Duplicity and Self-Deception: Israel, the United States, and the Dimona Inspections, 1964-65

Ever since the May 1961 meeting between President Kennedy and Prime Minister Ben Gurion, the United States had maintained that basic information about the peaceful nature of the Dimona reactor should be shared with President Nasser of Egypt, as an assurance that Israel was not building the bomb. On March 3, 1964, Ambassador Barbour met Foreign Ministry Director General Arieh Levavi who informed him that Prime Minister Eshkol had concluded, after much “heart-searching,” that U.S. and Israeli “objectives [were] not best served by reassurances to Nasser about Dimona.” According to an aide memoire that Levavi read to Barbour, it was not “advisable to release Nasser from any apprehension he may have as to Israel's military capacities since he loses no opportunity public to emphasize war with Israel inevitable as soon as his military preparations [had] sufficiently advanced.”

When Barbour later spoke with Eshkol, the prime minister showed the same reluctance that he had expressed in his letter to Kennedy in August 1963. Barbour recounted that Eshkol displayed “genuine conviction … that Nasser [was] determined to acquire maximum arsenal regardless Israeli development and that consequently it [was] desirable, as deterrent, that he be allowed [to] worry about [an] Israeli nuclear equation.” Suggesting that one of Eshkol’s principal concerns was the “threat of Nasser’s exploitation of any assurances passed to him,” Barbour observed that the current political situation made that “understandable.” The “public revelation [of] US visits [to] Dimona, especially any idea of US ‘inspection’ [of] that installation would subject Prime Minister to wide criticism not only from right wing HERUT adherents but in broader circles,” including members of his own party.

State Department Executive Secretary Benjamin Read informed Bundy of Ambassador Barbour’s failed attempt to convince Eshkol to approve the U.S. request to inform Nasser of the “peaceful nature of Israel’s nuclear development activities.” In contrast to Eshkol, who believed that uncertainty about Dimona would deter Nasser from military “adventures,” the U.S. Embassy in Cairo had opined that “lack of reasonable assurances” would encourage Nasser to develop “matching sophisticated weapons,” possibly even launch a “pre-emptive strikes on Israel.” Recommending a presidential message to persuade Eshkol to reconsider, Read enclosed a draft letter that was incorporated into a telegram sent to the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv.

In a message to Eshkol that was sent to the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, President Johnson informed the Israeli leader that he “was distressed to learn from Ambassador Barbour that you feel unable to approve of our reassuring President Nasser about the peaceful character of the Dimona reactor.” Questioning Eshkol’s argument that Egyptian “apprehension [about] Israel's atomic potential will ... help deter Nasser from attacking Israel,” Johnson suggested that Nasser’s fears could “drive him to a choice between accelerating the UAR military build-up or a desperate pre-emptive attack.” Arguing that any value from Dimona as a deterrent was “trivial” compared to those risks, Johnson urged Eshkol to reconsider. Johnson had no concern that Nasser “could adversely exploit” any reassurances because the United States would not provide him any details about the reactor.

The Department also reported about possible leaks concerning the January 1964 inspection of Dimona, noting that the Jewish Observer had published a story about a top secret report by U.S. experts “who had studied the potentialities” of the Dimona reactor and a specific inquiry by an “Israeli newsman … about US interest in Dimona and rumored visit by US scientific team.”

Ambassador Barbour met Prime Minister Eshkol to discuss President Johnson’s letter. Again, Eshkol questioned the whole idea of assurances to Nasser, wondering if they “had really relieved tensions.” During the conversation, Eshkol asked several times whether anyone could be sure that Nasser was really “concerned” about Dimona. Moreover, Eshkol had made a “public declaration” that Dimona was for peaceful use only; thus, the “other side” should make a reciprocal statement. Moreover, if the U.S. thought it was important to reassure Nasser, what did it expect to get from him in return?

Observing that Nasser knew about previous U.S. visits to Dimona. Barbour argued that if Nasser was told nothing about the recent [January] visit, it would deepen his suspicions about Israel’s nuclear intentions. As for Eshkol’s argument that “uncertainty on this matter will deter Nasser,” Barbour reminded him that the “President believes that uncertainty very much intensifies danger of a desperate miscalculation,” and preemptive war.

Eshkol responded that neither the U.S. nor Israel can be sure that Israel is not “now under an Egyptian nuclear threat” and that the Egyptians are “working in atomic installations in India” and elsewhere. Barbour replied that the “UAR does not have nuclear weapons potential nor will it have it for very long time if ever.” Near the close of the discussion, Eshkol promised that he would give “further consideration” to President Johnson’s request.

Replying to President Johnson, Eshkol wrote that he had not changed his objections to providing Nasser with assurances about Dimona. Insisting that Nasser would not hesitate to attack Israel if he found a “suitable opportunity,” Eshkol argued that allaying his apprehensions about “Israel’s deterrent capacity” would make the danger “more acute.” According to Eshkol, “no government in circumstances similar to those in which we find ourselves would permit itself to forego even a psychological advantage.” He concluded by noting that President Johnson’s interest in Israeli security should help him understand “the motives for the position I feel obliged to take.”

A visit by a delegation from the National War College prompted informal discussions with senior Israelis on the subject of nuclear weapons. The discussions provide a window to understand differences within the Israeli leadership on the nuclear issue.

Prime Minister Levi Eshkol and Foreign Minister Golda Meir presented a cautious position on nuclear weapons. Eshkol affirmed that the Dimona complex was peaceful and Meir somewhat vaguely noted that it would be “awful” if Israel was pressed to seek nuclear weapons – but it was Deputy Defense Minister Shimon Peres, the man in charge of the nuclear project, who left the impression to his audience that nuclear proliferation in the region was likely. Peres clearly implied that if the UAR obtained nuclear weapons Israel would too, but he emphasized Israel would not be the first to introduce such weapons into the Near East.” The latter was a formulation that Peres had stated before and that other Israeli policymakers would also use.

On the statements by Peres, the report’s author, First Secretary Stephen Palmer, commented that Israel would “no doubt …. seek to keep its option for nuclear weapons fabrication more on the ready than Israeli intelligence estimates the UAR's option to be.”

On the eve of Levi Eshkol’s visit to Washington, NSC staffer Robert Komer briefed President Johnson on the visit’s key issues, of which two related to the nuclear problem. Komer urged Johnson to tell Eshkol “right off the bat that the US stands foursquare behind Israel’s security and well-being.” On Egyptian missiles, he advised trying again to argue that the Israelis “hadn't really evaluated” whether they posed a threat.

On Dimona, Komer thought that it was important to keep pressing the Israelis to assure Nasser that Israel was not building nuclear weapons, even though the Israelis were building a “functioning secret breeder reactor plus an oncoming missile delivery system [that] add up to an inescapable conclusion that Israel is at least putting itself in a position to go nuclear.” For this reason, it was important to press the missile issue even if not successfully because it “will at least put Israel firmly on notice that we may be back at it again.”

On IAEA controls, Komer advised Johnson to press the issue; Israeli opposition added to “suspicions” even though the safeguards were only for a “piddling 1-MW research reactor.” Komer hoped that Johnson would “personally tell Eshkol they should bite the bullet now.”

Prime Minister Levi Eshkol’s visit to the White House was the first state visit byan Israeli head of government. Both sides were cognizant of this “first time ever” symbolism and wanted to make a good show of U.S.-Israeli friendship. President Johnson started the meeting by stating that “he was foursquare behind Israel on all matters that affected their national security interests.” Johnson also noted that his Deputy Special Counsel, Myer “Mike” Feldman, whom President Kennedy had informally nominated as his liaison with the American Jewish community in Israel, continues to serve him as his “Prime Minister” on Israel policy.

The two leaders discussed a variety of issues, including American M-48 tanks, water projects, overall security, the UAR’s missile capabilities, and, very carefully, the nuclear problem. On tanks, water desalinization, and other matters there was agreement, but less so on missiles and the nuclear issue. Yet those disagreements were largely matters of nuance.

Repeating the well-known Israeli narrative of itself as a small country surrounded by enemies avowed to destroy it, and stressing Israel’s refusal to gamble on its security, Eshkol expressed alarm about a prospective UAR large missile capability and dismissed American assurances that the missiles were “primitive.” Eshkol asked what could he say to his countrymen or the Knesset when asked “what … is he doing to face the missile threat;” he could not simply reply, ''[t]he Americans told me that the Egyptian missiles are no good." Eshkol did not openly acknowledge that Israel had launched a secret missile project of its own in cooperation with France – something that the U.S. had known almost since the contract had been signed – but he assured Johnson obliquely that Israel would not have missiles for a year or two.

The most sensitive topic was the nuclear problem and both leaders touched it with caution. Initially, Johnson asked if Israel “is not going to get into nuclear production, why not accept IAEA control and let U.S. reassure Nasser about Dimona?” But Eshkol declined: he could not “agree that Nasser should be told the real situation in Dimona because Nasser is.an enemy.” “Why tell Nasser,” he asked, that Israel “was not engaged in nuclear weapons production?” "Why should we tell Nasser when we don't know from his [sic] what he is doing about missiles.” It should be noted that former Prime Minister Ben Gurion had been somewhat more agreeable to a similar request from President Kennedy made in their meeting on May 30, 1961. But then Dimona was still under construction.

Evaluating the final talks with Eshkol on June 2, Komer congratulated Johnson that his “soft sell” had worked because Eshkol finally had made two major concessions. First, Eshkol was willing to “let us reassure Nasser on Dimona.” Second, Eshkol assented to a U.S. proposal to seek IAEA safeguards for the small nuclear research reactor at Soreq once the U.S. bilateral agreement covering it had expired.

In September 1964, the State Department tried to begin a dialogue with Eshkol about the timing of the next Dimona inspection. Not responding, the prime minister kept the U.S. embassy and the State Department out of the picture by sending a personal message to President Johnson through White House official Meyer “Mike” Feldman. Requesting a delay until after the Israeli November 1965 elections, Eshkol was worried that word of a U.S. inspection of the Dimona reactor could be leaked and would damage his political prospects. Moreover, Eshkol noted that his request should not cause real difficulty because Dimona could not turn into a military project in such a short time period.

Apparently, Feldman incorporated the prime minister’s communication in a memorandum to Johnson, which is not available to the authors. Komer made it evident that he was critical of Feldman for serving as a sympathetic messenger for Eshkol while bypassing diplomatic channels. His disparaging tone is evident as he begins the memo by noting “Mike’s facts are off” and places the quotation marks around “message.”

Komer’s memo is factually rich and it includes a reminder to Bundy of what a “pain in the neck” the Dimona inspection issue had been for President Kennedy, and how difficult it had been to get the Israelis to allow annual inspections, much less semi-annual visits, the way Kennedy (and the AEC) had been insisting all along. He noted that “Eshkol carefully avoided a firm commitment [on the question of sequence and timing of the inspections] but we decided to act as if he had agreed” to semiannual visits.

Komer warned that “even accepting that only annual visits were agreed” – noting in parentheses that “Mike sounds more categorical than Israelis on this matter” – Eshkol’s new request “could leave Dimona uninspected for up to two years since it has gone critical.” At a minimum, the White House needed a CIA-AEC judgement “as to what that could entail, i.e., could Israelis siphon off much [plutonium] in that period.” Komer also wanted “a better fix on Israeli domestic political angle,” noting that neither the Embassy nor the State Department seemed to share Feldman’s perspective on Eshkol’s domestic political situation.

As the State Department was in the dark about Eshkol’s request, Komer recommended that State be told; it was necessary for the president to have “both sides of the story” before making any decision.

Three days after Komer’s message (Document 10), Bundy informed Secretary of State Rusk about Eshkol’s personal request for a delay on Dimona inspections, on which President Johnson sought the Secretary’s recommendations. Recognizing that Rusk would have disapproved of Feldman’s evasion of diplomatic protocol, Bundy did not mention how the Eshkol message was conveyed. Bundy recommended that a decision not be made about this “sensitive matter” until after the U.S. elections “which gives time for us to investigate the full implications of a delay en route.” In the meantime, “any further diplomatic approaches” to Israel should be postponed. In addition, CIA director McCone should be asked to evaluate the risks of a possible two-year “inspection gap.”

In a detailed memo on Eshkol’s request to postpone the next American inspection at Dimona, Near Eastern Affairs director Rodger Davies argued that an early inspection was essential, otherwise Dimona would remain uninspected for two years. CIA, AEC, and State had concluded that “Israel in the period between the last inspection of Dimona in January 1964 and January 1, 1966 [the earliest estimated time of next inspection, had Eshkol’s request been accepted] could produce 6 to 12 kgs of plutonium, …enough for one or two test devices.” Moreover, in light of Israel’s 1963 contract with France for surface-to-surface missiles, Davies suggests, Eshkol’s request “may be related to a decision to develop in secret a nuclear weapons capability.” Citing various suspicious developments, such as the secret expansion of Dimona and the acquisition of Argentine yellowcake, Davies insisted that it was “imperative to press Mr. Eshkol … to set a date for inspection in the near future.” Failure to do so may encourage him “to use his own domestic political problems as justification for resisting pressures” from the United States. Davies believed it was essential to send a reply to Eshkol by 3 November (i.e., before the U.S. presidential election).

Hoping to persuade top policymakers to reject Eshkol’s request, Davies prepared arguments for Talbot to use when meeting Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and former New York Governor, Averell Harriman. One argument concerned the political impact of a delayed response to Eshkol’s request. Failure to lodge a “swift, unambiguous [negative] reaction” to Eshkol’s proposal could lead him to concludet domestic Israeli politics can leverage American pressure. Even worse, “our failure to react promptly will provide the proponents of security through development of an independent deterrent with an opportunity to bring strong pressure on the Prime Minister.”

Davies implied that immediate pressure was essential because the U.S. did not have real leverage on Israel. Even denial of economic and military aid would provide little means for “coercion” because the Israelis could “survive and flourish” without it. “The only effective way to prevent Israel from embarking on a nuclear weapons course is not to permit an opportunity for such a decision to be implemented covertly.” The U.S. could try to buy out a nuclear program by offering high-performance jets or Pershing missiles but that would only “postpone the ultimate Israeli decision.”

Handwritten comments on the document, probably by Harriman, rejected 3 November as a “magic” date, although he found the argument for an early reply to be “sound.” In any event, a few weeks delay would not hurt the case. Moreover, Robert Komer had told him that President Johnson, then in the midst of his election campaign, would not be “willing and able to focus on this for a while.”

More than a week after Eshkol made his private channel plea to President Johnson, Talbot informed Ambassador Barbour about it. “Initial response here is negative.” But until President Johnson made a final decision, Ambassador Barbour was not to raise the matter of inspections.

In responding to Talbot’s telegram, Ambassador Barbour, who saw Eshkol’s message as an “unfortunate development,” recommended compromise rather than prompt rejection. He believed that Eshkol had made his request “not lightly” and noted that his “political situation is extremely delicate.” Recommending that Washington be as “forthcoming” as possible to the Israeli request, Barbour suggested a “counter proposal,” with three elements: 1) that the next inspection occur within one to two months, 2) “ waive Prime Minister’s commitment for subsequent six months visit until after his November 1965 elections,” a commitment that Eshkol had never made in writing, and 3) not sharing with Nasser the results of the next visit until after the November 1965 elections. “This scenario would avoid long, almost two [year] gap in visits entailed in Prime Minister’s present request” and avoid that danger that Nasser could embarrass Eshkol by leaking results of the visit during the Israel political campaign the following year.

In an important memorandum to McGeorge Bundy, Harriman drew on the arguments mustered in Davies memoranda of 28 and 29 October to argue in favor of pressing Eshkol on an early Dimona inspection (in a month or two). Harriman doubted Eshkol’s political justification and was concerned that the delay might provide Israel a time window to turn Dimona into a weapons program. He further noted that with the recent Chinese nuclear explosion, “failure to press Israel to meet its commitment for an inspection every six months could vitiate our policy of opposition to nuclear proliferation” and further “jeopardize our efforts to persuade Nasser to slow down the U.A.R. sophisticated weapons buildup and could drive him to greater dependence on the Soviet Union.” Moreover, Israel could not be allowed “to renege on an inspection commitment which was secured by us only as the result of long and painful pressure” without undermining the U.S. “position that we must have access to Dimona to assure ourselves against nuclear proliferation.”

Harriman enclosed a draft telegram to the Embassy in Tel Aviv, with the ideas suggested by Ambassador Barbour. It included a message to Eshkol calling for a U.S. inspection visit at “a very early date.” It mentioned the earlier understanding on bi-annual inspections but that could be waived until after November 1965. In addition, the U.S. would agree not to communicate the results of the inspection to Nasser until after the November 1965 election.

With his memorandum, Harriman included an important State-CIA-AEC report entitled “Technical Assessment” on the state of Israeli nuclear program, and in particular on Israel’s capability to produce plutonium during 1964-1965 if there were no inspections. According to the report, the Israelis had enough uranium at hand that if, during the period from January 1964 (the date of the last inspection) to January 1966, they operated the reactor at a “power level designed to maximize plutonium production, it could produce 6 to 12 KGs of plutonium.” That would be enough to produce material for up to “two test devices.”

In advance of a meeting with President Johnson, State Department officials briefed Secretary of State Dean Rusk on several issues, including the president’s reply to Eshkol on the Dimona inspections. “We need Presidential approval for the Department’s proposal to go back to Eshkol and reiterate our request for an early inspection but advise him we will not ask [for] another inspection before the '65 election.”

Correspondence with Heads of State, 1961-1971, box 10, Israel 3 of 3

President Johnson and National Security Advisor Bundy approved the proposal to send a personal message to Prime Minister Eshkol about an early inspection visit, which was transmitted to Ambassador Barbour in a telegram on 24 November. While acknowledging Eshkol’s political difficulties, Johnson asserted “the importance of the semi-annual visits on which we have previously agreed” because of the importance of “prevent[ing] proliferation of sophisticated weapons in the world and especially in the Near East.” Johnson expressed his hope that the next visit would be held very soon – “in late November or early December,” but he agreed to waive the following visit until after the November 1965 Israeli elections. Similarly, he was willing to delay informing Nasser of the results of the visit until after the Israeli elections.

In the instructions for Ambassador Barbour, following the text of the formal presidential message, Barbour was asked to convey to Eshkol that a “Dimona inspection within 1-2 months [was] imperative.” It is worth noting that in the formal text of the letter the subject was “visit” but in the oral discussion points, the reference was to “inspection.”

The next day, the State Department superseded telegram 434 (Document 18) with talking points to be used in discussions with Eshkol. Barbour was to tell Eshkol that President Johnson felt “bound to urge the importance of the semi-annual visits on which we have previously agreed.” ] This was bound up with the U.S’s ” continuing effort to prevent proliferation of sophisticated weapons, not least in the Near East.” The U.S. believed that “Eshkol fully agrees that this effort is in the interests of Israel” and that he will be able to “see his way clear to arrange for a visit by our people to Dimona in late November or early December.”

The administration was, however, willing to make concessions, such as waiving Israel’s commitment to “another six-monthly inspection until after November 1965 elections, contingent upon satisfactory findings next inspection and without prejudice to resumption schedule of six-monthly visits thereafter.” The U.S. was also willing to “postpone passing results inspection to Nasser” until after the 1965 elections. If Eshkol claims that Cabinet “hard-liners” are the problem, Barbour should mention “our difficulty in understanding this argument, since BG personally agreed to periodic inspections in May 1963, presumably with concurrence of Cabinet.”

Responding to Barbour’s report on Eshkol’s agreement to U.S. inspection on the weekend of 30 January 1965, the State Department was “naturally unhappy” that an earlier date was not set. Moreover, Eshkol’s argument for delay “heightens our security fears” and his statement that “we cannot build nuclear weapon in two months" was not comforting. “We hope … he will not invoke domestic political problems as pretext for further delays.” To do so “would bring into question Israel's good faith.” Setting forth U.S. desiderata for a productive inspection, the team would need a minimum of “two full days,” “with full access to reactor and all other facilities in order verify nature all such facilities, their production capacity and their present utilization.” Moreover, operating records and facilities “at which irradiated or unirradiated reactor fuel is stored, fabricated or processed” should be available for inspection. The team should be able to “make independent measurements as may be necessary to verify production of reactor since previous visit.” Moreover, the team should be able to “verify location and use [of] any plutonium or other fissionable material produced in reactor.”

Eshkol’s sudden resignation on December 15 “for no sound reason” made State Department officials wonder whether he was trying to position himself to back out, once again, of the earlier agreement to the 30 January inspection. They especially worried that if Eshkol set up a caretaker government “to plead more effectively that he was in no position to entertain distasteful foreign proposals.” In that context, Davies argued that it was important to “press for the Dimona inspection as scheduled on January 30” on the terms laid out in the 9 December draft telegram. He also suggested that “we request the President's permission to exert the graduated pressures set forth in our memorandum on extension of IAEA safeguards to nuclear facilities in the Near East.”

Notably, Davies’ memo to Talbot included a one-page list of “graduated scale of pressures” the United States could use against Israel in case it canceled the scheduled January visit. It appears that the list was prepared earlier by State Department officials, when the US was considering pressure on Israel to accept IAEA safeguards on Dimona.

Within a week a new Israeli government was formed and received a vote of confidence by the Knesset, which solidified Eshkol’s leadership position. That enabled Barbour, on 4 January, to present the latest U.S. terms to Eshkol, who argued that they would put the visit on a new basis, making it look like an “inspection” and raise issues “of prejudice to Israeli sovereignty.” Refusing to agree to two full days, the visit would have to begin on Friday the 29th at noon and end Saturday evening. Eshkol emphasized that the “visit must be fundamentally on same basis as previous ones, that is, team must be invited guests of Israel and not ‘inspectors.”

The U.S. accepted Eshkol’s schedule, noting that it did not matter whether the U.S. team was called “inspectors” or “invited guests,” as long as they had complete access to the site and all relevant reports.

The inspection team was scheduled to meet Talbot and others for a background briefing. The team consisted of three members: Ulysses M. Staebler, (Senior Associate Director, AEC Division of Reactor Development); Floyd Culler, Jr. (Assistant Director of Reactor Technology of Oak Ridge National Laboratory); and Clyde L. McClelland (nuclear physicist, ACDA). Culler, McClelland, and Staebler had participated in previous inspection visits.

Davies recommended emphasizing the importance of the inspections to “assure the Arabs that Israel's nuclear activities are strictly peaceful,” thus avoiding “stimulating an Arab pre-emptive attack.” At the same time, the State Department was “increasingly concerned” that Israel might develop atomic weapons because of a variety of warning signs, including a secret expansion of Dimona, the departure of French technicians, the purchase of 80 tons of yellow cake from Argentina, and “unknown activities in a crater named “Hamakhtesh Haqatan” [“the small crater” in Hebrew] southeast of Dimona reportedly related to work at the reactor.”

When the inspection was arranged, the U.S. insisted, and Israel agreed, that the U.S. team would be “allowed whatever time was necessary to permit complete observations at the reactor site.” If the time allocated, from noon on 29 January to late evening on the 30^th, proved to be “insufficient, the team should stay on to arrange additional visits to appropriate facilities.”

Of great importance was that the inspection was to receive no public mention and “even discussion within the U.S. Government and Embassy Tel Aviv [is] strictly limited.” A leak would give the Israelis a “pretext for terminating future visits.”

In January 1965, the 42-year-old Harvard professor Henry Kissinger visited Israel and met the Israeli leadership. On 1 February he briefed the political team of the American embassy in Tel Aviv on his informal exchanges with Eshkol, Peres, and others on a full array of strategic issues, including nuclear weapons. Kissinger started by observing some significant differences in Israeli attitudes and thinking since his previous visit in 1962. Then, Ben Gurion had questioned Kissinger at length about U.S. security guarantees, making it obvious that Israel was seriously interested in them. Now, in 1965, Kissinger observed, “nobody takes U.S. guarantees seriously.” He discerned a sense of cynicism and skepticism among Israeli leaders towards the U.S.’s ability and readiness to follow up its security commitments around the world, not only to Israel.

Kissinger ranked Peres “as the strongest champion of nuclear weapons development as an absolute deterrent.” While with American officials the Israelis tended to be quite circumspect in talking about the nuclear issue, Kissinger was able to make his Israeli interlocutors more comfortable in speaking openly on the subject. On this issue, too, Kissinger noticed a “striking difference in the tone” between 1962 and 1965. In 1962 they were “puzzled and indefinite” about whether nuclear weapons were necessary and they had the ability to develop them, but now they were “very certain that such weapons were necessary and that they knew how to make them.”

Having met Israeli scientists at the Weizmann Institute and in Beer Sheba [probably Dimona senior scientists, something that only Peres could approve, probably selecting them one by one], Kissinger was surprised to discover that they were openly pro-nuclear. While the scientists thought it important that Israel “not appear to introduce such weapons to the area,” they cited two reasons for developing nuclear weapons: “(a) that the Egyptians might also develop them, and (b) on Israel’s inability to depend indefinitely on a superiority in conventional methods of warfare.” That led Kissinger to conclude that “nothing short of an ironclad US security guarantee would dissuade Israel from developing nuclear weapons.” One wonders whether Peres wanted Kissinger to form that impression.

Kissinger observed that the argument that Israel could not “survive an Arab occupation … would provide credibility for Israel’s use of any nuclear deterrent it possessed.” “When asked directly, Kissinger said he had a strong belief that Israel is already embarked on a nuclear weapons construction program.”

Only days after the 1965 inspection, a draft preliminary report was submitted to Bundy. It revealed that notwithstanding previous U.S. requests, the 1965 visit was conducted under significant Israeli restrictions. Israeli officials cut short the available time at Dimona, not allowing the inspectors to visit on Friday afternoon because of the problem of warning staff working there. Moreover, the inspectors could not continue the visit into Saturday evening.

The U.S. team believed that despite those restrictions they could form an overall determination on the very purpose of its mission, i.e., the weapons status of Dimona. “Although the pace was fast and the visit was not as detailed as could be desired, it is the consensus of the team that the visit provided a satisfactory basis for determining the state of activity at the Dimona Site.” That conclusion was drawn based on two major findings: (1) the overall slowdown state of the Dimona facility as a national nuclear center; and (2) the absence of key technical components required for a weapons program. For all intents and purposes the team's Israeli interlocutors told them that they had effectively abandoned the original nuclear program and the Dimona complex was left with no approved research plans, nor with a budget to support research. The reason for all that, the team was told, was hesitation and lack of decision as to how Israel would continue with its nuclear power program.

On the matter of the components for a weapons program, the team’s determination was that it found “no near-term possibility of a weapons development program at the Dimona Site.” According to the team’s findings, Israel did not have facilities to produce more than three tons annually of natural uranium and had “no capability …. to produce and recover [plutonium].” Nevertheless, “the potential to enter into these companion efforts is there.” The report described the potential to produce natural uranium, uranium concentrate, uranium metal, and plutonium.

According to the cover note attached to the report, considering the findings that Dimona showed little near-term possibility of nuclear weapons work, the U.S. could accede to Eshkol’s request that the next inspection be postponed until after the November 1965 elections. Nevertheless, the Department remained somewhat concerned that Israel had concealed a decision to produce nuclear weapons. According to Read’s cover memo, “Israeli officials did not allow adequate time for thorough inspection of the … site and arranged no visits to sites of projected related facilities.’’ Moreover, “Public and private statements by Israeli officials suggest military planning that includes the use of nuclear weapons.” Considering these factors, “we urge prompt approval of the request” made in the 18 December memorandum to the president “for authority to initiate negotiations with Israel to extend IAEA safeguards to all Israeli nuclear facilities.”

In a note to Bundy, Komer acknowledged that the latest inspection of Dimona was “reassuring. Nothing new, although the weapons potential is still there.” However, he added, “We remain suspicious. Knowing we're zeroed in on Dimona Israel could be planning weapons fabrication somewhere else.”

Assistant Secretary Philips Talbot alerted Ambassador Barbour that New York Times editor John Finney had written a story on the Dimona inspection. Finney had spoken with Ulysses Staebler of the AEC but had been tipped off by a statement made by Abba Eban to “Meet the Press.” State Department officials had told him that the story would have adverse implications for relations with Israel, but Finney believed that it would help make the case for international regulations of such nuclear facilities. Talbot further reported that Israeli Counselor Gazit had suggested that the government “delete” the reference to the visit from the article but a U.S. official told him that it was “most unlikely [that] any U.S. newspaper would respond to such a request.”

During a conversation with Assistant Secretary of State Philips Talbot, Israeli Ambassador Harman stated that both Prime Minister Eshkol and Foreign Minister Meir “took very serious view of New York Times disclosures.” The impact of the leak was “unpredictable” because the political situation in Israel was already “delicate,” with recent criticisms by Ben-Gurion for the government’s cancellation of the Independence Day parade in Jerusalem owing to U.S. pressure.

While Talbot assured Harman that Washington also regretted the leaks, he observed that it was “unfortunate that Finney was able to follow up remarks of Deputy Prime Minister Abba Eban on ‘Meet the Press.’” Noting that the State Department was limiting comment to broad remarks designed to fuzz details, “Talbot anticipated no further stories.”

The Embassy reported and commented on press coverage of the inspection leak, breaking it down by political trend. An article by Ben-Porat, a “stalwart Ben-Gurionist,” in Yediot Aharonot (“Latest News”) discussed the Kennedy-Ben Gurion exchanges, Ben-Gurion’s resistance to Kennedy’s requests for regular U.S. inspections, with the support of Charles de Gaulle, and Eshkol’s decision to “give in to visits,” with French consent. The article also covered the 1964 and 1965 inspections and instances of U.S. “nuclear espionage” such as the alleged discovery of Dimona through “aerial photography.” According to Ben-Porat, public opinion and important officials were “upset at learning of visits through foreign sources after own Government kept it secret from them.”

An unidentified writer for Yediot Aharonot, believed to be pro-Eshkol, noted that of the four U.S. visits to Dimona, two occurred under Ben-Gurion’s watch. Uri Dan, the Paris correspondent for Ma’ariv (“Evening”) reported that the French opposed the U.S. visits. Dan speculated that the “leak from USG sources appeared to be accidental.”

The Embassy commented that the Israeli Government was “still attempting limit public disclosure, while trying to check any Ben-Gurion political offensive through leak of key argument that Ben-Gurion started whole business.”

For Harriman’s upcoming meeting with Eshkol, Talbot provided talking points on the leak of the inspection. While the U.S. government had no objection to the disclosure of the visits as such, it did “deplore” the “rash Israeli press stories divulging details” of the U.S. visits to Dimona, including the fact that U.S. presidents had requested bi-annual visits to the site. Harriman was to observe that the U.S. press had dropped the issue after the New York Times ran a story based on the “leads given by Deputy PriMin Abba Eban.” “Additional details on visits published by Israeli press indicated official Israeli sources behind leaks.”

In a mini analytical study of the Dimona complex, Tel Aviv embassy science attaché, Dr. Robert T. Webber, explored – and then firmly rejected -- the possibility that Dimona might be
a partial “ bluff,” not genuine weapons infrastructure but rather a fake nuclear project aimed to create a certain image for the purposes of deterrence. It is apparent – albeit not explicitly noted -- that Webber offered his insight on Dimona as a counter reading and criticism of the 1965 findings of the AEC inspection team which allowed the bluff conjecture. Webber wanted to refute such interpretation, to demonstrate that it made no sense.

Webber’s starting points were two fundamental features of the Dimona project that Americans observers had to grapple with. First, “there is ample independent evidence that Israel has not assembled nuclear weapons and is not now in the process of doing so.” That is, the Dimona complex was not operating as a weapons program, indeed, it could not produce weapons because it lacked the key technical component – a chemical plant to extract plutonium – which is required for a weapons program. Second, there was the fact that Israeli political and military leaders insisted on “keep[ing]t Nasser worried” ], i.e., that it would be strategically unwise to reassure Nasser that Dimona is peaceful. “This element of psychological warfare is stated by Israeli officials to be the reason for the extraordinary security precautions that have surrounded Dimona from its inception.” Those two “factual” features of Dimona, in conjunction with the findings of the 1965 team that Dimona was in a slowdown mode, generated the “bluff” hypothesis.

Determining that Dimona had little to do with pure research needs, the complex allowed Israel to “overcome most of the hurdles lying in the path of achieving a production capacity for plutonium, the basic material of nuclear weapons.” Although Dimona did not operate as a weapons production facility, the Dimona facilities were at “a high plateau of scientific techniques” that could enable the Israelis to “move to the making of weapons in a relatively short time if the international situation should appear to require it.”

Webber further argued that it “is remarkable how much progress Israel has made [through Dimona] along the path to a nuclear weapon.” To assemble and test a nuclear weapon “from scratch” there are nine facilities that must be completed. Webber described all nine and how far Israel had progressed in developing them. After listing the facilities that Israel had to complete, Webber concluded that the “Israelis have now created a flexible basis of choice regarding the possibility of producing nuclear weapons.”

The anodyne findings of the U.S. 1965 inspection visit at Dimona led to odd theories within the US intelligence community. For some it was difficult to believe that the Dimona project was indeed in such a general state of slowdown, even disarray in some areas. Acknowledging that the attached report was “highly speculative,” INR staffer James Spain noted that such thoughts “lie behind some of the things that worry us.” In light of Dimona’s current slowdown status, the INR analysts struggled to offer an explanation of the puzzling situation, namely, that Dimona is “not now being used to support a weapons program.” For example, it did not appear “that the Israelis are attempting to maximize plutonium production at the present time.”

One possible explanation for the situation “merits close examination – that the Israelis recognize that Dimona cannot, in fact, support a weapons program of any practical benefit and that some solution to Israel' s security problem other than native weapon development will have to be found.” 

The one avenue – totally speculative but conceivable – for a weapons program that was available was “third-party assistance – in this case from France.” While there was no evidence whatsoever of French support – in fact, France’s declaratory position was against providing weapons assistance to any state – its past role in Dimona and the MD-620 missile deal suggested a more nuanced position towards nonproliferation.

INR experts could not say whether France and Israel had a nuclear weapons arrangement or even whether the two countries had ever considered one. Nevertheless, it was “not inconceivable that the French might consider an arrangement whereby French nuclear-warheads for the MD-620 would be supplied in the event that any Arab country obtained nuclear weapons.” For the Israelis such a “contingency agreement …. would appear to be equally advantageous” by insuring Israel against “the worst eventuality, i.e., Arab acquisition of' nuclear weapons.”

That the INR analysts suggested the possibility of French secret assistance is noteworthy, but they did not know how it actually occurred – through Israeli contact with the French company Saint-Gobain Techniques Nouvelles (SGN) that constructed the secret reprocessing facility.

Briefing a group of State Department officials during a visit to Washington, Embassy science attaché Robert Webber argued that the Dimona project made “no sense except as the basis for a [future] weapons project.” Work is continuing there, he told the group, but not on a “crash basis” because of the reduction of the number of scientists there. At Dimona, Israel had a “semi-pilot [reprocessing] plant installation” and facilities to “handle plutonium and irradiated rods.” A 26-megawatt reactor could produce two bombs a year.

Accepting American conventional wisdom – which turned out to be quite mistaken – Webber did not believe that Israel was producing weapons at the time but rather “was building up its basis for future weapons production.” As for a plutonium separation plant, there was “no sign” of one [at Dimona], but nevertheless he believed that “Israel is currently active somewhere and somehow on this missing link.” In retrospect, now we know that while Webber was wrong on the former, he was correct on the latter. That is not to be discounted.

Noting that the U.S. inspectors had been “satisfied” with what they saw, Webber said that he was not because Dimona was “more of a military project than Mr. Stabler of the AEC is willing to accept.” While the inspections are informative and give the U.S. a “psychological advantage” they could be improved if they were more frequent and if the inspectors had better access to records on such matters as the flow of uranium, something the Israelis disallowed.

Webber acknowledged that inspections were a “sensitive matter” politically and that the Eshkol government could be overthrown by the issue. The information leak that produced the John Finney article in the New York Times “hurt the USG position … because the GOI has decided it cannot trust the secrecy of future U.S. inspections.” In any event, while the inspection problem would be handled bilaterally, Israel was not going to accept an IAEA role “no matter what we threaten” but nevertheless it was still worth making the effort to persuade them.

Webber believed that if Israel tested the bomb it would be underground, “perhaps at the 1arge natural depression southeast of Dimona (HaMaktesh Haqatan).” While testing might not be necessary, Israel could not test “without our knowing it.” Israel probably had the “requisite test equipment, high-speed cameras, etc.”