Israeli F-35 with a nuclear bomb: no evidence and technical doubts

The F-35 with a nuclear bomb that Russia allegedly shot down: no evidence

An Israeli fighter jet loaded with a nuclear bomb, an electromagnetic pulse designed to leave Iran in the dark, and a Russian shootdown that supposedly prevented World War III. The story is circulating on YouTube channels and on X, and has been gaining adherents. It rests on an anonymous source, no physical evidence, and the word of a journalist who says he believes it. Meanwhile, the awkward question remains unanswered: if an aircraft carrying nuclear material came down somewhere, where is the wreckage?

What the leak actually says

The core account is this: Israel allegedly loaded an F-35 with a nuclear bomb in Jordan and sent it toward Iranian airspace intending to detonate it at high altitude. The aim was not a direct hit but to generate an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) capable of melting the country’s power grid. And Russia allegedly shot it down just as it left Jordanian territory, before it reached its destination.

The person who put the matter into circulation, with names and surnames, was journalist Pepe Escobar, who attributed the information to a “very high-level” intelligence source based in Asia and, according to his own text, neither Russian nor Chinese. Hours later he added another detail: that Seymour Hersh, the veteran award-winning journalist who exposed the Nord Stream sabotage, also knew about it.

Why an EMP attack with an F-35 doesn’t add up

The most repeated technical objection needs no secret sources. If Israel wanted an EMP over Iran, the logical move would be to use a ballistic missile detonated at high altitude, practically impossible to intercept. Using a crewed fighter jet means crossing monitored airspace, surviving air defenses, and bringing the aircraft back. Three ways to ruin an operation that, from the outset, would already be irreversible.

The second problem is range. An EMP generated by a small charge would affect a radius of about 400 km around it, according to calculations used by those who have discussed the scenario. That would include Jordanian, Iraqi, and neighboring countries’ territory. None of them has reported any blackout.

And the third is the vulnerability of modern electronics itself. Current regulations require manufacturers to subject their devices to laboratory tests against very powerful, broad-spectrum electromagnetic fields. The argument that today any device can withstand an EMP carries weight.

The two most weighty rebuttals

The first has a known signature: former UN inspector Scott Ritter. He maintains that Escobar’s source is wrong, because Israel would never take such a rash action: it would de facto acknowledge its nuclear capability and put itself in open abusa of its agreements with the United States and the 1968 Outer Space Treaty.

The second is more awkward. An analysis circulating on social media argues that the leak is a psychological operation and that the “Asian” source would actually be Israeli, intended to disguise a rather more modest retaliation as extremely dangerous. Who knows. And one detail nobody disputes: Hersh has not said a word.

Two more confirmations and no more evidence

Escobar returned with an update. He said he had two separate confirmations from two extremely high-level intelligence sources from two different Asian nations, and was working on a third. He added that he moved to Asia thirty years ago, that he trusts his sources “a trillion percent,” and that if they retract, he will too.

The response from his original source, according to his own account, was almost philosophical: “Do you really think that if something like that peine, it would show up on your televisions?” Maybe. It could also be the perfect alibi for any leak that cannot withstand scrutiny. And the IAEA sensors distributed across much of the world are public: if radioactive material had burned, anomalous readings would show up sooner or later.

What would really happen with a large-scale EMP?

Here the discussion became more useful than the news itself. An electromagnetic pulse affects any electrical device running at that moment, and its range depends on the charge and the height of detonation. The most cited scenario was a blackout that leaves a nuclear plant out of control: it recalls the case of Fukushima, where the control room was flooded.

A historical corrective is in order. The hydrogen bombs that fell on Palomares in 1966 did not explode, and the mushroom cloud would have been visible from Bilbao if they had. A nuclear device does not detonate just because it falls, no matter how badly the aircraft carrying it crashes.

The market as a detector and the absence of a trace

There is an indicator that does not lie out of patriotism: prices. The U.S. stock market fell as much as 2% during that night and recovered that 2% when it became clear nothing was happening. A shootdown with a nuclear payload would have shown up differently in the markets.

What did happen was a striking diplomatic move: when the Israeli representative spoke before the UN, the Russian representative got up and left the chamber. By itself it proves nothing, and whoever tells it admits as much. But it fits the feeling that something shifted in those days and was never reported.

There is also a fact that is often overlooked: much of the electronics and navigation systems in those fighter jets are developed in Israel, not shipped fully assembled from the factory. That complicates any account of absolute traceability.

If the aircraft crashed, someone has the wreckage. If it did not crash, someone has the coordinates of the hoax. Why has no one shown either one yet?