So the New York Times had another update on that Syria raid conducted by Israel last month. It doesnt add a whole lot to what weve already reported here, but one thing it does confirm is that the target was a fledgling nuke plant.
The issue raised by the raid seems now to be what is the threshold of preemption when it comes to nuclear facilities? The report says the Syrian plant was basically a few sheds in the desert years away from producing weapons grade material. Yet the Israelis blew the thing up and with little regional protest.
If thats the precedent, why then does Iran continue its nuclear development unabated? Why was Syrias program some how more a threat than Irans much more mature one?
From the New York Times:
Israels air attack on Syria last month was directed against a site that Israeli and American intelligence analysts judged was a partly constructed nuclear reactor, apparently modeled on one North Korea has used to create its stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel, according to American and foreign officials with access to the intelligence reports.
The description of the target addresses one of the central mysteries surrounding the Sept. 6 attack, and suggests that Israel carried out the raid to demonstrate its determination to snuff out even a nascent nuclear project in a neighboring state. The Bush administration was divided at the time about the wisdom of Israels strike, American officials said, and some senior policy makers still regard the attack as premature.
The attack on the reactor project has echoes of an Israeli raid more than a quarter century ago, in 1981, when Israel destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq shortly before it was to have begun operating. That attack was officially condemned by the Reagan administration, though Israelis consider it among their militarys finest moments. In the weeks before the Iraq war, Bush administration officials said they believed that the attack set back Iraqs nuclear ambitions by many years.
By contrast, the facility that the Israelis struck in Syria appears to have been much further from completion, the American and foreign officials said. They said it would have been years before the Syrians could have used the reactor to produce the spent nuclear fuel that could, through a series of additional steps, be reprocessed into bomb-grade plutonium.
Many details remain unclear, most notably how much progress the Syrians had made in construction before the Israelis struck, the role of any assistance provided by North Korea, and whether the Syrians could make a plausible case that the reactor was intended to produce electricity. In Washington and Israel, information about the raid has been wrapped in extraordinary secrecy and restricted to just a handful of officials, while the Israeli press has been prohibited from publishing information about the attack.
The New York Times reported this week that a debate had begun within the Bush administration about whether the information secretly cited by Israel to justify its attack should be interpreted by the United States as reason to toughen its approach to Syria and North Korea. In later interviews, officials made clear that the disagreements within the administration began this summer, as a debate about whether an Israeli attack on the incomplete reactor was warranted then.
The officials did not say that the administration had ultimately opposed the Israeli strike, but that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates were particularly concerned about the ramifications of a pre-emptive strike in the absence of an urgent threat…
Even though it has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Syria would not have been obligated to declare the existence of a reactor during the early phases of construction. It would have also had the legal right to complete construction of the reactor, as long as its purpose was to generate electricity.
In his only public comment on the raid, Syrias president, Bashar al-Assad, acknowledged this month that Israeli jets dropped bombs on a building that he said was related to the military but which he insisted was not used.
A senior Israeli official, while declining to speak about the specific nature of the target, said the strike was intended to re-establish the credibility of our deterrent power, signaling that Israel meant to send a message to the Syrians that even the potential for a nuclear weapons program would not be permitted. But several American officials said the strike may also have been intended by Israel as a signal to Iran and its nuclear aspirations. Neither Iran nor any Arab government except for Syria has criticized the Israeli raid, suggesting that Israel is not the only country that would be disturbed by a nuclear Syria. North Korea did issue a protest
– Christian
“Why was Syria
Why take it out and leave Iran? Probably because Israel is much closer to Syria and thus much more capable of hitting it. Also probably had something to do with its state being so new. Taking it out then would cause less issues then taking it out 5 years from now when there might be radioactive fuel/workers present. Plaus diplomatic solutions to Iran are looking pretty blek, I’m sure Israel wanted to knock Syria out of the game before they got started. Before it got to the point Iran is now. If for no other reason then to free up resources should they be needed in Iran.
And lets not kid ourselves. Syria is nothing compared to Iran in military power.
Israel showed the world that they have the balls to go after Nukes. They have my total respect, heck even the United States had to be attacked before we did anything about terrorism.
What? You mean it wasn’t a spaceship full of giant space aliens that Israel attacked? Well,thats the last time I ever listen to whatdoesitmean.com again.
Actual
1. The real story is not what was bombed. The real story is what was gained in the process. In the last 4 years there have been unimaginable gains in IED jammers and ECM. The US has a successful track record using this technology — long before the raids on Libya on the other side of the line-of-death;. More advanced but similar systems are carried on F-15’s (source: unclassified Budget IJS 1999…200n). The IAF carries basically the same pod as the EA-6.
2. In many respects this has really put a wrench in the sprocket of Russian air defense sales. Why would VP be traveling to Iran except to do some damage control?
3. For those playing this game, it does send a message loud and clear. Like it or not (I do) the US military has innovated in the asymmetrical realm again. (marketing sentence)
[If] events lead to a military-to-military engagement: models, past performance and reality show that Iran would not fair very well. Unlike the apriorist, in order to forecast the future with “some” degree of accuracy one takes past events and supporting data points to determine an outcome within a measurable risk margin.
Disclaimer: Does not take into consideration: will, fantasy or politics; do not operate heavy machinery or drive a car while taking drugs or alcohol; Does not apply to outfits proclaiming the news, the upcoming hurricane season, or global warming.
b, There are a few reasons that the drop tanks where jettisoned. One, like you say, they where under attack, two, the wanted them off to reduce their radar signiature, three, The strike aircraft had used up all their external fuel and didnt want the extra drag associated with the fuel tanks. Drooping fuel tanks when they are empty, is to my knowldege very common. Unless there are changes in doctrine, I would suspect that this is the most likely explanation.
As for the report itself, yes there is a fair amount of unknowns still. It would seem best to remain in a wait and see mode.
In all seriousness,I thought that the Israelis had 600gal external fuel tanks for their F-16I Sufas that could not be jettisoned? This was to help them fly further to hit long range targets such as in Iran.Does anybody know what the size of the fuel tanks were that were jettisoned in Turkey?
From Alastair Crooke @ Conflicts Forum:
“The Syrians saw on their radars the four Israeli aircraft that penetrated into Northern Syria from the Mediterranean; but they also saw the much larger numbers of Israeli aircraft that were flying in a holding position close to Cyprus. The Syrians had no intention of disclosing their anti-aircraft missile capacities to Israel; and the intruders continued without hindrance to drop munitions and their long-range fuel tanks without pressing any serious attack. The four aircraft then circuited to re-join the larger group still flying a holding pattern off Cyprus, before all returned to Israel as a single formation.“
“The Israeli objective remains a matter of speculation (no-one seriously credits the stories of North Korean nuclear malfeasance); but the general conclusion is that Israel was only ready to run such a risk against unknown air defenses either to test reactions; or, given the size of the numbers of aircraft off Cyprus, to destroy some target
Why would they not defend there “sacred” soil. That just donst make any sense, also think of the political victory if they had brought down an airplane, even a stupid Syrian could figure that one out. Israel hit something, and we dont now what it was. But anyways, im glad they blew up what ever they blew up, one less problem to worry about.
“heck even the United States had to be attacked before we did anything about terrorism.“
No. You funded Irish “terrorism” in the UK for years and only reacted to “terrorism” when you suffered the consequences of it.
Talk about double standards — live by the sword, die by the sword.
hmmm — think everyone’s in a glass house on that one Whatever.
There’s a war on, on multiple fronts. lots of raids happen all the time. some are more or less reported than others.
so the idf has bombed some syrian targets.
war enters another phase. i think that’s whats being said here. the idf’s in the game again, after being out for a while after bombing lebanese targets.
hmmm — think everyone’s in a glass house on that one Whatever.
There’s a war on, on multiple fronts. lots of raids happen all the time. some are more or less reported than others.
so the idf has bombed some syrian targets.
war enters another phase. i think that’s whats being said here. the idf’s in the game again, after being out for a while after bombing lebanese targets.
THATS WHAT I LIKE ABOUT ISRAEL THEY DON’T WAIT FOR
SOMEBODY TO THROUGH THE FIRST PUNCH. ISRAEL WON’T
TAKE ANY CRAP FROM SOME COUNTRY THAT MAKES REMARKS
OF MAYBE ATTACKING IT. IAM FOR ISRAEL ALL THE WAY,
MORE POWER TO THEM.
I believe people are confusing nuclear reactors with uranium enrichment plants. Reactors are big and impossible to hide due to the massive cooling towers required. Uranium enrichment plants can be just a shed or two, assuming they have massive electrical power supply. It is easy to hide a U-enrichment program, the NK’s hid ‘em for years, and Iran hid Natanz for years until a defector gave them away.
Christian,
>The issue raised by the raid seems now to be
>what is the threshold of preemption when it
>comes to nuclear facilities? The report says the
>Syrian plant was basically a few sheds in the
>desert
The US should take some lessons from Israel. We take to much crap off of other countries.If we were to follow Israel’s lead,the other countries would stop all the crap toward the US.We are just too soft and wait to long to take action.
It’s pleasing to see so many people not buying the BS propaganda. I’m so jaded with the willy-nilly pressing of the “nuclear threat” button. It’s getting old.