In a March 2026 congressional hearing, Thomas DiNanno, the US undersecretary of state for arms control and international security in the Trump administration, repeatedly declined to answer whether Israel possesses nuclear weapons. When pressed by Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) amid escalating conflicts with Iran that have involved strikes near nuclear sites, DiNanno responded, 'I can’t comment on that specific question. I’d have to refer you to the Israelis on that.' Castro highlighted the inconsistency, noting the US partnership with Israel against Iran and the risk of nuclear escalation, yet the official maintained the longstanding taboo. This incident is not an anomaly but a direct continuation of US policy established over five decades ago. Since a secret 1969 understanding between President Richard Nixon and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, the United States has adhered to a policy of nuclear ambiguity toward Israel. Under this arrangement, Israel neither confirms nor denies its nuclear arsenal, and the US refrains from pressuring it to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or submit to inspections. This allows Washington to provide substantial military aid without triggering legal restrictions like the Symington Amendment. Estimates from arms control experts place Israel's undeclared stockpile at 80-90 warheads, developed with historical assistance and centered at the Dimona facility. Israel's policy of ambiguity, in place since the late 1950s, is credited with enhancing deterrence against regional adversaries without provoking an immediate arms race or preemptive strikes. However, it also exposes what critics describe as hypocrisy in non-proliferation efforts. While the US and Western allies intensely scrutinize Iran's nuclear program—despite Tehran's claims of peaceful intent and NPT membership—Israel's arsenal receives de facto exemption. This double standard shapes Middle East strategy, enabling exceptionalism for a key ally while undermining the credibility of global norms. As conflicts intensify, with both sides targeting nuclear-related infrastructure, the feigned ignorance risks fueling accusations of a two-tiered international order. Experts note that such ambiguity has persisted due to bipartisan US support and the absence of a comprehensive regional peace, but evolving threats could challenge its sustainability. The refusal to acknowledge a widely known reality underscores how nuclear policy intersects with geopolitics, prioritizing strategic alliances over uniform application of non-proliferation principles.