Opinion

Even off-hand talk about Israel’s nuclear option is obscene

Israel’s “Samson Option” and the Perils of Desperation


March 11, 2026 

 Middle East Monitor.

Israel’s nuclear reactor at Dimona. [Getty Images]

by Ranjan Solomon


The “real” chances of a nuclear hit-back from Israel, driven by desperation in an existential crisis, are generally considered low due to conventional military superiority and US backing, but are not zero. Such a move is associated with the Samson Option – an unconfirmed, last-resort doctrine of massive retaliation, named after the biblical figure who died while destroying his enemies.

As of March 2026, amid intense, multi-front conflict involving Iran, the “Samson Option” has returned to focus as a potential, though catastrophic, tool of last resort.

The “Samson Option” doctrine suggests that if Israel’s existence is threatened, or its conventional defenses fail against a massive, overwhelming attack, it would use its nuclear arsenal rather than face destruction. The doctrine is specifically designed for a scenario where Israel is on the verge of being defeated or overrun, taking its enemies with it.

Israel neither confirms nor denies possessing nuclear weapons (“Amimut”), which allows them to maintain deterrence without the international fallout of admitting to the arsenal.

Experts consider this a last-resort, “doomsday” plan. It is highly unlikely to be used unless Israel faces an existential, apocalyptic threat. The threat was reportedly discussed during the 1973 Yom Kippur War when Israeli defenses were severely challenged.

The use of a nuclear weapon by Israel, even if considered a “last-resort,” would result in catastrophic outcomes. A nuclear exchange would likely destroy major cities in Iran and neighbouring countries, resulting in unprecedented loss of life and injuries. Beyond immediate blast damage, radioactive fallout could affect the entire region, spreading to Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia.

A regional nuclear exchange could disrupt the global climate, causing significant agricultural collapse, starvation, and a potential global famine (“nuclear winter”).

Such a move would break international norms, destroy the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) framework, and isolate Israel globally. It could prompt other regional nations to pursue nuclear weapons.

A major conflict in the region would likely paralyze global supply chains, skyrocket oil prices, and close the Strait of Hormuz, severely damaging the global economy.

Israel is estimated to possess roughly 90 to 400 nuclear warheads, according to various foreign estimates. Israel is believed to have a “nuclear triad,” allowing delivery via land-based Jericho ballistic missiles, aircraft, and submarine-launched cruise missiles. Reports suggest Israel has been upgrading its plutonium production reactor site at Dimona and testing its missile systems.

If Israel ever resorted to the “nuclear option” (the Samson Option), it would likely face severe international condemnation, intense diplomatic isolation, and potentially, long-term alienation from key allies. While designed as a final deterrent to prevent existential destruction, utilizing nuclear weapons would violate international norms, likely causing even close partners to distance themselves.

Such an action would likely trigger immediate, global condemnation, potentially including severe economic sanctions, legal repercussions, and the complete loss of diplomatic support.

While the United States currently provides security cooperation against threats, the use of nuclear weapons could create an unbridgeable diplomatic, ethical, and legal chasm, making continued, unconditional support extremely difficult.

As described by observers, this strategy is not intended to maintain friendships, but to ensure that if Israel faces annihilation, its enemies face similar destruction, a “not dying alone” scenario.

While the immediate aftermath would likely be extreme isolation, “friendless forever” is a long-term projection that depends on the geopolitical landscape at the time and the nature of the existential threat.

Based on events as of March 11, 2026, the situation regarding the United States and Israel’s efforts to get Iran to back down is highly volatile, characterized by direct military conflict rather than diplomatic submission. Following the launch of a joint U.S.-Israeli military operation (Operation Epic Fury) on February 28, 2026, Iran has responded with widespread retaliatory strikes against U.S. and Israeli interests, rather than backing down.

Following the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in initial strikes, the U.S. and Israel have engaged in a sustained campaign targeting Iranian military, infrastructure, and leadership. Iran has retaliated by attacking U.S. bases in the region, including in Kuwait and Qatar, and disrupting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Trump and Netanyahu in their utter arrogance and foolishness, and their failure to understand Iran’s civilizational resilience and obdurate defiance, showed they had not even the slightest clue as to how the Iranian Revolution was organized and politically constructed.

Succession in Iran is formally managed by the 88-member Assembly of Experts, a body of senior, vetted Shia clerics responsible for appointing the next Supreme Leader upon the death or incapacity of the incumbent. The process involves a confidential, non-public vote, requiring a two-thirds majority to confirm a new leader to a life-long term. The West will take an eternity before it can arrive at a stage of a great civilization such as Iran. Iranian democracy is unique and unlike the inept western style of first-past-the post and the weight of the money bag that aids the race.

In Iran, should the Supreme Leader die in office, a provisional “Leadership Council” comprising the President, the head of the judiciary, and a member of the Guardian Council takes over temporarily. The decision is heavily influenced by top-ranking officials, including senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders and key advisors. The new leader must be a high-ranking cleric (Mujtahid).

Iran appears to be attempting to raise the costs of the conflict, hoping to force its adversaries into mediation, even as they face significant damage. They have continued to launch missiles at Gulf states, attempting to leverage their “Axis of Resistance” proxies.

While the U.S. and Israel aimed to “break the resilience” of the Iranian regime and prevent nuclear development, the conflict has entered a stage where both sides are trying to land a “knockout blow”.

The conflict has resulted in significant damage to Iranian infrastructure but has also led to substantial casualties and regional instability.

Despite intense military pressure, including cyberattacks and the killing of senior officials, Iranian leadership has not surrendered. The conflict has become a war of attrition, with Iran continuing to hit back, including in Israel. Trump’s calculation that it would be 3-4 days was as he thinks- or fails to think- or, worse still unable to think through complex narratives. After 11 days, he and Netanyahu seek a short break in the war. Iran has snubbed the idea. American intellectuals and analysts have seen Trump’s errors for what they are. The USA has no end-game. Netanyahu also read the wrong playbook. Together, they are now desperately pursuing a formula which will be face-saving. Trump will declare victory and his equally phony cabinet will cheer that lie. Iran, by contrast, has taken a toll but nothing as close to what Israel is taking – as much as US interests in the Gulf. Add to that, Iran has closed avenues that, otherwise, yielded economic leverage. The USA and Israel must contend with its own clumsily ‘epic-fury’ rather which has Iran holding the upper edge.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has explicitly stated that Iran will determine when the war ends, dismissing comments by U.S. President Donald Trump about a swift conclusion as “nonsense”.

Iran is signalling preparation for a long, “mosaic-defense” style conflict, aiming to outlast the attacks. Iran’s most generous gesture may, at best be, a long rope for Trump and Netanyahu to hang their ambitions with.

Washington and Tel Aviv would do well to recognise the lesson that history has repeatedly delivered to imperial overreach: wars launched in arrogance rarely end on the terms imagined by their architects. Iran has absorbed punishment yet continues to demonstrate resilience, while the United States finds its military bases, regional interests, and global credibility increasingly exposed. Escalation—especially flirtation with catastrophic doctrines like the “Samson Option”—would not rescue a failing strategy; it would only deepen the calamity and isolate those who unleash it. If wisdom does not prevail soon, the United States and Israel may discover that the price of miscalculation in West Asia is far greater than either of them is prepared to pay.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.