Escalating Risks – The Threat of a Mushroom Cloud in the Middle East

When will Netanyahu push the Red Button?

Dimona

In the heart of Israel’s southern desert lies Dimona—a facility whose very existence was, for decades, an open secret and a silent promise of deterrence. Israel’s policy of nuclear ambiguity, coupled with regional power struggles, has kept the nuclear threshold a distant line. But today, as Israel faces political upheaval, growing existential threats, and an emboldened administration under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the once-unthinkable question emerges: Could Israel be edging closer to deploying its nuclear option?

Physicist and philosopher Avshalom Elitzur, along with Israeli-American nuclear historian Avner Cohen, have expressed serious concerns over the erosion of Israel’s cautious nuclear stance. Their perspectives challenge both the official rhetoric and the broader Israeli public, urging a reassessment of what it means to wield nuclear weapons responsibly—and the dangers that emerge when that responsibility wanes.

The Allure and Peril of Nuclear Ambiguity

From its earliest days, Israel maintained a “nuclear opacity,” refusing to confirm or deny its capabilities. The world came to accept the Dimona facility as Israel’s silent trump card—a deterrent rather than an actual weapon to be wielded. This ambiguous stance, writes Avner Cohen in Israel and the Bomb, was strategically brilliant but ethically and democratically fraught. It shielded Israel from the scrutiny of the international community, keeping its nuclear arsenal “invisible” but ever-present.

Yet Cohen warns that this opacity is a double-edged sword. Without minimum transparency, Israel risks slipping into dangerous waters: with no established doctrine and limited public debate, nuclear policy decisions could rest solely in the hands of a few individuals. This “worst-kept secret” has transformed from a safeguard into a potential liability. "Ambiguity allowed Israel to deter without declaring; yet it’s precisely this lack of public accountability that makes nuclear decisions more precarious than ever.”

The Politicisation of Nuclear Power Under Netanyahu

Enter Benjamin Netanyahu. Known for his aggressive posturing toward Iran and his divisive leadership style, Netanyahu has shifted Israel’s national security focus sharply rightward. The prime minister’s rhetoric regarding Iran is not just about nuclear deterrence—it’s about existential survival. Yet this fixation, Elitzur argues in my interview with him (link below), dangerously narrows Israel’s nuclear stance into a tool of brinkmanship rather than a means of stability.

Avshalom Elitzur, whose pioneering work in quantum mechanics has fostered his unorthodox yet profound views on policy and ethics, is among Netanyahu’s harshest critics. “We are very weak now, to the point of being at real risk because we are corrupt,” Elitzur states bluntly. His critique, however, extends beyond domestic governance, touching on Netanyahu’s willingness to place Israel’s nuclear assets at the centre of its defence strategy. "For many years, we have never been in a situation in which our back is to Dimona. Now, this is shrinking." This chilling part of the interview reflects Elitzur’s alarm that Israel’s nuclear option, once a last resort, is now nearer than ever.

Escalating Risks – A Mushroom Cloud in the Middle East?

Both Elitzur and Cohen point to the region’s fraught dynamics as factors that amplify the stakes of a nuclear slip. Middle Eastern geopolitics - and especially the conduct of Shiite Led Iran - are a volatile mix of sectarian strife, state rivalry, geo-political interests and deep-rooted mistrust. The mere perception of Israeli willingness to use nuclear weapons could trigger a regional arms race, with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran all potentially vying for their own arsenals.

Israel’s nuclear deterrent has historically hinged on the assumption that “the bomb is there, but we will never use it.” This assumption, however, is under intense strain as Netanyahu’s administration pushes the boundaries of nuclear discourse. By openly discussing Israel’s nuclear posture as part of its defence against Iran, Netanyahu risks deconstructing decades of careful diplomatic ambiguity.

Elitzur paints a particularly stark picture in the interview: “There is a danger of a mushroom cloud in the Middle East… The world seeing another nuclear bomb over, this time, the Middle East is really serious, as long as we have Netanyahu in office.” His words strike at the heart of the fear shared by Cohen and other observers—that the reckless use of Israel’s nuclear deterrent could forever alter the region’s landscape.

The Ethical Dilemma – When Science Meets Policy

For Elitzur - like for some of the prominent Manhattan project’s scientists - the role of a scientist goes beyond the laboratory; it includes a moral imperative to speak out on issues of public concern. Elitzur’s position brings a unique ethical perspective to the nuclear debate. Drawing on his understanding of quantum mechanics—where observation can change outcomes—he emphasises the unpredictable nature of nuclear escalation. “In quantum mechanics, what you observe influences what is,” he remarks, “and it is the same in politics. Once we begin discussing the unthinkable, it becomes thinkable.”

Cohen’s academic work complements this view by arguing that Israel’s nuclear discourse should involve public accountability. By moving the conversation from the shadows into the public domain, Cohen contends that Israel can reinforce a nuclear posture rooted in responsibility rather than fear. “Nuclear weapons aren’t just tools of defence; they’re existential threats that require transparent discourse and ethical oversight,” he asserts.

Netanyahu’s Legacy and the Dimona Gamble

Netanyahu’s legacy is complex, to put it mildly. To his supporters, he is Israel’s iron wall against a hostile region; to his detractors, he is a leader whose decisions are leading Israel toward peril. Elitzur’s critique cuts to the core of Netanyahu’s nuclear gamble: the erosion of nuclear caution could lead Israel to a place it has desperately avoided—a situation where it feels compelled to use its nuclear capability.

Elitzur’s warnings, however, offer an alternative path. He advocates for a return to rational discourse, democratic oversight, and an ethical reassessment of Israel’s nuclear policy. Netanyahu’s rhetoric might speak of power, but Elitzur argues that true strength lies in restraint, transparency, and the courage to confront uncomfortable truths.

The Trump Factor: Unprecedented Leverage and Nuclear Escalation

The re-election of Donald Trump, a staunch supporter of Israel’s right-wing policies, could embolden Israel’s hardliners and alter the calculus for regional stability in ways that were previously unthinkable. With Trump’s unwavering backing, Israel may feel empowered to take drastic actions: first, by pursuing the forced expulsion of Palestinian populations from contested areas under the guise of "security" or "demographic management"; second, by escalating military engagements with neighbouring states like Lebanon or Iran, potentially sparking a wider regional war.

Most alarmingly, Trump’s support could grant tacit approval for Israel to consider its tactical nuclear arsenal not merely as a defensive deterrent but as an offensive tool against Iran, a move that would break the historic doctrine of nuclear restraint and push the Middle East towards an unprecedented—and perhaps irreversible—nuclear escalation.

Israel at the Crossroads

Israel’s journey with nuclear weapons began as a deterrent, shrouded in ambiguity and wielded as a last line of defence. But today, as Netanyahu’s administration pushes this powerful symbol to the forefront of its security narrative, Israel stands at a nuclear crossroads. Avshalom Elitzur’s critiques remind us that nuclear weapons are more than just tools—they’re Pandora’s box, whose use would change not only Israel but the entire region forever.

The choice facing Israel is profound: it can continue down the path of brinkmanship, risking a descent into nuclear conflict, or it can heed the warnings of its own intellectuals and scientists, who argue for a responsible, transparent, and ultimately peaceful nuclear doctrine. In the shadow of Dimona, the future of Israel—and the Middle East—hangs in the balance.