tests, to make a total for them of about tests. Exact numbers are from memory, but you can look it up on a google search very very easily.

As to proving that Israel has weapons, well the thing is if I asked them I dont think they would let me through the door and show me. But there is zero doubt in this matter, not even a one in a million chance that it is otherwise. Anyone saying differently is really speaking out of their a**. Excuse the crudeness but I am too old for silly word games.

 

[STURM]

I am just curious. Can you prove that Israel has nuclear weapons? Or is it just assumed that since Israel is surrounded by hostile or potentially hostile Arab nations and hasn't signed the NPT it must have nuclear weapons?

Watch this video and try get a copy of Seymour Hersh's 'The Sampson Option'. Apart from the Arabs, the Soviet Union was also a reason why Israel developed its nukes.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMOtvSGJVvc"]The BBC Film That Exposed Israel's Secret Illegal Nuclear Weapons (FULL Documentary) (Banned) - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[Beatmaster]

Anyone saying differently is really speaking out of their a**. Excuse the crudeness but I am too old for silly word games.

Thats gotta be ancient or even prehistoric then
Just kidding.