The Samson Option: How Israel Has Held America Hostage Since 1973
And the United States has paid the annual ransom for 52 years.
I’m about to tell you some things you likely didn’t know. Almost nobody does, because it’s been classified intel for 50 years. If U.S. support for Israel seems odd, or lack explanation, this well help it make sense to you. And when you understand it, the definition of evil will hit different. Why? Because we’ve had Jericho Missiles to our heads for half a century, and there’s nothing we can do about it.
There is a photograph you have probably never seen, and would not be allowed to see if it existed in any publicly accessible archive. The photograph would show a missile on a railway car being rolled out of a cave somewhere in the Israeli desert on the night of October 8, 1973. The cave has enormous blast doors. The missile is a Jericho I, a French-designed medium-range ballistic missile capable of reaching Damascus or Cairo. And mounted on that missile, according to multiple intelligence sources and investigative accounts, was a twenty-kiloton nuclear warhead.
You have never heard about this photograph because discussing it would require acknowledging things that powerful people have spent fifty years pretending do not exist. American spy satellites saw it. American intelligence analysts saw it. Henry Kissinger saw it. And within hours of seeing it, President Richard Nixon authorized the largest emergency military airlift in American history, delivering over twenty-two thousand tons of tanks, aircraft, missiles, and ammunition to a country that had just pointed a nuclear gun at the world and said “help us, or else.”
That moment, more than any other single event in the last half-century, explains why the United States gives Israel nearly four billion dollars every year. It explains why we veto United Nations resolutions that we privately agree with. It explains why American foreign policy in the Middle East operates under constraints that do not apply to any other region on Earth. And it explains why, if you are reading this and feeling a creeping sense of unease, you are beginning to understand something that most Americans are never told and most policymakers are never allowed to say out loud.
The United States of America is being held hostage. And the hostage-taker is our ally.
THE THING WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO NOTICE
Let’s start with a question that sounds innocent but is actually radioactive: Why does Israel have nuclear weapons?
Not “does Israel have nuclear weapons,” because everyone who matters knows the answer to that question is yes, even though Israel maintains what diplomats politely call “nuclear ambiguity” and what normal people would call “lying by omission.” The question is why. Why does a nation the size of New Jersey, surrounded by enemies, decide that the appropriate response to its security situation is to build enough thermonuclear warheads to turn the entire region into a glass parking lot?
The standard answer is deterrence. Israel faces existential threats. Arabs have tried to destroy the Jewish state multiple times. Nuclear weapons ensure that never happens again. This makes sense until you think about it for more than thirty seconds. Deterrence works when your enemy fears your retaliation more than they want victory. But Israel’s nuclear arsenal is not sized or positioned or doctrinally structured for deterrence against regional enemies. Israel does not need two hundred nuclear warheads to deter Syria or Egypt. Israel does not need submarine-launched cruise missiles to deter Hezbollah. Israel does not need intercontinental ballistic missiles to deter Iran.
So who is Israel deterring?
The uncomfortable answer, the one that becomes obvious when you look at how Israel actually built and deployed its nuclear weapons, is that Israel is not primarily deterring its enemies. Israel is deterring the United States. Israel is ensuring that its friends never have the option of not being its friends. Because the threat Israel poses with its nuclear arsenal is not “we will destroy Damascus if you invade.” The threat is “we will create a nuclear holocaust, so you will give us whatever we need to ensure we never get desperate enough to pull the trigger.”
That is not deterrence. That is extortion. And it has been working for fifty years.
HOW TO STEAL A NUCLEAR PROGRAM AND GET AWAY WITH IT
The story of how Israel acquired nuclear weapons is less a tale of scientific achievement than a masterclass in international deception, technological theft, and the exploitation of great power guilt. Israel did not discover nuclear fission. Israel did not invent the bomb. Israel did not develop the delivery systems. What Israel did, with remarkable audacity, was convince other countries to give them all of those things while pretending not to know what Israel was doing with them.
The French connection came first. In the 1950s, France saw Israel as a natural partner against Arab nationalism and Soviet influence in the Middle East. French companies, particularly Dassault, provided not just conventional weapons but the foundational technology for Israel’s nuclear program. The Dimona reactor, which would become the heart of Israel’s plutonium production, was built with French assistance. The Jericho missile program, which would provide the delivery system, was developed in cooperation with French engineers. By 1968, France had delivered twelve operational missiles to Israel and transferred enough technical knowledge to ensure Israel could continue development independently.
This was not charity. This was France arming a strategic partner while maintaining enough plausible deniability to avoid international backlash. When Charles de Gaulle imposed an arms embargo on Israel in 1968, twelve missiles were already in Israeli hands and the knowledge transfer was complete.
The American role was more insidious because it involved less direct assistance and more deliberate blindness. President John F. Kennedy understood what was happening at Dimona and demanded inspections. He exchanged tense letters with Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, insisting that Israel abandon its nuclear ambitions or face consequences in the U.S.-Israel relationship. Ben-Gurion responded by building a fake control room at Dimona to fool American inspectors and then, conveniently, resigning before the pressure became unbearable. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963 ended any serious American effort to stop the Israeli nuclear program.
Lyndon Johnson adopted a policy that can only be described as “don’t ask, don’t tell, and if someone asks, lie.” Johnson’s administration knew Israel was building nuclear weapons. American intelligence agencies tracked the program. But Johnson decided, for reasons that combined Cold War strategy with domestic political considerations, that it was better to pretend not to know than to force a confrontation that might push Israel away or, worse, force Israel to go public with its arsenal. Thus was born the policy of “nuclear ambiguity,” which sounds like sophisticated diplomacy but is actually just everyone agreeing to pretend that the obvious thing is not happening.
By 1973, Israel had somewhere between ten and twenty nuclear warheads, all produced at Dimona using plutonium reprocessing technology that originated in France, mounted on missiles designed by French engineers, under the willfully ignorant watch of American intelligence agencies that knew exactly what was happening and chose not to see. Israel convinced other countries to give them the technology while everyone pretended it was for peaceful purposes, and then Israel used that technology to build weapons that would fundamentally alter the balance of power not just in the Middle East but in the entire structure of the American alliance system.
The proof that this was theft-by-cooperation came in 1986, when Mordechai Vanunu, a technician at Dimona, smuggled photographs and technical details to the British newspaper The Sunday Times. Vanunu revealed that Israel had not ten or twenty warheads but between one hundred and two hundred, including thermonuclear weapons far more advanced than anyone had suspected. Israel’s response was to lure Vanunu to Rome, kidnap him in an operation involving Mossad agents posing as tourists, drug him, smuggle him back to Israel on a freighter, try him in secret, and sentence him to eighteen years in prison, much of it in solitary confinement.
That response tells you everything. You do not kidnap someone internationally, conduct a secret trial, and impose a sentence typically reserved for serial killers because someone lied about your nuclear program. You do that because someone told the truth about your nuclear program, and the truth is so dangerous to your strategic position that you are willing to commit what is, by any reasonable definition, an act of international terrorism to punish the person who revealed it.
OCTOBER 1973: THE NIGHT THE RULES CHANGED
If you ask most Americans what happened during the Yom Kippur War, you will get some vague sense that Israel was attacked on a religious holiday, fought heroically against overwhelming odds, and won a dramatic victory that proved once again that the Israeli Defense Forces were invincible. This is not entirely wrong, but it is wrong in the way that matters most. Israel did win. But Israel won because on the night of October 8, 1973, facing the possibility of catastrophic defeat, the Israeli government did something that no American ally had ever done before or has done since: Israel put a gun to America’s head and said “give us what we need or we blow our brains out, and when we do, the blood will be on your hands and your children’s hands and you will spend the rest of your lives explaining to the world how you let this happen.”
The war started badly. Egypt and Syria launched coordinated surprise attacks on October 6, Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. Egyptian forces crossed the Suez Canal and overran Israeli fortifications in the Sinai. Syrian tanks poured into the Golan Heights. Israeli forces, caught off guard, suffered catastrophic losses. Thousands of casualties in the first days. Hundreds of tanks destroyed. Aircraft shot down by Soviet-supplied surface-to-air missiles that Israeli pilots had never encountered before. By October 7, the situation was desperate. By October 8, it was apocalyptic.
Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, the legendary one-eyed general who had led Israel to victory in 1967, told Prime Minister Golda Meir: “This is the end of the third temple.” The word “temple” was not metaphorical. It was code. The third temple meant the modern state of Israel. And in Israeli military parlance, “the temple” was also the codeword for nuclear weapons.
What happened next depends on which sources you believe and which declassified documents you have access to, but the broad outlines are consistent across multiple accounts from Israeli officials, American intelligence analysts, and investigative journalists who spent years reconstructing the events. Sometime on the night of October 8 or the morning of October 9, Golda Meir authorized the assembly and readying of thirteen nuclear warheads. Some were mounted on Jericho missiles at Sdot Micha Airbase. Others were loaded onto F-4 Phantom fighter aircraft at Tel Nof Airbase. The warheads were twenty kilotons, roughly the yield of the bomb that destroyed Nagasaki.
This was done in a way that was deliberately, unmistakably visible to American reconnaissance. The Jericho missiles were stored in caves with enormous blast doors. The missiles sat on railway cars that could be rolled out, launched, and rolled back in. When Israeli forces moved those missiles into launch position, American spy satellites saw it. When Israeli aircraft were loaded with weapons that had radiation signatures consistent with nuclear warheads, American intelligence detected it. When an SR-71 Blackbird reconnaissance aircraft flew over Israel on October 12, it detected radiation from the missiles.
This was not an accident. This was not operational sloppiness. Israel wanted the United States to see this. Because the message Israel was sending was not aimed at Egypt or Syria. It was aimed at Washington.
Israeli Ambassador Simcha Dinitz met with Henry Kissinger and delivered warnings that were carefully phrased to avoid explicit threats but were unmistakable in their implications. If the United States did not immediately provide massive military resupply, Israel would be forced to consider “very serious conclusions.” Israel might have to take actions that would have consequences neither country could control. Israel was running out of ammunition, out of tanks, out of aircraft, and out of time. And if Israel went down, it would not go quietly.
What do you do? You know that if Israel uses nuclear weapons, even in a tactical capacity against Arab armies, the Soviets will face unbearable pressure to respond. You know that Arab states backed by Moscow cannot simply absorb a nuclear strike and do nothing. You know that a nuclear exchange in the Middle East, even a limited one, has a non-trivial chance of spiraling into a superpower confrontation. You know that the global nonproliferation regime you have spent years building will collapse overnight. You know that every country on Earth with nuclear ambitions will see this as proof that nuclear weapons are the ultimate insurance policy.
And you know, because Israeli officials have made it clear without saying it explicitly, that if you hesitate, if you equivocate, if you try to negotiate conditions or extract concessions, Israel will interpret that as abandonment and will act accordingly.
We were not being asked to help an ally. We were being told that compliance was our only option. The gun is already loaded. The trigger is already being squeezed. And the question was not whether we would give Israel what it wanted, but whether we would do it fast enough to prevent the catastrophe that Israel is threatening to unleash.
Kissinger, to his credit or damnation depending on your perspective, understood the situation immediately. On the morning of October 9, he informed President Nixon of the nuclear alert. That same day, Nixon authorized Operation Nickel Grass.
OPERATION NICKEL GRASS: THE PRICE OF COMPLIANCE
If you have never heard of Operation Nickel Grass, that is not an accident. It is one of the most significant military operations in American history, and it has been treated in public discourse as a footnote, a logistical curiosity, an example of American commitment to an ally. It was none of those things. It was a ransom payment.
Over the course of three weeks, the United States Air Force and Military Airlift Command delivered 22,325 tons of tanks, aircraft, missiles, ammunition, and spare parts to Israel. C-5 Galaxy and C-141 Starlifter transport aircraft flew around the clock, landing in Israel every fifteen minutes at the peak of the operation. The United States sent M60 Patton tanks, F-4 Phantom fighter jets, A-4 Skyhawk attack aircraft, TOW anti-tank missiles, artillery shells, and enough ammunition to replace everything Israel had expended in the first week of fighting.
This was not routine resupply. This was an emergency airlift on a scale comparable to the Berlin Airlift, executed in a fraction of the time, with the explicit purpose of ensuring that Israel could not only survive but win decisively enough that the question of nuclear use would become moot. The United States did not send enough to stabilize the situation. The United States sent enough to allow Israel to go on the offensive, cross the Suez Canal, encircle the Egyptian Third Army, and threaten Cairo itself.
By mid-October, Israel had regained the initiative on both fronts. Syrian forces were in retreat. Egyptian forces were encircled. The nuclear weapons, assuming they had ever been fully armed, were stood down. The crisis was over. Israel had survived. And the United States had learned a lesson it would never forget and never be allowed to unlearn.
THE LESSON THAT CHANGED EVERYTHING
You might think that after 1973, the United States would impose consequences. You might think that American policymakers, having been coerced into a massive military intervention by the implicit threat of nuclear escalation, would demand concessions, constraints, or at minimum an acknowledgment that this could never happen again. You would be wrong.
What happened instead was that American policy toward Israel fundamentally changed, not in the direction of imposing limits but in the direction of ensuring that Israel would never again feel desperate enough to signal nuclear readiness. The logic, once you understand it, is almost beautiful in its perversity: If Israel can force American intervention by threatening nuclear escalation, then the way to prevent that threat is to provide unconditional support that makes Israeli desperation impossible.
This is the logic of a hostage. When someone demonstrates they are willing to blow up the building if you do not comply, you do not negotiate. You comply. And then you keep complying, because the threat is always there, always implicit, never needing to be stated again because the precedent has already done the work.
From 1973 onward, the United States began providing Israel with military aid that dwarfs anything provided to any other ally. Annual military assistance increased from tens of millions before 1973 to billions after. The aid is not conditioned on Israeli behavior. It is not tied to peace negotiations. It is not reduced when Israel pursues policies that contradict American interests. It simply arrives, every year, like clockwork, because the alternative is unthinkable.
The United States also began guaranteeing Israel’s “qualitative military edge,” a doctrine that requires the U.S. to ensure Israel maintains military superiority over any combination of regional adversaries. This is not standard alliance policy. NATO members are not guaranteed technological superiority over Russia. South Korea is not promised dominance over North Korea. But Israel is different, because Israel has demonstrated that if it feels threatened enough, it will create a crisis that the United States cannot afford.
Diplomatically, the United States has vetoed more than fifty United Nations Security Council resolutions critical of Israel since 1972. This is not because those resolutions are always wrong or unfair. Many of them align with stated American policy on issues like settlements or Palestinian rights. The United States vetoes them anyway, because allowing Israel to be isolated diplomatically, to feel cornered internationally, risks recreating the conditions that led to the 1973 nuclear alert.
Every American president since Nixon has inherited this dynamic. Some resist it initially. Some try to impose conditions or extract concessions or use the leverage that four billion dollars a year should theoretically provide. And every president discovers the same thing: leverage requires the ability to say no, and the United States lost the ability to say no to Israel on October 9, 1973.
THE SAMSON OPTION: SUICIDE AS SUPERPOWER STRATEGY
The Israeli nuclear doctrine has a name. It is called the Samson Option, named after the biblical figure who brought down the Philistine temple on himself and his enemies when defeat was inevitable. The logic is simple and terrifying: If Israel faces existential defeat, Israel will use nuclear weapons not just against the enemies threatening it but against anyone and anything that contributed to that defeat, including potentially the interests of allies who failed to prevent it.
This is not deterrence in any normal sense. Deterrence says “attack me and I will hurt you so badly that you will regret it.” The Samson Option says “if I go down, everyone goes down, and the people who failed to save me will spend the rest of history explaining why they let it happen.”
Israel has never needed to invoke the Samson Option explicitly again after 1973 because the precedent is already set. Every regional crisis, every tension with Iran, every moment where Israeli security seems threatened carries the implicit shadow of that October night when Jericho missiles rolled out of caves and American satellites detected radiation signatures. The threat is never stated because it does not need to be stated. Everyone knows. Every American official knows. Every President knows. And they act accordingly.
This is why Israel can pursue settlement policies that the United States opposes. This is why Israel can conduct operations in Gaza that inflame the entire Muslim world against American interests. This is why Israel can ignore American requests, conduct espionage against American companies, and sell American military technology to China with minimal consequences. Because underneath every interaction, underneath every negotiation, underneath every moment of tension between Washington and Jerusalem, there is an unspoken understanding: we do not push Israel too hard, because we remember what happened the last time Israel felt cornered.
THE QUESTION WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ASK
So here is the question that will make you uncomfortable, that will make some people call this article antisemitic or conspiracy-minded or irresponsible, but that needs to be asked anyway because the answer matters more than any other question about American foreign policy in the Middle East:
Are we allies with Israel, or are we hostages to Israel?
Think about what defines an alliance. Allies share interests. Allies coordinate strategy. Allies support each other when that support serves mutual goals. Allies can disagree. Allies can impose conditions. Allies can, in extremis, walk away.
Now think about the U.S.-Israel relationship. We provide billions in aid that we do not condition on Israeli behavior. We support Israeli policies that contradict our stated positions and harm our other relationships. We shield Israel diplomatically even when doing so isolates us internationally. We cannot pressure Israel on settlements, on Palestinian rights, on military operations, on espionage, on technology transfers, on anything that Israel defines as a security issue, because doing so risks Israeli desperation, and Israeli desperation risks nuclear signaling, and nuclear signaling risks the catastrophe we have spent fifty years preventing.
That is not an alliance. That is a hostage situation with a pretense of friendship.
Thanks for reading! The rest is premium content (this is how I provide for my family) so please grab a premium subscription to continue. You’ll get access to the full archive. Act now, and get a 20% discount.
If you don’t do subscriptions, please consider a one-time gift of your choosing by clicking below
