How Israel stole Nuclear material from the US

This is an excerpt from the book “The Ghost: The Secret Life of CIA Spymaster James Jesus Angleton” by Jefferson Morley, which discusses in detail how Israel managed to steal fissile material from the US and how top officials in the US intelligence appartus turned a blind eye to this heist.

“ANGLETON’S LOYALTY TO ISRAEL betrayed U.S. policy on an epic scale, and his former colleague John Hadden knew it. In 1978, Hadden, the retired Tel Aviv station chief, made the long trip from his home in Brunswick, Maine, to Washington, D.C. He had a story he needed to tell the right people: how Israel stole nuclear material from the United States government on Angleton’s watch. The story of the great uranium heist at the NUMEC plant in Pennsylvania continued to attract official interest. Over the years, the story of the loss of hundreds of pounds of fissionable material from the Apollo facility had been examined by several government agencies. The question was whether the Israelis had used NUMEC to divert enriched uranium to Dimona and then used it to build their nuclear arsenal. The CIA’s scientists reviewed the evidence. Without judging the legal questions, they all agreed that enriched uranium from NUMEC had been obtained by the Israelis. “I believe that all of my senior analysts who worked on the problem agreed with me fully,” said Carl Duckett, deputy director of the CIA responsible for technical and nuclear intelligence. “[T]he clear consensus in the CIA was that indeed NUMEC material had been diverted and had been used by the Israelis in fabricating weapons.”138

The Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission looked into the matter and found their efforts stymied by a lack of cooperation from the CIA and from NUMEC president Zalman Shapiro, as well as by a studious lack of interest from Capitol Hill. The investigators found no proof of diversion, but they did not have access to all the classified information available to the CIA scientists. When former NRC staffer Roger Mattson managed to get access to the CIA records, he concluded that NUMEC was the only possible source of Israel’s fissionable material.139

John Hadden said the same thing. “A crime was committed 10 or 20 years ago,” he wrote in a memo for the record, “a crime considered so serious that for its commission the death penalty is mandatory and no statute of limitations applies.” A good CIA man, Hadden never spilled classified information, never reported out of channels. He spoke only with the senior staff of the AEC or the House Interior Committee.140 He prepared twenty-nine talking points to support his memo’s conclusion: that NUMEC was a front company deployed in an Israeli-American criminal conspiracy to evade U.S. nonproliferation laws and supply the Israeli nuclear arsenal. “If the crime had been committed intentionally and was not the result of carelessness,” Hadden went on, “then the circumstances warranted a finding of high treason with a mandatory death penalty.” The only other explanation, he wrote, was “gross incompetence on the part of those responsible for security in certain areas.” It was either treason or incompetence, Hadden said. If one of those terms applied to his former boss, Jim Angleton, so be it.141

Angleton had regular professional and personal contact with at least six men aware of Israel’s secret plan to build a bomb. From Asher Ben-Natan to Amos de Shalit to Isser Harel to Meir Amit to Moshe Dayan to Yval Ne’eman, his friends were involved in the building of Israel’s nuclear arsenal. If he learned anything of the secret program at Dimona, he reported very little of it. If he didn’t ask questions about Israel’s actions, he wasn’t doing his job. Instead of supporting U.S. nuclear security policy, he ignored it. Angleton thought collaboration with the Israeli intelligence services was more important. And the results proved his point, he believed. When Angleton started as chief of the Counterintelligence Staff in 1954, the state of Israel and its leaders were regarded warily in Washington, especially at the State Department. When Angleton left government service twenty years later, Israel held twice as much territory as it had in 1948, the CIA and the Mossad collaborated on a daily basis, and the governments of the United States and Israel were strategic allies, knit together by expansive intelligence sharing, multibillion-dollar arms contracts, and coordinated diplomacy. The failure of the U.S. nonproliferation policy to prevent the introduction of nuclear weapons to the Middle East in the 1960s is part of Angleton’s legacy, and its effects will be felt for decades, if not centuries. He was a leading architect of America’s strategic relationship with Israel that endures and dominates the region to this day. He was, as his friend Meir Amit said, “the biggest Zionist of the lot.””


138. Transcript of “Near Armageddon: The Spread of Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East,” 14, ABC News Closeup, broadcast April 28, 1981. See also “Only CIA Believed Uranium Diverted,” Washington Post, February 26, 1978.
139.  Author’s interview with Roger Mattson, December 10, 2015.
140.  One of them was investigator Peter Stockton, who said Hadden had showed him “a binder of stuff” when they met at a CIA safe house. “He would pull out a 25 foot makeshift scroll of paper that contained the case against NUMEC,” Stockton told a reporter. “This was before computers, and the thing was long and pasted together and that was his evidence. We’d sit there in the safe house and he’d read me portions.” See Scott Johnson, “What Lies Beneath,” Foreign Policy, March 23, 2015.
141.  When the NUMEC investigation petered out in the late 1970s, Hadden let the matter drop. He was intelligence officer, not a crusader. He had done what he could as a CIA officer and a citizen. He filed his findings about NUMEC among his personal papers, where his son found them after his death in 2013.

Israel’s botched Attack on Pakistani Nuclear Installments

Deception book

Following is an excerpt from the book “Deception – Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons” written by Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark . It is taken from the book’s sixth chapter titled “A Figment of the Zionist Mind”.

[Sharifuddin] Pirzada remembered well Khan’s proclivity for speaking out. The flurry of interviews in January and February 1984 had a purpose. “Khan found it hard to keep his trap shut. This is true. But these prolonged interviews were for a reason. Zia believed in nuclear ambiguity, a strategy whereby it could be inferred that Pakistan had the bomb without Pakistan losing its lucrative US aid. The plan was to give the impression that Pakistan’s nuclear mission was unstoppable in order to bring about its international acceptance and to warn India that should they choose to strike we were ready to respond.”19
Khan had spoken out on Zia’s instruction, the CIA having warned Islamabad that India had finally snapped and was planning a preemptive military strike against Kahuta.20
“The problem with Khan was that he always set out to do one thing and then invariably achieved another,” Pirzada recalled. “Khan went further than his brief and sent our American friends apoplectic.” Zia was advised to draft a clarification, carried by state television and the newspapers. Gilded in semantics, the president’s statement made no mention of Khan’s claim that Pakistan had enriched uranium to weapons grade and the president insisted there were no plans to build a bomb, even though Khan had been right to say that “Pakistan could build a bomb if it needed to.”21
The Pakistanis were masterful word-smiths and there were many in the West who were glad that they were. The timing of Khan’s outpourings could not have been worse. Reagan was due in Beijing. The aid package to Pakistan was up for renewal on Capitol Hill. In New Delhi, too, there was anger at Khan and at the US. The talk was that Washington had betrayed India’s secret plans to strike at Pakistan’s nuclear project. K. Subrahmanyam, chairman of India’s joint intelligence committee, picked over the Khan interviews. “We knew we were being challenged by Islamabad,” Subrahmanyam recalled.22
“Our intelligence people also had evidence of the Pakistan air force increasing their levels of readiness, further proof, if any more were needed, that our covert intentions to hit Kahuta were not secret any more.” But what made India’s joint intelligence committee livid was that it had been sitting on the plan to strike KRL for a year. A committee of soldiers and intelligence people had first come together to discuss what became known as “the Osirak contingency” in 1981, after Lieutenant General Krishnaswami Sundarji had published his Pakistan war-gaming manual. Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi had consented and placed Air Marshal Dilbagh Singh, chief of air staff, in charge of the operation. He had ordered Indian Air Force Jaguar squadrons to practice low-level flying, simulating runs with 2,000-lb bombs.23
In February 1983, with the strike plan at an advanced stage, Indian military officials had travelled secretly to Israel, which had a common interest in eliminating Khan, to buy electronic warfare equipment to neutralize Kahuta’s air defenses.24
On 25 February 1983, Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi had accused Pakistan of “covertly attempting to make nuclear weapons,” and three days later, Raja Ramanna, director of India’s Bhabha Atomic Research Center, had revealed that India, too, was developing a uranium enrichment facility.25
Suspecting something was brewing, the ISI sent a message to their Indian intelligence counterparts in RAW that autumn, and as a result Munir Ahmed Khan of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission met Dr. Ramanna at the Imperial Hotel in Vienna. 26
He warned Ramanna that if India were to strike at Kahuta, Pakistan would hit India’s nuclear facilities at Trombay. It lay downwind from the teeming Indian city of Mumbai and an attack would result in the release of “massive amounts of radiation to a large populated area, causing a disaster.”27
New Delhi paused. Israel stepped in, suggesting that it carry out the raid, using India’s airbase at Jamnagar to launch Israeli air force jets and a second base in northern India to refuel. A senior Israeli analyst close to the operation recalled that the plan was to enter Pakistan beneath the radar, with jets tracking the line of the Himalayas through Kashmir. As Reagan’s staff finalized arrangements for the president’s visit to China in March 1984, prime minister Indira Gandhi signed off the Israeli-led operation, bringing India, Pakistan and Israel to within a hair’s breadth of a nuclear conflagration. It was at this point that the CIA tipped off President Zia, hoping the chain reaction would defuse the situation. And after Khan’s outbursts in the Pakistani newspapers, India and Israel had backed off. But these were high-stakes games, played between a known nuclear nation—India—and another— Pakistan—that Reagan continued to insist had no capability, the US deception bringing the region even further towards an apocalyptic conflagration.

General retd. Mirza Aslam Baig recounting another Israeli/Indian botched attempt on Pakistani Nuclear Installations during Benazir era.


19 Author interview with Sharifuddin Pirzada, Islamabad, spring 2006.

20 Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi had ordered her chief of air staff to draw up plans for such an operation. For details on the planning and US intervention in the raid, see below.

21 Zia’s statement was issued on 13 February 1984.

22 Author interview with K. Subrahmanyam, New Delhi, spring 2006.

23 Bharat Karnad, Nuclear Weapons and Indian Security: The Realist Foundations of Strategy (Macmillan, New Delhi, 2002), pp. 346–7.

24 During this shopping trip, the Israelis had proposed a trade. If New Delhi gave Jerusalem technical data on the MiG-23 combat aircraft supplied to India by the Soviet Union, the Israelis would pass to India classified manuals it had obtained from the US that would enable New Delhi to jam the radar frequencies used by the new F-16 fighters that had recently arrived in Islamabad from Fort Worth, Texas. The electronic warfare equipment bought from Israel arrived at the Indian air force’s Jamnagar base in Gujarat in March 1983. See Karnad, p. 346.

25 An interview with Raja Ramanna, director of India’s Bhabha Atomic Research Center, appeared in “India Is Pursuing Uranium Enrichment Technology,” Nuclear Fuel, 28 February 1983, pp 3–4.

26 They met during an IAEA session in the autumn of 1983.

27 Author interviews in New Delhi in the winter and summer of 2006. For another account, see George Perkovich, India’s Nuclear Bomb: The Impact on Global Proliferation (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1999), p. 241.