The Samson Option: Will the Temple Columns Soon Fall on Israel’s Enemies?

There exists a doctrine within the Israeli strategic playbook that is as feared as it is misunderstood —a doctrine veiled in ambiguity and born from the nation’s darkest fears. Known as the Samson Option, it refers to Israel’s implied readiness to resort to nuclear weapons if it were ever facing the prospect of annihilation.

Its name is no accident. It evokes the final act of the biblical judge Samson, who, blind and bound by the Philistines, found the strength to bring down the pillars of the temple of Dagon, killing his enemies —and himself— in one final, apocalyptic gesture.

The concept emerged during the early decades of the State of Israel, when survival was not a philosophical concern but a daily calculation.

Though never officially confirmed, key figures have hinted at its existence. The term gained traction following revelations by Mordechai Vanunu in 1986, when he disclosed details of Israel’s nuclear arsenal to the British press.

Later analyses by scholars and statements by senior Israeli officials, including Moshe Dayan and Ariel Sharon, have further entrenched the perception that Israel’s nuclear deterrent is not merely a Cold War relic, but an integral part of its national defense doctrine.

The term “Samson Option” entered mainstream awareness largely thanks to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh, whose 1991 book The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy exposed key details about Israel’s strategic doctrine.

Hersh drew upon a combination of confidential interviews with Israeli and American intelligence officials, declassified documents, and the explosive revelations of Mordechai Vanunu —a former technician at Israel’s Dimona nuclear facility who, in 1986, leaked photographs and technical data to the Sunday Times in London.

Vanunu’s disclosures confirmed what had long been suspected: that Israel possessed a significant and sophisticated nuclear arsenal. Hersh’s reporting went further, asserting that Israel had developed a doctrine of massive retaliation —a last-resort strategy aimed at ensuring that if the Jewish state were ever facing destruction, it would take its enemies down with it.

While Israel has never officially acknowledged this doctrine, Hersh’s work cemented the Samson Option in both academic and strategic discourse as a core, if undeclared, component of Israel’s national defense posture.

To understand the weight of such a doctrine, one must revisit the biblical roots of its name. In the Book of Judges, Samson, betrayed and captured, prays for one last surge of divine strength. He pushes apart the columns of the temple, collapsing it upon thousands of Philistines.

His act is not only one of vengeance, but a final assertion of power when no other option remained. The metaphor is brutal, and for Israel, deliberate. The message is simple: if we are to fall, we will bring our enemies down with us.

Yet unlike Samson, modern Israel is not blind, and certainly not bound. It remains a regional military powerhouse with unmatched intelligence capabilities, robust missile defenses, and —according to numerous international assessments— a sizable undeclared nuclear arsenal.

The Samson Option is not a plan for victory; it is the final safeguard against obliteration. It is not designed for everyday warfare, but for existential crisis.

As of mid-2025, the war with Iran has entered a critical phase. Operation Rising Lion, launched by Israel on June 13, targeted Iran’s nuclear infrastructure in what appears to be the most extensive preemptive campaign since the Osirak raid of 1981.

Iran has responded with salvos of ballistic missiles and swarms of drones, testing Israel’s multi-layered air defense system. While the situation is dire and the scale unprecedented, most analysts agree that Israel’s existence is not yet at risk.

But the strategic threshold could shift rapidly. What if Iran manages to saturate Israeli defenses and lands a direct hit on a major city? What if it deploys a chemical, radiological, or even a nuclear device through proxies? What if Hezbollah or other regional actors open additional fronts, threatening Israel’s capacity to fight conventionally? These are not abstract questions —they are war-gamed in Tel Aviv, Washington, and Tehran.

The Samson Option is not triggered by public outrage or retaliatory impulse. It is a doctrine governed by the logic of survival: when all other deterrents have failed, and when the very existence of the Jewish state is at stake. It is the last card, the last breath, the last pillar.

For now, the conditions for its activation remain unmet. But the landscape is shifting. The entry of new actors, an unforeseen escalation, or a successful mass-casualty strike could change the calculus overnight. The world may soon find itself asking not whether Israel can survive, but at what cost —and with what tools.

The coming weeks may determine whether the world witnesses a new chapter in the history of nuclear deterrence. The Samson Option envisions the use of nuclear force as Israel’s ultimate defensive measure; but unlike the biblical Samson, who perished with his enemies, Israel —though perhaps diplomatically condemned— would remain alive, in pie, and still capable of defending its right to exist.