Israel and the Bomb

On 22 November 1963 John F. Kennedy was assassinated and Lyndon B. Johnson became president. The transition from Kennedy to Johnson reminded Israelis of the transition from Ben Gurion to Eshkol.¹ Eshkol and Johnson both pledged to continue their predecessors’ policies, but their style and experience were different. Both were consensus builders, interested in domestic rather than foreign policies. This similarity was important for their developing relationship. It also benefited the Israeli nuclear program.

Eshkol was not as anxious as Ben Gurion about Israel’s future and survival, while Johnson was less preoccupied than Kennedy with nuclear weapons proliferation. Like other vice presidents, Johnson was not kept informed on many foreign-policy issues, Dimona among them. For Johnson and Eshkol, who seemed to be more interested in maintaining the good relationship between the two nations, the nuclear issue was a nuisance to be dealt with but not a reason for a confrontation between Israel and the United States.

Two other factors were relevant to Johnson’s policy toward the Israeli nuclear program. First, Johnson inherited the Dimona deal that Kennedy had crafted. He was not in a position to rewrite it, and the bureaucracy expected him to support its implementation. Second, Johnson became president with only a year remaining before the next election, and he had to put together a domestic constituency that would support him. Johnson already had close ties with prominent Jews who felt strongly about Israel’s security. Furthermore, Johnson had visited the Nazi concentration camp at Dachau after the end of the Second World War, and was affected by what he saw.² Johnson also lacked Kennedy’s interest in nuclear proliferation in addition to his personal and political reasons for supporting Israel. A confrontation with Israel on the nuclear weapons issue was therefore less likely than it had been during Kennedy’s years.

The parameters of the compromise on Israel’s nuclear program that Eshkol and Johnson cobbled together were these: Israel would not be the first state to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East, while the United States would provide Israel with sophisticated conventional armaments so that Israel could defend itself without recourse to nuclear weapons. This compromise was followed by other understandings reached during Johnson’s tenure: Eshkol’s visit in June 1964 resulted in the supply of hundreds of M-48 tanks to Israel; the Harriman-Komer mission to Israel in March 1965 led to the sale of forty-eight A-4 Skyhawk planes to Israel; and the understandings concerning visits to Dimona.

Israel fulfilled its part of the January 1964 understanding concerning the visit to Dimona—the American visitors found no weapon-related activities there. It now expected the United States to reciprocate, which it did by selling Israel the M-48 tanks. Eshkol requested the tanks in his 4 November 1963 letter to Kennedy, and the request was discussed during the American-Israeli security exchange in Washington later that month.

On 23 December Ambassador Barbour met Eshkol to review “problems of mutual concern that lie ahead.” He stressed that Israel must understand “the absolute requirement that the U.S. retain working influence with the Arabs.” In this context Barbour referred to Dimona: “Soon Dimona will go critical … [and] the fact is not likely to remain long secret.” He added that even the impression (emphasis in original) that Israel might be developing a weapon may provoke Nasser. Barbour did not say so explicitly, but he subtly reminded Eshkol that the United States wanted to be able to reassure Nasser that the Dimona reactor’s purpose was peaceful. Eshkol did not refer to Dimona in his reply, but highlighted Israel’s security problem and the need to spend “tens of millions of dollars on tanks and planes.” With no formal treaty with the United States, no military contingency arrangements, and no U.S. military assistance, Eshkol noted, “you [the United States] must make a special effort to help us to overcome this impossible burden of security.”³ This was Eshkol’s reference to the Americans’ obligations in the deal over Dimona.

In mid-January, at the time of the Dimona visit, Israel’s request for tanks was studied at the Department of the Army. The issues involved were primarily technical, matters of inventory, scheduling, and financing.⁴ The U.S. government decided in favor of the tank sale to Israel, but there were issues involving the impact of the sale on U.S.-Arab relations and the question of Dimona. It took another eight months of negotiations before the deal was completed.

Declassified material available from U.S. and Israeli archives illuminates the linkages among tanks, nuclear weapons, missiles, and “reassuring Nasser.” This was evident in a 18 February 1964 memorandum that Robert Komer sent Johnson about differences within the administration on how to reply to Eshkol’s 4 November letter. Komer asked Johnson to decide how explicit the linkage should be:

The question of linkage emerged in Komer’s memo from another angle: reassuring Nasser on Dimona. Kennedy’s interest in reassuring Nasser was evident from the beginning, and it was a major reason for his insistence on American inspection of the reactor in 1961. The issue became more important in the spring of 1963, when Kennedy received a private message from Nasser stating that Dimona could trigger another war.⁶ In August 1963, however, when Eshkol agreed to American visits to Dimona, he refused to allow information to be passed to Nasser. He agreed to think the issue over, however, leaving the door open for later American appeals.

For American policymakers, persuading Nasser about the peaceful intent of the nuclear research at Dimona was the whole point. Without it, the inspection of Dimona made little sense. McGeorge Bundy said as much in a memo submitted along with the team’s findings:

This memo reflects the dominant thinking among those responsible in Washington for shaping American policy in the Middle East. In early 1964 Dean Rusk and Phillips Talbot (State Department), and Bundy and Komer (White House) believed that reassuring Nasser on the matter of Dimona was a vital aspect of the U.S. strategy to retain its influence with the Arabs. These policy makers impressed upon Israeli diplomats the danger they saw in Dimona: “while Nasser would not see Israeli withdrawal of Jordan basin waters [as a] casus belli, he would see Dimona [as a] casus belli.”⁸

In his 18 February memo to Johnson, Komer asked for presidential pressure on Eshkol to allow the United States to tell Nasser about the Dimona reactor.⁹ Two days later Johnson replied to Eshkol’s 4 November 1963 letter to Kennedy about the sale of U.S. tanks to Israel. Johnson expressed his personal support for Israel’s request to modernize its tank force and his concerns over the missile program and the possibly negative effects of Dimona becoming critical without reassuring the Arab states. Timing was important: the United States wanted to agree on the tank sales before Eshkol’s visit to Washington, and it was eager to obtain the Israelis’ permission to allow Assistant Secretary of State Talbot to convey a positive message to Nasser during Talbot’s planned trip to Egypt in March.

On 28 February Ambassador Walworth Barbour presented the American position to Eshkol, arguing that such an assurance, which Ben Gurion had agreed to in 1961, was important for maintaining stability in the Middle East.¹⁰ On 5 March Barbour received the Israeli reply from Arieh Levavi. He was told that after much “soul searching,” Eshkol concluded that he must turn down the American request to reassure Nasser, citing a similar refusal by Ben Gurion in May 1963. Eshkol explained the rejection of the American request by citing two political considerations:

Levavi, who presented the Israeli reply, told Barbour that Eshkol found it difficult to disagree with Johnson, but that even in August 1963 Eshkol had questioned the wisdom of the U.S. policy. Barbour responded that in case of a negative Israeli response he had been instructed to explain the American point of view in person to the prime minister. A meeting between Barbour and Eshkol was quickly arranged for later that afternoon. Barbour, emphasizing the U.S. concern over Nasser’s reaction were he to conclude that Israel was developing nuclear weapons, asked whether Israel would object if the United States, without revealing its sources, told Nasser that, based on its best information, Israel was not producing nuclear weapons. Eshkol said that he had a better idea: Israel was ready to make a public commitment of nonaggression toward any Arab state. Would the United States obtain a similar nonaggression commitment from Egypt? Barbour insisted that this was not what was at stake—the issue was how to prevent Nasser from going to war over Dimona. Eshkol responded that Nasser was repeatedly threatening war against Israel, so that “it is good for Nasser to worry about Israel’s military capabilities.” When Barbour asserted that the United States would not stand idly by in case of Egyptian aggression against Israel, Eshkol interjected that Israel was still waiting to hear about the sale of American tanks to Israel. Eshkol ended the meeting by repeating that it was difficult for him to reject the American request, but that he saw no other choice.¹²

Israeli diplomats were aware of the unstated linkage between Israel’s response to the U.S. request and Israel’s chances of obtaining U.S. tanks.¹³ Eshkol’s negative answer delayed the tank deal; Johnson adopted the recommendations of Bundy and Komer to hold off his final approval on supplying tanks to Israel.¹⁴ On 19 March Bundy issued National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) 290, entitled “Meeting Israeli Arms Requests,” in which the secretaries of state and defense and the director of the CIA were instructed to review all aspects of the problem, recommending a course of action by 1 May 1964. NSAM 290 does not make the linkage explicit, but it is there nonetheless.¹⁵ It relieved Johnson of the need to make an immediate decision on the tank deal and gave him more time to pressure Eshkol about reassuring Nasser on Dimona.

On 19 March 1964 Johnson sent a three-paragraph letter to Eshkol urging him to reconsider his position on the issue, warning him of the consequences:

Dimona was not mentioned, but Eshkol explained why he must refuse the American request to reassure Nasser. To prevent war Nasser must be deterred, not reassured. Eshkol asked Johnson not to link “the specific matter of armor which has passed through all possible stages of study and analysis” to “the clarification of certain security issues on which there may [be] differences of assessments.” The tank deal should “find an immediate and affirmative determination,” while the latter issue “must await our meeting in June.”¹⁸

In the wake of NSAM 290 and Johnson’s 19 March letter to Eshkol, the package—tanks, missiles, and the Dimona reactor—remained on hold. Bundy and Komer recommended delaying the tank deal until Israel clarified its position on missiles and Dimona. In a 23 April conversation with the Israeli diplomat Mordechai Gazit, Bundy and Komer further clarified the linkage: they asked that, in return for the tanks, Israel make an outright commitment not to develop nuclear weapons. When it was made clear that such a commitment could not be made, Bundy noted that, despite all its efforts, the United States still had not reached a completely open relationship with Israel.

On 11 May 1964 Feldman again wrote to Johnson, urging him to approve the sale of tanks to Israel. Feldman did not refer to the Israeli nuclear program, but he mentioned the linkage between supplying tanks to Israel and dissuading Israel from proceeding in its missile program. Although Feldman supported the administration’s policy of preventing a missile race in the Middle East, he cautioned against linking the sales of tanks with that objective: “It is difficult to tell a sovereign power what weapons it needs for its defense. The existence of Egyptian missiles and the fact that the Israeli government has already contracted for 25 experimental missiles from France makes it impossible to condition the sale of tanks upon a renunciation of missiles.”¹⁹

By mid-May Israel began to use the linkage between the two issues to advance its own objectives. In a telegram to Rusk on the Eshkol visit, Barbour explained that, without a substantial U.S. contribution to Israeli conventional military capabilities, Israeli leaders would have to adopt an “independent deterrent capability.”²⁰ An Israeli agreement on Dimona depended on Israel’s assessment of its security needs.

In April another dispute over nuclear issues erupted between the United States and Israel. On 11 July 1964 the agreement concerning U.S. inspections of the Nachal Soreq reactor was to expire. The United States, as part of a global policy for nuclear facilities built under its Atoms for Peace program, insisted on transferring its inspection responsibilities to the IAEA, making Soreq an IAEA safeguarded facility; if Israel refused, the United States threatened to let the agreement expire. Israel objected, arguing that until Egypt accepted IAEA safeguards on its Soviet reactor, and until Israel was included in the activities of the IAEA in the region, it would not accept IAEA safeguards. Israel asked the United States to extend the agreement for two more years, at which time it would review the situation again.²¹

The tank sale to Israel faced other problems. The Johnson administration recognized that Israel needed to modernize its tank fleet, yet it was not ready to supply Israel directly with offensive weapons, preferring that such sales go through a European country. A small Pentagon team was sent to London and Bonn in early May 1964 to explore ways of selling one hundred to three hundred medium tanks to Israel.²² On 16 May Johnson sent Feldman to Israel for the second time in two months to urge Israeli leaders to purchase British or German tanks and to caution them against “going for [a] nuclear capability.”²³ The Israelis made it clear that they were interested only in American tanks. The tank deal was not resolved and had to await the visits to Washington of Eshkol and German chancellor Ludwig Erhard.

Johnson had to decide whether and how to link these issues. The official American and Israeli minutes of the meeting show that Johnson did not link the sale of tanks to the ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons issues. Instead, he reassured Eshkol of the U.S. commitment to Israel’s security (“that he was foursquare behind Israel on all matters that affected their vital security interests”), and said that since the United States could not provide tanks to Israel directly, “we would be glad to help Israel in every possible way to get a sufficient quantity of tanks elsewhere.”²⁵ He could not offer Israel a firm deal, however, and the issue had to wait the Erhard visit.

Johnson highlighted the danger to Israel of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons competition:

Eshkol then moved to specific issues. On tanks, he made it clear that Israel needed the American M-48, not the British Centurion (the M-48 can operate twice as long without refueling as the Centurion). On missiles, Eshkol pointed out that Egypt already had two hundred missiles; if Nasser were willing to give up his missiles, Israel would not acquire any. Israel, however, had indications that Nasser was planning to augment his missile force by hundreds of missiles. He added that “Israel would be prepared to wait a year or two, but Nasser was constantly improving his missiles, and in the next 2 to 3 years Nasser is likely to attack and to use them.” If Egypt attacked Israel, other Arab states would join it. Israel could not sit idly by while Nasser continued to add to his arsenal. “In any case, for a year or two there would be no missiles in Israel.”

There were differences between the Johnson and Eshkol discussions in 1964 and the talks between Kennedy and Ben Gurion in 1961. Kennedy was concerned about the Israeli nuclear program and its future direction, whereas Johnson did not ask any questions on the purpose of Dimona. Johnson did not comment on U.S. visits to Dimona. Eshkol, except for noting that Israel was not engaged in “nuclear production,” said nothing about the peaceful purpose of the Dimona reactor. He also did not refer to or make commitments about what Israel would do in the nuclear field in the future. Eshkol, unlike Ben Gurion, also refused to permit the relaying of information about Dimona to Nasser.

The issue of reassuring Nasser remained a sour point. In a memorandum prepared for Johnson’s second meeting with Eshkol, Komer noted that “the issues of whether Israel will accept IAEA controls and whether it will permit us to reassure Nasser on Dimona are still open,” and added “its important that you express your interest in both … because Eshkol asked how serious you were about them.” Komer recommended that the president continue to push on these issues: “Therefore you urge Eshkol to agree both to Dimona reassurances, and to IAEA controls. These two acts would help diminish Nasser’s incentive to get exotic weapons help from the USSR. Eshkol’s argument ‘why reassure an enemy’ is short-sighted.”²⁸

On 2 June, before the second round of discussions between the two delegations, Johnson met Eshkol alone for ten minutes. Johnson urged Eshkol to reconsider Israel’s position on reassuring Nasser, referring to his two previous letters on this subject. When they emerged from their meeting, Komer asked Johnson, in front of the two delegations, whether he and Eshkol had settled the issue of reassuring Nasser. Johnson answered, “No, there was no agreement on that.” When Komer asked whether they had settled the question of the IAEA, Johnson again replied that there had been no meeting of minds on that either. According to Ambassador Harman’s minutes, the American delegation, especially Komer, was disappointed by Johnson’s report of no progress on the question of Dimona.²⁹

Eshkol did reconsider the issue following a short private meeting with Johnson. Given the successful visit, and the personal way that Johnson had made the request, Eshkol later found it unwise to turn the president down. Shimon Peres, his deputy, was now the problem. The idea of deterrence by uncertainty was his, and he opposed the proposal to reassure Nasser. In any case, Johnson’s soft and friendly approach (as Komer called it) paid off. On the most important issue, reported Komer in another memo to Johnson, the Israelis “agreed to let us reassure Nasser on Dimona.”³⁰ The Israelis also offered a compromise on the matter of IAEA safeguards for the Soreq reactor: the agreement would be extended for another nine months, during which time Israel would negotiate with the IAEA on a safeguards agreement for Soreq.³¹

After Eshkol’s visit, the United States kept its word and arranged for the sale of American tanks from Germany to Israel,³² although Johnson had “to twist Erhard’s arm” in order to win the chancellor’s reluctant consent.³³ Later in the summer the Pentagon agreed to provide Germany 200 new M-48s in return for Germany’s delivery to Israel of 150 older M-48s from its inventory.³⁴

In early 1965 the tank sale was leaked to the German press and Chancellor Erhard decided to back out. Of the 150 tanks, 90 remained undelivered. The German decision came while the Johnson administration was considering the sale of tanks to Jordan, leading the administration to consider selling American offensive weapons to both Israel and Jordan. In return for supplying Israel, the administration again linked the sale of conventional arms to the nuclear issue, demanding additional Israeli concessions: the Israelis were asked “to accept full IAEA safeguards on all their nuclear facilities and to provide assurances that they would not develop a nuclear weapons capability.”³⁵

To explain the sale of tanks to Jordan, and negotiate the terms of the U.S.-Israeli security understandings, Undersecretary of State Averell Harriman and White House aide Robert Komer flew to Israel in late February 1965. In their talks the link between conventional arms and Israel’s nuclear program was discussed more explicitly than before. Although Harriman led the mission, it was Komer who handled the more sensitive aspects of the negotiations. Komer knew that negotiating with the Israelis over nuclear issues would be difficult, but he did not realize how difficult it actually would be.³⁶

Israel had no objection to the sale of American armor and aircraft to Jordan, as long as Jordan did not deploy the weapons in the West Bank and Israel received compensation. In return, the United States would deliver the remaining ninety M-48A3 tanks of the German-Israeli tank deal of 1964 and an additional hundred or more tanks later. The United States was also ready, for the first time, to consider the sale of jet fighter planes to Israel. Israel asked for a large number of tactical bombers, such as the F-4B (Phantom) or B-66, but the United States was only willing to consider a much smaller number of A-4s (Skyhawk).³⁷ The real difficulties arose over nuclear issues.

By 1965 the White House and the CIA concluded that the Dimona visits would not accomplish the goal set for them by the Kennedy administration. The visits could not determine the status of nuclear research and development in Israel. The American alternative to the visits was IAEA safeguards on Dimona. Komer’s mission was to persuade the Israelis to accept this alternative.³⁸ Israel objected, pointing out that Egypt had not yet placed its own reactor under IAEA safeguards. Eshkol reiterated that Israel would not be the first country in the region to introduce nuclear weapons, and Peres used a similar phrase when he discussed with Komer the French-Israeli missile project a few months earlier.³⁹ Bundy and Komer understood, however, that behind the vague pledge a secret development effort was under way.

The negotiations between Komer and the Israelis were described as “rough and tough.” According to Yitzhak Rabin, “Komer asked for a personal appointment with me … and used tough language, not excluding a veiled threat: ‘If Israel embarked in that direction, it might cause the most serious crisis she ever had in her relations with the U.S.’”⁴⁰ On 1 March 1965, as the negotiations dragged on, Harriman left for India, leaving Komer in Tel Aviv to continue the talks with the Eshkol government. Komer was instructed to stay in Israel as long as necessary to persuade Israel to accept IAEA safeguards. He stayed ten more days, pressing and pushing, but all to no avail.⁴¹ Finally, the Americans gave up.

The “Memorandum of Understanding,” signed on 10 March by Eshkol, Komer, and Barbour, was a landmark in the evolution of Israel’s nuclear opacity. In the first article, “the Government of the United States has reaffirmed its concern for the maintenance of Israel’s security,” and renewed its commitment “to the independence and integrity of Israel.” In return, “the Government of Israel has reaffirmed that Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Arab-Israel area.”⁴² This is the first time that the Israeli verbal formula became the foundation of U.S.-Israeli understandings.

On 12 March Eshkol wrote to Johnson, thanking him for sending Harriman and Komer and noting the agreements the mission had produced. Eshkol alluded to difficulties in the discussions before the agreements were reached, then added: “For myself, I am custodian of a small state and the representative of a small people. We are surrounded by enemies. I believe we will win our way to peace, but it will be a hard road. We have nowhere to retreat. You can be assured, Mr. President, that we will fulfill the agreement in complete good faith.”⁴³ Ten days later Johnson replied, thanking Eshkol for his “thoughtful” letter, confirming the tacit understandings: “I agree with you entirely that our confidence in each other’s understanding, goodwill and friendship is more important than words—though words are important, too.”⁴⁴

This exchange was different in content and tone from the exchanges between Kennedy and Ben Gurion and those between Kennedy and Eshkol in the spring and summer of 1963, respectively. In Kennedy’s messages the Dimona reactor was the center of discussion, while it was never mentioned in the communications between Johnson and Eshkol on Dimona. Johnson preferred to craft a practical compromise suitable for both sides, while Kennedy was willing to risk a confrontation with Israel over the latter’s nuclear program.

Johnson used the Harriman-Komer mission to test how far he could push U.S. nonproliferation policies on the Israelis. Johnson, like Kennedy, wanted Dimona placed under IAEA safeguards, but he took a different approach. He did not exert pressure on Israel through tough presidential letters, but instead relied on an emissary, a government official. When it became evident to Johnson that Eshkol had rejected Komer’s pressure regarding IAEA safeguards, he backed off and avoided confrontation. The Israeli rejection of IAEA safeguards did not prevent Israel and the United States from reaching an understanding. Indeed, the United States agreed to supply Israel with conventional armaments, while Eshkol agreed that Israel would not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the region

On 19 April 1965 Israel officially submitted to the United States a purchasing request that included 210 M-48A2 tanks, 60 self-propelled 155-mm guns, and 75 combat aircraft.⁴⁵ The State Department considered the request as exceeding Israeli security needs; the United States could not afford politically to meet the Israeli request in full, nor was it committed to do so. Instead, the State Department had its own ideas for the May discussions about what kind of military equipment it could provide Israel.⁴⁶ The tank issue was relatively easy. The United States was ready to meet the Israeli request for 210 additional M48s, including upgrade kits, to make up for the shortfall in the German delivery (110 tanks) and to offset its tank deal with Jordan (100 tanks).⁴⁷ There was bargaining on the technical aspects concerning the upgrading kits, but the deal was finalized on 29 July.⁴⁸

The combat jet issue was a different matter. The language of the March Komer-Eshkol Memorandum of Understanding was general and vague. It stated that the United States agreed to “ensure an opportunity for Israel to purchase a certain number of combat aircraft, if not from Western [European] sources, then from the United States” (article V[c]). What did this commitment mean? This was the first time that the United States was ready to consider a sale of combat aircraft to Israel—for years it maintained that Israel must look to Europe to satisfy all its needs in the air—but such consideration was short of a full commitment to sell. During the May talks the United States maintained that it would sell Israel jet aircraft only after Israel exhausted all possible Western European sources. Furthermore, there were additional American limitations: the United States would not sell supersonic aircraft, the number would not exceed twenty-four planes (one squadron), and delivery would not start before 1967.⁴⁹

Much of the on-going American-Israeli security dialogue in the second half of 1965 and early 1966 was about the meaning of the American commitment. Israel chose to interpret the Komer-Eshkol agreement as a presidential commitment for the sale of American planes. Israel reported to the United States about various European aircraft options it had explored—all were not suitable for one reason or another—but the Americans were left with the impression that Israel was interested in access to American planes regardless of the availability of European aircraft.⁵⁰ In June Ambassador Harman officially told the United States that Israel could not obtain suitable planes in Europe and that the American Phantom was the only long-term solution to IAF needs.⁵¹

The next phase in the negotiations on the jet sale took place in October 1965, when General Ezer Weizman, the IAF chief, came to Washington to pitch Israel’s case for American jets. Weizman delivered “an able and carefully tailored analysis” to a joint DOD/State group, describing the role of the IAF in deterring and winning war with Israel’s main Arab adversaries. The crux of Weizman’s analysis was the possibility of an all-out confrontation between Israel and the combined forces of Egypt and Syria. To face a larger number of high-performance UAR fighter and strike aircraft, Israel had some two hundred combat aircraft (nearly all of French origin). Almost half the Israeli fleet (Ouragans and Mystères) was already obsolescent and required immediate replacement. The rest of the Israeli fleet was adequate for the next few years, but was not sufficient in number to meet Israel’s second-strike requirements to hit the larger number of high performance UAR aircraft and bomb radar sites and airfields in Southern Egypt.⁵²

Without revealing the details of the IAF Moked plan to destroy the Arab air forces, Weizman hinted at its role in war.⁵³ The modernization plans of the IAF were derived from this planning and required two types of new aircraft: a small number of supersonic strike aircraft (or fighter bombers) capable of flying to the remote Arab air bases and back on their own, and a large number of subsonic aircraft with short takeoff and landing capabilities, capable of functioning both as interceptors and as ground-support light bombers. Weizman then presented an ambitious shopping list of 210 American combat aircraft, 45 supersonic Phantom or Intruder (A-6) jets (the IAF then had 30), and 165 of the significantly cheaper subsonic Skyhawks (the IAF then had about 120). Weizman placed particular emphasis on the latter, saying that the Israelis had exhausted the European market, particularly France, and found no comparable aircraft which met their range and take-off requirements. In addition, European planes were more expensive than the $630,000 Skyhawk.⁵⁴

The Americans were impressed by Weizman’s presentation, but his request exceeded the limits of American policy. They acknowledged the presidential commitment to the integrity and independence of Israel, but argued that Israel had not yet looked at all the possible European sources. In the meantime the American Embassy in Paris made inquiries of its own as to how far the Israelis went to examine the French option, particularly the availability of new models of the Mirages and/or Vautours.⁵⁵ Given the uncertainty about the French situation before the presidential election in France, the Americans wanted to postpone their decision until early 1966.⁵⁶ Although the Israelis were eager to break the American determination against supplying American combat planes to Israel, that determination was still strong in late 1965.⁵⁷

Was there a linkage between the aircraft negotiation and the nuclear issue, particularly the Dimona visit? Or did the two issues merely run in parallel to each other (as “two distinct operas,” using Mordechai Gazit’s phrase).⁵⁸ On the surface, in 1965 the issues appeared to be unrelated. The record shows that during the early discussions of the aircraft deal, the Dimona issue was never raised. The jet deal was never explicitly mentioned in President Johnson’s 1965 correspondence with Eshkol, and related diplomatic exchanges, on the nuclear issue. On 21 May 1965 Johnson wrote to Eshkol asking him to accept IAEA safeguards on all Israeli reactors. Eshkol wrote back asking to defer the issue until after the elections, but without indicating how he would respond then. When Barbour was asked to express Johnson’s disappointment with Eshkol’s response, he also was instructed, “but without overt linkage,” to convey a sense of satisfaction about the conclusion of the tank deal.⁵⁹ Evidently the State Department wanted to conceal an explicit linkage between the two issues.

Below the surface, however, there was tacit linkage between the two issues all along. This linkage between atoms and security (as argued in chapter 9) was at the heart of American-Israeli relations since August 1963, when Eshkol reached the agreement with Kennedy about the Dimona visit. This linkage was also at the core of the March 1965 Komer-Eshkol Memorandum of Understanding, even though no explicit linkage was formed between the Israeli nuclear nonintroduction commitment and the American commitment to look after Israel’s “deterrent capacity” (Article 3).⁶⁰

In early 1966, as the new Eshkol government was pressing for the aircraft deal while continuing to delay the American visit to Dimona and deferring a response to Johnson’s request regarding the IAEA, the Americans were left with no choice but to make the linkage between the two issues visible. If Israel wanted American planes it must put an end to the delaying tactics about Dimona. On 18 January, during his first meeting with Eshkol’s new foreign minister, Abba Eban, Barbour made the linkage between Dimona and aircraft apparent. He stated that the “most important matter on the agenda was arranging the next US visit [to] Dimona.” Barbour went on in his cable:

The linkage became transparent in another cable to Barbour from the department concerning Eban’s upcoming visit to the United States. Barbour was asked to inform Eban that the United States “regard[s] it of great importance [that the] date for [the] Dimona visit be settled prior [to] his Washington visit.” The American side was looking forward “to frank and friendly exchanges on [a] broad range of topics.” “If [the] question of [a] Dimona inspection is still pending,” however, “it may be an inhibiting factor.”⁶² Once again, the linkage remained implicit but apparent.

Eshkol, however, continued with his delaying tactics concerning the Dimona visit. He told Barbour on 27 January 1966 that while agreeing to undertake arrangements for the Dimona visit, it would take some time. Eshkol made the point that he must consult his new cabinet colleagues, and he did not want Dimona to be the first question he put to his colleagues because it might result in a cabinet crisis. Eshkol indicated that a realistic date for the visit would be in about two months, the second half of March, weeks after Eban’s visit.⁶³

The linkage became even more apparent (but not yet fully explicit) in the meeting Secretary Rusk had with Eban in Washington on 9 February. After telling Eban that Johnson wanted an early decision on Israel’s aircraft request, Rusk said that “the only major question that could have a disastrous effect on U.S.-Israeli relations was Israel[’s] attitude on proliferation.” Rusk went on: “Israel [is] apparently following a policy designed to create ambiguity in the Arab world. This also created ambiguity in Washington. Israel should expect the U.S. to be extremely clear and utterly harsh on the matter of non-proliferation.” Rusk urged Eban “not to underestimate the total involvement of U.S.-Israel[i] relations in this matter.”⁶⁴

Eban also passed on Israel’s response to Johnson’s letter of May 1965 concerning IAEA safeguards. Eban stated that Israel preferred a bilateral arrangement over IAEA safeguards “because of the increasingly weak position of Israel in the IAEA and the growing strength of the Arabs in that body.”⁶⁵ Yet he noted that the Israeli government attached “full weight” to the nonintroduction pledge given to Harriman.⁶⁶ In response, Rusk observed that this pledge might not prevent the development of a precarious situation somewhat akin to “eight months of pregnancy.”⁶⁷ The pregnancy metaphor would become Rusk’s contribution to the growing American-Israeli Talmudic debate about the nonintroduction pledge that would reach its climax in 1968–69 (see chapters 16–17).

As on previous occasions, it was Robert Komer who made the linkage between the aircraft deal and the nuclear issue not only apparent but also explicit. In a memorandum he prepared for Johnson a day before Johnson met Eban, Komer told Johnson that “McNamara and most of the key State people, as well as Bundy and I, have come reluctantly to conclude that controlled sales best serve the U.S. interest.” Among the reasons for this conclusion Komer referred to the nuclear issue in the following way:

Komer’s memo made it clear that when Johnson met Eban on 9 February it had been decided already that the United States would provide jets to Israel. Johnson hinted that to Eban, but without going into details.⁶⁹ The details of the deal, including the linkage with the nuclear issue, were left to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara in his meeting with Eban on 12 February 1966. McNamara, told Eban that the United States could not be Israel’s main arms supplier, and it could not sell to any country such sophisticated aircraft as the Intruder, but that the United States was prepared to sell Israel 24 “Skyhawks” (the older A-4Es) and give an option to twenty-four additional planes, “provided Israel meets certain conditions.”⁷⁰ These conditions were the linkage with the nuclear issue.

A week later Ambassador Harman notified Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Townsend Hoopes that Israel accepted the American offer. It was decided that the key aspects of the sale “be consummated” through an exchange of letters between Hoopes and Harman.⁷¹ Article 6 of the American proposed draft for Harman’s letter contained the political conditions of the sale, including the two nuclear-related conditions:

Israel did have problems with some aspects of the proposed letter, in particular its nuclear aspects, and it suggested a version of its own. The most important Israeli change was making the nuclear weapons assurance a “prembular positive statement, rather than having it made a condition as in the US draft.”⁷³ The second nuclear-related change concerned the American visits to Dimona. Harman noted that the insertion of that condition “has caused much perturbation.” First he denied that it was in the Eban-McNamara talk, and when the minutes were examined he backed off, “acquiescing … that we would make this a separate letter.”⁷⁴

In a subsequent meeting, however, it was reported that the Israeli government did not approve the ambassador’s compromise and insisted on the Israeli original position; that is, placing the reaffirmation of the nuclear nonintroduction pledge as a statement, against an American reaffirmation of its own pledge of commitment to Israel’s security (as it appears in the Komer-Eshkol Memorandum of Understanding), not as an explicit condition of the deal, as the issue was put by McNamara in his meeting with Eban on 12 February.⁷⁵ In addition, the Israeli representative, Ephraim Evron, was instructed “to have any reference to Dimona taken out … and put in a separate memorandum.”⁷⁶ Evron noted that Eshkol was “adamant” about the reference to the Dimona visit as a condition.⁷⁷

At the end a compromise was worked out that satisfied both sides. There was a classified exchange of letters between Harman and Hoopes of the Pentagon. The Israeli letter carried the Israeli reservations. The opening paragraphs referred to the Komer-Eshkol Memorandum of Understanding of 10 March, in which the security and the undertakings were made one against the other, without formal linkage or conditioning. In addition, there was an agreed Memorandum of Conversation which apparently included reference to the Eban-McNamara conversation and the Dimona visit.⁷⁸ The Israelis could have denied the nuclear linkage, saying that this issue was outside the formal agreement on the aircraft deal. Two weeks later the AEC scientists finally had their one-day visit at Dimona (see chapter 10). Two months later the essence of the deal became public; no reference to the nuclear issue was mentioned or hinted at.⁷⁹

The American side understood that both Israeli objections on the nuclear issue turned “on the question of how things are stated rather than what is stated.”⁸⁰ At the crux of this dispute was the legalistic question of the linkage between security and atoms: while the linkage was apparent and implicit by way of a statement against a statement, the Israelis, as they had done in the past, were adamant against including it as an explicit condition of the deal. While it was recognized by all players that there was a quid pro quo here, the Israelis refused to make it explicit for political reasons, keeping the veneer of separation (“the two different operas”).

In the mid-1960s, under Johnson and Eshkol, the United States and Israel reached a number of understandings on the nuclear issue. The unwritten understandings allowed both governments to avoid public confrontation over Israel’s nuclear program, without compromising the interests of either. Sometime in the mid-1960s the CIA station in Tel Aviv concluded that the Israelis had a nuclear weapons program, and that it was a fact that could not be reversed. The CIA station felt that the Israelis were engaged in deception, concealing information about the Dimona reactor and leading the American inspectors to the wrong conclusions about the activities there. After the Six-Day War, the CIA station in Israel believed that the visits were becoming an embarrassment for both governments, and, since it was no longer necessary to reassure Nasser, it would be better to bring them to an end. CIA director Richard Helms and Ambassador Barbour probably reached similar conclusions, and possibly conveyed their conclusions to Johnson.⁸¹

Barbour, who served as U.S. ambassador to Israel from 1961 to 1973, understood the Israeli commitment to acquire nuclear weapons. He also understood that the Dimona reactor was central to Israel’s nuclear weapons program, and knew that Israel’s leaders would not give it up. He wanted, therefore, to find other ways that would allow the United States to contain the Israeli program. He understood that strengthening Israel through sales of sophisticated conventional arms would be more effective than a public confrontation over keeping the Israeli weapons program under wraps. A central element in the understanding between Israel and the United States would be ambiguity. Barbour, therefore, was not interested in learning too much about Dimona, and he did not instruct the embassy personnel to do much about it. He believed that this attitude would best serve Johnson’s interests and wishes.⁸²

Barbour interpreted Johnson’s interests and wishes correctly. The White House knew something, but also did not want to know too much, just as Barbour knew the essence but did not want to know the details. According to Feldman, neither Kennedy nor Johnson had too many doubts that the Israelis “had to have nuclear weapons, sooner or later. This was a given. They were very advanced and they would have it, if not in one year, it would be in the following year.”⁸³ This was also the view of Seaborg, who now acknowledges that despite the reports of AEC scientists, around the time he visited in Israel in 1966 he knew with “near certainty” that the Israelis had a secret reprocessing facility.⁸⁴ Komer, as noted earlier, acknowledged that as early as 1962 or 1963 the CIA assumed that “a reprocessing plant was there, too.”⁸⁵ As early as December 1964 the speculation among American proliferation experts was that “Israel now has the technical capability to develop the bomb,” and could do so within two to three years after the decision was made.⁸⁶ Less than two years later, Komer recommended that the president approve the sale of the Skyhawks, “provided that Israel in return: … not use our aircraft as nuclear weapons carriers.”⁸⁷ This language indicates that by 1966 the White House sensed that Israel was getting closer to producing nuclear weapons. The president and his advisers might not have known precisely how far Israel had advanced in the nuclear field, and there was no firm evidence on the status and direction of the Israeli program.

Even without clear indications of the state of the Israeli nuclear weapons program, Israel posed a problem for U.S. nonproliferation policy. According to Feldman, the issue was not stopping Israel’s nuclear program, but persuading Israel not openly to become a nuclear-weapon state, engendering a chain of nuclear weapons proliferation as a result.⁸⁸ It was thus important to Johnson “to remind the Prime Minister that we are violently against nuclear proliferation,” and to receive assurances from the prime minister that he understood the president’s position. This was as far as Johnson went.

Johnson’s dealings with Eshkol should be understood in the context of his administration’s nonproliferation policies. For Johnson, the problem of nuclear weapons proliferation was not as central as it was for Kennedy. He also did not believe, at least until late 1966, that the impasse with the Soviets regarding the question of the Multi-lateral Nuclear Force (MLF) could be resolved to allow an agreement on weapons nonproliferation.⁸⁹ The Chinese nuclear explosion on 16 October 1964 was a reminder of the dangers of nuclear proliferation,⁹⁰ but Johnson was still reluctant to make nonproliferation an important issue in his foreign policy. His administration, like those before, opposed the development of nuclear deterrent forces by other states, but even this assumption was questioned by administration officials. Chief among them was Secretary of State Dean Rusk.⁹¹

Against the backdrop of this internal debate and weeks after the Chinese explosion, Johnson appointed a special task force, chaired by former undersecretary of defense Roswell Gilpatric, to study the problem of nuclear proliferation. The creation of the Gilpatric Committee was a recognition that after the Chinese explosion, there was a need for a fresh look at the proliferation question, and for greater clarity and coherence in American national nuclear nonproliferation policy.

The Gilpatric report asserted that preventing further proliferation “is clearly in the national interest despite the difficult decisions that will be required,” and thus the United States must, “as a matter of great urgency, substantially increase the scope and intensity of its non-proliferation efforts, if it wants to have any hope of success.”⁹² The report considered nuclear proliferation a threat to the security of the United States, and did not make exceptions or distinctions between friendly or hostile states. Any additional nuclear forces, however primitive and regardless of who developed them, “will add complexity and instability to the deterrent balance between the United States and the Soviet Union, [and] aggregate suspicions and hostility among states neighboring new nuclear powers.” Johnson received the Gilpatric report on 21 January 1965, but he was not ready to endorse the committee’s conclusions. Rusk opposed the conclusions and the tone of the report, refusing to conceal his views even at the White House ceremony during which the report was given to the president. He claimed that the report was “as explosive as a nuclear weapon” and that a premature disclosure could be damaging. According to Seaborg’s memoirs, Rusk added that “we could have an agreement on proliferation by 6 p.m.—it was then about 2 p.m.—if we would abandon the MLF, and that this was an area in which we might have to make a choice.”⁹³ Johnson reminded committee members of the need to guard against leaking the report to the press.⁹⁴

This secrecy was the result of the administration’s skepticism about the report’s recommendation that the United States give precedence to its commitment to nonproliferation over its commitment to existing and future nuclear arrangements with its European allies. In early 1965 the Johnson administration was not yet ready to abandon the MLF idea in favor of negotiating a nonproliferation agreement with the Soviets. Leaking the contents of the Gilpatric report could politicize the issue and embarrass Johnson.⁹⁵

Johnson’s ambivalence toward nonproliferation is relevant to understanding his dealings with Israel. Because Israel was going to develop nuclear weapons anyway, the best way to handle the situation was to get Israel to commit itself not to be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East. The American visits to Dimona provided the administration with the cover needed to claim that Eshkol’s assurances regarding nuclear weapons were verified. By June 1964, however, after only one visit to Dimona during Johnson’s tenure, the administration became uncomfortable in its role as the witness of Israel’s status as a state without a nuclear weapons program. This is why Komer, during the first Eshkol visit, tried to persuade Israel to accept IAEA safeguards on its nuclear installations (as noted, Komer succeeded in the case of Soreq, but Israel refused to accept IAEA safeguards on Dimona). The issue of IAEA control emerged again in 1966,⁹⁶ and the pattern of the United States raising the issue and Israel rejecting it became routine.

From the Israeli perspective, the visits were not meant to dispel U.S. suspicions about Israel’s nuclear weapons capability. The Eshkol government wanted to convey a dual message: Israel would act responsibly and would do its best to keep the Arab-Israeli conflict conventional; and that it wanted the United States to recognize that Israel had a tangible nuclear-weapons option. Israel, therefore, was not interested in clarity. The question was how far Israel should let the United States in on the details of its capability. The solution was to keep America guessing as to the nature of Israel’s nuclear weapons capacity. It was this element of uncertainty that left some U.S. officials, in the mid-1960s, uncomfortable and frustrated as to the Israeli nuclear program.⁹⁷ Reliance on nuclear ambiguity resulted in the Israeli posture of opacity. Eshkol and Johnson stumbled further into opacity as they searched and groped for answers that would satisfy their strategic needs, national goals, and political requirements.