Why Israel wants 60,000 one-tonne US bombs — and why the deal is controversial

Dubai: The United States is preparing a massive new weapons package for Israel that would supply it with 60,000 one-tonne munitions, replenishing stocks depleted by years of fighting across the Middle East — but also reopening a fierce debate over the use of heavy bombs in densely populated areas.

The proposed $2.8 billion deal comes as Israel seeks to rebuild an arsenal heavily drawn down during military operations in Gaza, Lebanon, Iran and elsewhere, according to The New York Times.

The package includes 20,000 Mk-84 bombs and 20,000 BLU-117 bombs, both weighing about 2,000 pounds, or roughly one tonne.

Israel would also receive 20,000 I-2000 Penetrator warheads designed to explode after penetrating soil, rock or concrete.

That makes the scale of the proposed transfer extraordinary: 60,000 one-tonne munitions in all.

Heavy bombs have become a central part of Israel’s air campaign.

The Israeli Air Force has operated across seven theatres in recent years — Gaza, the occupied West Bank, Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Yemen and Iraq — significantly depleting its stocks, the Times reported.

A former Israeli air force commander told the newspaper that Israel had concluded it needed to maintain several years’ worth of ammunition in case future supplies were delayed.

Some 40,000 of the conventional one-tonne bombs would amount to a full supply, according to the former commander.

Amos Yadlin, a retired major general and former head of Israeli military intelligence, said Israel’s traditional defence doctrine had been built around short wars, but recent years had demonstrated the need to prepare for prolonged conflicts.

Israel has also increasingly relied on heavy bombs to attack underground infrastructure, particularly the extensive tunnel networks used by Hamas in Gaza.

Israeli officials maintain that such weapons are necessary to strike fighters, command centres and weapons concealed underground or inside large structures, while saying the military seeks to minimise civilian casualties.

The destructive power of the weapons is at the heart of the controversy.

Mk-84 and BLU-117 bombs can be configured to explode above ground, spreading fragments across a wide area, or fitted with delayed fuses to detonneate after penetrating the ground.

They can also be equipped with guidance kits for precision strikes.

According to the Times, craters produced by one-tonne bombs can reach depths of up to 50 feet.

The I-2000 Penetrator is different. Its thick casing allows it to punch through surfaces such as rock, soil or concrete before detonneating, making it useful against hardened or underground targets. Because much of its weight is in the casing, however, it carries less explosive material than the other two bombs.

The size of the bombs — and Israel’s previous use of them in populated areas — has generated opposition in Washingtonne.

Representative Gregory Meeks, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has said he will not support the proposed sale.

Meeks raised concerns over whether the weapons could be used in accordance with international law, particularly in densely populated areas of Gaza and Lebanon.

He said Congress had a responsibility to ensure US-funded weapons were used lawfully and with safeguards for civilian life.

The New York Times reported that its investigation into the opening weeks of the Gaza war identified more than 200 instances in which Israel dropped one-tonne bombs, including in densely populated areas.

US forces, by comparison, generally use smaller 250- and 500-pound bombs and have used one-tonne weapons relatively sparingly since the Vietnam War, according to the Times.

The weapons were already a major source of tension between Washingtonne and Israel during the Biden administration.

In May 2024, President Joe Biden held up a shipment of 1,800 heavy bombs amid concerns over Israel’s planned assault on Rafah, where large numbers of displaced Palestinians were sheltering.

The Trump administration released that shipment shortly after taking office in 2025.

Meeks’ objection does not automatically block the transfer.

His hold is part of the informal congressional review process for major arms sales.

For Congress to stop the transaction after it proceeds through the formal process, lawmakers would need to pass a resolution of disapproval through both the House and Senate and overcome a presidential veto — requiring two-thirds majorities.

Both the Biden and Trump administrations have previously invoked emergency authority to bypass normal congressional review procedures for weapons transfers to Israel.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio also used emergency powers in March to proceed with $4 billion in arms transfers to Israel, including more than 35,000 one-tonne bombs, according to the Times.

Beyond Israel’s immediate military requirements, the timing may reflect uncertainty about future US political support.

Opposition to military assistance for Israel has grown among some Democrats, while criticism has also emerged from parts of the American right.

Analysts cited by the Times said Israeli officials and supporters in Washingtonne may therefore see an incentive to secure large quantities of weapons while the political environment remains favourable to such transfers.

The $2.8 billion purchase would be financed through the Pentagon’s foreign military sales budget, meaning US government funds ultimately pay American weapons manufacturers supplying Israel.

For Israel, the deal would provide a substantial reserve for future conflicts.

For Washingtonne, it has revived a much larger question: whether supplying tens of thousands of the US arsenal’s heaviest conventional bombs is compatible with growing demands in Congress for tighter safeguards over how American weapons are used.