The Osirak nuclear power research station in 1981. Jacques Pavlovsky/Sygma via Getty Images
| Published June 29, 2025
In June 1981, Israeli fighter jets flew a daring mission over hostile airspace to bomb Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor. Dubbed “Operation Opera,” the strike was intended to cripple Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program before it could produce weapons of mass destruction. But over four decades later, evidence and historical analysis suggest that rather than halting Iraq’s nuclear ambitions, the attack may have pushed them deeper underground — and made Saddam more determined than ever to acquire nuclear weapons.
According to nuclear policy scholars, including those writing in The Conversation, the Osirak strike had unintended consequences. Prior to the bombing, Iraq’s nuclear program was internationally visible and partially dependent on French technology and oversight. After the Israeli raid, Saddam was humiliated but also incensed. What followed was a shift from semi-open nuclear development toward a secretive, military-driven pursuit of nuclear weapons, bypassing international constraints.
“Israel’s attack did not destroy Iraq’s nuclear ambition,” the article notes. “It just changed the way Saddam went about trying to get the bomb.”
A Legacy of Escalation
The strategic logic behind the Israeli strike was based on a doctrine of preemptive self-defense. Israeli intelligence feared that once Osirak went online, Iraq would be only a few years away from building a nuclear bomb. But while the reactor itself was destroyed, the program survived — and in some ways, thrived — in the shadows.
Analysts writing for ZeroHedge and other sources argue that the 1981 attack reinforced a false belief in the effectiveness of surgical strikes against nuclear infrastructure. In reality, Israel’s success at Osirak was the exception, not the rule. Rather than ending a threat, it arguably prolonged it by allowing Iraq to intensify its efforts outside of international scrutiny.
Iraq’s Response and Long Memory
Saddam Hussein’s regime treated the bombing not only as an act of war but as a personal insult. Iraq’s nuclear program was restructured and militarized, becoming less transparent and more dangerous. By the early 1990s, when Iraq’s facilities were uncovered by UN inspectors after the Gulf War, it became clear how close Saddam had come to building a bomb — much closer than Israel or the international community had realized.
Now, in a turn of history, Iraq is demanding accountability. As The Times of Israel reports, Iraqi officials have announced intentions to sue Israel over the 1981 bombing, which they describe as an illegal act of aggression. While few expect the lawsuit to succeed, it’s a reminder that the legacy of the strike remains unresolved even after decades.
Lessons Unlearned
The Osirak bombing is often cited in debates over how to deal with emerging nuclear threats, including Iran and North Korea. But the deeper lesson — that military strikes can backfire by accelerating secret nuclear weapons development — is one that many policymakers continue to overlook.
“The Israeli strike made Saddam more secretive, more aggressive, and more determined,” said one analyst. “It didn’t end the threat. It changed its shape.”
As the world grapples with new nuclear challenges, the Osirak operation remains a cautionary tale — not just about what happens when bombs fall, but what happens in the quiet that follows.
Resulting Effects
1. Iraq’s Nuclear Program Went Underground
Before the strike, Iraq’s nuclear efforts were aboveboard, relying heavily on French-supplied technology and under some international oversight. After the bombing, Saddam Hussein shifted his nuclear ambitions into a secretive, military-led program that no longer depended on outside suppliers or transparency.
2. Strengthened Saddam’s Determination
Rather than discouraging Saddam, the Israeli airstrike emboldened him. Analysts agree the attack humiliated him publicly and pushed him to pursue nuclear weapons with greater urgency, now as a matter of national pride and strategic deterrence.
3. Accelerated Weaponization Goals
The Osirak reactor, in its original form, was poorly suited for efficient weapons production. Ironically, once the program went underground, Iraq began developing more efficient ways to enrich uranium and build bombs — outside international view and oversight.
4. Undermined Non-Proliferation Norms
The unilateral Israeli action complicated international efforts to manage nuclear proliferation. It arguably encouraged other nations to justify preemptive strikes or to hide their own programs to avoid similar attacks.
5. Legal and Diplomatic Fallout
Decades later, Iraq still views the 1981 bombing as an unlawful act of aggression. The recent statement by Iraq’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs — that it plans to sue Israel — reflects unresolved diplomatic tensions and shows how long such acts can linger in international memory.
6. Misleading Precedent for Future Policy
Policymakers often cite Osirak as proof that airstrikes can stop nuclear programs. But as the The Conversation article stresses, this case was the exception, not the rule — and the hidden outcome was actually more dangerous than what existed before the attack.
Bottom Line:
Israel’s 1981 bombing of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor is often hailed as a bold and successful preemptive strike—but history tells a more complex story. Rather than halting Iraq’s nuclear ambitions, the attack drove the program underground, intensified Saddam Hussein’s determination, and contributed to a secretive arms buildup that caught the world off guard a decade later. It stands as a cautionary tale: short-term military gains can produce long-term strategic consequences. The legacy of Osirak challenges the belief that airstrikes alone can prevent nuclear proliferation—and reminds us that actions meant to secure peace can sometimes provoke deeper conflict.
Be the first to comment