Air Strikes First, Questions Later
WASHINGTON - More than two months after Israeli warplanes conducted a mysterious raid in northeast Syria, there is a growing consensus among U.S. government and independent analysts that the suspicious target was a nuclear facility.
But the evidence they are relying upon — a series of satellite photos showing a building and an adjacent pumping station near the Euphrates River — is anything but definitive, given how closely guarded U.S.-Israeli discussions have been. With the exception of several highly classified one-on-one briefings about the incident to a handful of Congressional leaders, the George W. Bush administration has kept mum.
Western analysts say a tall boxy building on the site may have contained a nuclear reactor under construction similar to North Korean design, but the structure itself was razed after the Sep. 6 air raid. They say that the secret nuclear reactor may be several years old.
Whether or not the facility was nuclear, the episode — and Israeli, Syrian, and U.S. silence over the issue — raises even more questions as to the actual threat posed by the facility, the timing of the raid, and what the unilateral action portends for the nuclear ambitions of Israel’s regional neighbours.
A United Nations watchdog inquiry into the suspected Syrian covert nuclear site may end inconclusively without more information than satellite pictures that are already available. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has asked to see the intelligence that prompted the attack, and is also seeking information from Damascus about its alleged programme.
Syria is required to inform the IAEA of any activities relating to nuclear activities.
“At the IAEA, we have zero, and I stress ‘zero’, information on the attack,” IAEA head Mohammad El-Baradei told the French newspaper Le Monde last week. “Frankly, I venture to hope that before people decide to bombard and use force, they will come and see us to convey their concerns. We would have gone to there to check.”
The air strike unequivocally shows that the U.S. and Israel have decided to circumvent the U.N.’s monitoring of nuclear proliferation situations in the Middle East, according to analysts.
“The Bush administration’s decision NOT to share its intelligence on the Syrian site with the IAEA, and thereby encourage and support the international agency’s aggressive inspection and evaluation of this alleged threat to peace, was another demonstration of the contempt in which the present U.S. administration holds the U.N. organisation,” wrote former CIA analyst Ray Close, in an email to IPS.
“It suggests, in effect, that the United States intends to manage the international nuclear proliferation issue all by itself, independent of the rest of the international community — except for deputising Israel to be the nuclear policeman of the Middle East,” he wrote in an email to IPS.
Close also told IPS that the U.S.’s decision not to publicise the intelligence that presumably justified the Israeli attack suggests that Washington did not find the Israeli evidence altogether persuasive. Another photo, taken Sep. 13, 2003 by a U.S. commercial satellite, suggests that U.S. officials may have known about the facility long before the Israeli mission, but did not consider it an immediate threat. During that time, the White House officials were sounding the alarm on the reconstitution of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear programme, but, ironically, never discussed the presumed effort in neighbouring Syria.
The White House’s complicity in Israel’s action also points to the rift within the administration, between right leaning hawks such as former U.S. ambassador John Bolton and the pragmatism favoured by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Bolton’s role cannot be overstated.
Bolton, now a fellow at the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute, repeatedly clashed with the intelligence community over Syria’s intentions when he was undersecretary of arms control. In the summer of 2003, Bolton’s testimony on Capitol Hill was delayed because some intelligence officers felt that Bolton overstated the Syrian threat. As former CIA officer Philip Girardi wrote in the pages of the American Conservative, “At one point, Bolton was forced to strike from a speech language suggesting that Syria had a nuclear programme.”
Girardi continues: “On another occasion, Bolton’s judgments on Syria were challenged by Robert Hutchings, director of the National Intelligence Council, who charged that Bolton ‘took isolated facts and made much more of them … cherry picking … to present the starkest possible case.”
Fast forward to 2007. Writing in the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal more than a week before the Israeli strike, Bolton asserted, “We know that both Iran and Syria have long cooperated with North Korea on ballistic missile programmes, and the prospect of cooperation on nuclear matters is not far-fetched.”
“Whether and to what extent Iran, Syria or other might be ’safe havens’ for North Korea’s nuclear weapons development, or may have already benefited from it, must be made clear,” he wrote.
The focus on North Korea comes as the U.S. prepares to implement a deal to end the country’s nuclear weapons programme, a diplomatic approach that has drawn the ire of policy hawks like Bolton.
“Bolton represents the crowd that is very distressed that the U.S. has declared defeat in North Korea by trusting the North Koreans. They would like to scuttle that agreement,” wrote Syria expert Josh Landis, on his widely-read blog, www.syriacomment.org.
At the Korea Economic Institute Forum last week, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association Daryl G. Kimball said, “If Syria was indeed building a reactor and if North Korea was involved, there are other steps the United States could — and should — take to hold the DPRK accountable and ensure that Pyongyang provides no further nuclear assistance to other states without derailing the prospects of verifiably dismantling North Korea’s nuclear programme and risking the possibility of further North Korean proliferation transgressions.”
Israel’s actions also came as Secretary of State Rice shuttled about the Middle East in preparation for substantive peace negotiations between Israel and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, presumably the first time “final status” issues would be discussed between the two sides in seven years. It remains to be seen what impact Israel’s foray will have on the peace process.
“By its attack on Syria, the Israeli leadership has demonstrated that it attaches a higher priority to restoring the credibility of its military dominance over its neighbours than it does to supporting American diplomatic efforts to advance the peace process — on which Israel’s real security ultimately depends,” Close told IPS.
© 2007 Inter Press Service
Much like the bombing of the Iraqi reactor, the timing on thse raids is critical. It has to be performed just as the loading of fuel is starting. If you wait too long, the fuel is loaded and the strike creates an environmental hazard.
My guesses as to what is going on here:
First, satellite photos show that the site was under construction since at least 2002. Since there have been no reports of widely-dispersed radioactive traces, there was not an operating nuclear reactor there when it was bombed. Probably there was no nuclear material there at all.
Five years is a long time not to complete a project like this, particularly if you are having a competent contractor like North Korea do it for you.
Also, we know that US intelligence was aware of this facility almost from the beginning.
My best guess is that the US leaned heavily on both Syria and North Korea to cut it out. Syria, being in the weaker position, was probably the first to get cold feet. The North Koreans finally cut a deal with the US, part of which was that they stopped construction of the reactor and gave full information about its condition, enabling the US and Israel to target the facility most effectively with a minimal attack, and be sure that no radioactive dispersal would take place (because no radioactive material was present).
The raid was then conducted by Israel and not seriously opposed by the Syrians (apparently there was little or no air defense at the site), which had the desired effects of 1) burying this particular project for good, 2) telling the Syrians not to try it again, ever, 3) boosting Olmert’s popularity, and 4) gaining a practice run for a possible attack on Iran’s facilities, and 5) freaking out the Iranians.
People with good memories may recall that 2002 was about the year when the Bush gang made clear that it was going to rampage into Iraq, with Iran and North Korea next on the list, and Syria possible thrown in as a snack. So it’s not too hard to believe the Syrians may have panicked and gone for the bomb, then later thought better of it.
“It suggests, in effect, that the United States intends to manage the international nuclear proliferation issue all by itself, independent of the rest of the international community”
The United States intends to manage EVERY international issue all by itself, independent of the international community. The United States intends to independently rule the world. Now you just quit thinking, go back to your little job and keep paying your federal taxes.
The caption to the picture accompanying this article stated: Analysts say the cleanup will hinder a proposed investigation by international nuclear inspectors and suggests Syria is trying to conceal evidence (AP)
Oh, and the fact that the US and Israel will not be forthcoming about a pre-emptive attack on Syria is not concealing evidence? Notice how AP shifts the blame and burden of proof onto Syria?
The part of the picture that wasn’t shown was at the bottom. Someone wrote “Nuclear Bomb Factory” on it in yellow crayon.
There’s some other ones of buildings in Iran that someone took a pen and wrote “Nuclear Weapons Lab” under them so they must be legit.
I saw a picture of a gas station in Tehran with “Terrorist Bomb Lab” under it. I thought “Wow it looks just like a normal gas station! Those terrorists are good. Real good.”
We really have to bomb all these buildings that are in the pictures or else the world will be taken over by insurgents.
This was a Zionist/NeoCon joint military exercise on a milk powder factory or whatever as practice for the upcoming air campaign against Iran.
Bohica
Wait a minute. Didn’t Dubya say Iran was starting World War III? Looks like Dubya already started it.
Is the fact that the Syrians cleaned up proof that they had some sort of nuclear facility? Then what comes around goes around:-
* Can we then all agree that the fast cleanup after 9\11 is proof of a conspiracy?
* Does the refusal to come clean on the shooting of the Iranian airliner prove that it was deliberate?
* Does the refusal to come clean on the dropping of the nukes Hiroshima prove that Japan had attempted to surrender?
* Does Israel’s refusal to permit inspection of their nuclear sites prove that they have nuclear weapons?
* Does the US refusal to come clean on the ousting of Allende prove that they had a hand in that?
* Does the US refusal to come clean prove that they had a hand in ousting Gough Whitlam?
* Does the US refusal to come clean about the chemicals that were apprehended at the Kuwaiti border not prove that they were attempting to smuggle in chemical weapons in order to plant in Iraq in order to have them found in order to justify their invasion?
* Does not the US refusal to admit about how the aluminium tubes story and Nigerian uranium story came about not prove that there was a conspiracy to invade Iraq?
* Does the US failure to invite independent inspectors in to corroborate their story about Iranian weapons smuggled into Iraq not prove that there is nothing worth investigating?
* Did the US refusal denial of Saddam’s request to have international inspectors view the oil wells prove Saddam’s story about the the wells having been set alight by US jets?
* Does the refusal to accept Afghanistan’s offer to hand over OBL not prove that OBL was merely an excuse to bomb rather than the actual reason?
* Does the refusal of the US to accept a trial in the world court for OBL not prove that OBL was merely an excuse to bomb rather than the actual reason?
* Does the US refusal to participate in the court case and their
refusal to acknowlege the World Court guilty verdict on
US terrorism on Nicaragua not prove that they were guilty.
* Does US refusal to come clean on the shooting of the South American
Priest not prove that they were guilty.
* Does the US refusal to permit fair trials for those held in
Guantanmo Bay not prove that most of them are innocent?
* Does the Republicans refusal to hold impeachment proceedings for
Ceney and Bush, which could potentially clear their names, not prove that
Cheney and Bush are guilty?
* Does not the cutting of the communications facilities after Katrina
prove that the Bush administration had something to hide?
* Does not the mass classification of official documents not prove
that there has been many conspiracies?
* Does not the cracking down on whistle blowers in every branch of
government not prove that they are covering up corruption?
Slaying the beast of Zionism
Next logical step, suicide warrior bombers to raze the supremacist apartheid abomination at Dimona before the ghouls bring on Armageddon.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12869.htm
OMG that is a totally AWESOME 4 minute video.