Iran building nuke plant in Syria; State Dept: What difference does it make?
Sunday's Der Spiegel had a massive expose on the continuing efforts of Bashar al-Assad to build a nuclear weapons plant, which included evidence that
Iran is constructing such a plant for Syria in Qusayr, less than two kilometers from Syria's border with Lebanon. The issue came up in the State Department's Monday daily briefing. Disturbingly, spokeswoman Marie Harf said that the United States did not plan to raise the issue in the Iranian nuclear talks, claiming that those talks only deal with Iran's nuclear capabilities and not with Syria's.
According to findings of Western intelligence agencies, however, the
situation is much more explosive than previously assumed. Based on
documents that SPIEGEL has in its possession, the agencies are convinced
that Assad is continuing in his efforts to build the bomb.
Analysts say that the Syrian atomic weapon program has continued in a
secret, underground location. According to information they have
obtained, approximately 8,000 fuel rods are stored there. Furthermore, a
new reactor or an enrichment facility has very likely been built at the
site -- a development of incalculable geopolitical consequences.
Some of the uranium was apparently hidden for an extended period at
Marj as-Sultan near Damascus, a site that the IAEA likewise views with
suspicion. Satellite images from December 2012 and February 2013 show
suspicious activity at Marj as-Sultan. The facility, located not far
from a Syrian army base, had become the focal point of heavy fighting
with rebels. Government troops had to quickly move everything of value.
They did so, as intelligence officials have been able to reconstruct,
with the help of Hezbollah, the radical Shiite "Party of God" based in
Lebanon. The well-armed militia, which is largely financed by Iran, is
fighting alongside Assad's troops.
...
Intelligence agency findings indicate that the material was moved to a
well-hidden underground location just west of the city of Qusayr, not
even two kilometers from the border with Lebanon. They managed the move
just in time. Marj as-Sultan ultimately did fall to the rebels, but has
since been retaken by government troops.
Since then, experts have been keeping a close eye on the site outside
of Qusayr, one which they had largely ignored before, believing it to
be a conventional Hezbollah weapons depot. Analysts compared earlier
satellite images and carefully noted even the slightest of changes.
Soon, it became clear to them that they had happened upon an extremely
disconcerting discovery.
According to intelligence agency analysis, construction of the
facility began back in 2009. The work, their findings suggest, was
disguised from the very beginning, with excavated sand being disposed of
at various sites, apparently to make it more difficult for observers
from above to tell how deeply they were digging. Furthermore, the
entrances to the facility were guarded by the military, which turned out
to be a necessary precaution. In the spring of 2013, the region around
Qusayr saw heavy fighting. But the area surrounding the project in the
mines was held, despite heavy losses suffered by elite Hezbollah units
stationed there.
The most recent satellite images show six structures: a guard house
and five sheds, three of which conceal entrances to the facility below.
The site also has special access to the power grid, connected to the
nearby city of Blosah. A particularly suspicious detail is the deep well
which connects the facility with Zaita Lake, four kilometers away. Such
a connection is unnecessary for a conventional weapons cache, but it is
essential for a nuclear facility.
But the clearest proof that it is a nuclear facility comes from radio
traffic recently intercepted by a network of spies. A voice identified
as belonging to a high-ranking Hezbollah functionary can be heard
referring to the "atomic factory" and mentions Qusayr. The Hezbollah man
is clearly familiar with the site. And he frequently provides telephone
updates to a particularly important man: Ibrahim Othman, the head of
the Syrian Atomic Energy Commission.
The Hezbollah functionary mostly uses a codename for the facility:
"Zamzam," a word that almost all Muslims know. According to tradition,
Zamzam is the well God created in the desert for Abraham's wife and
their son Ishmael. The well can be found in Mecca and is one of the
sites visited by pilgrims making the Hajj. Those who don't revere Zamzam
are not considered to be true Muslims.
...
But the new development also comes at an uncomfortable time for the
US government. Despite all official denials, Washington is currently
operating in the region more-or-less in concert with Assad in the fight
against the Islamist terrorist militia Islamic State. Furthermore,
following the well-monitored and largely efficient destruction of Syrian
chemical weapons, the US, Britain and France all believed that Assad's
ability to wage unconventional warfare had been eliminated. The possible
development of a Syrian atomic weapon, should it be confirmed, would
necessarily lead to a new assessment of the situation.
The discovery presents a particularly difficult dilemma to Israel.
The country has, to be sure, continued to bomb Hezbollah supply lines,
but it apparently knew nothing of a possible new nuclear facility.
Israeli leaders would be faced with the impossible decision between
ignoring Zamzam or undertaking an extremely risky attack against a
facility built deep underground. In contrast to 2007, bunker buster
bombs would be required, with unforeseeable consequences for the
environment. It would be an irresponsible decision, but one which
Israeli hardliners could ultimately make.
The international monitors in Vienna also don't look good, with IAEA
boss Yukiya Amano having been deceived by Assad. In September 2014, the
Japanese national urged "Syria to cooperate fully with the agency in
connection with all unresolved issues." He hasn't yet received a reply. A
sanction of last resort would be that of expelling Syria from the IAEA,
an unlikely step given that Moscow continues to protect Assad, in the
IAEA as in the United Nations.
Read the whole thing.
But what's really astounding here is the State Department reaction. This is from the transcript of Monday's briefing:
QUESTION: Yeah. The German weekly Der Spiegel reported last week that
President Bashar Assad has rebuilt Syria’s nuclear weapons
infrastructure with help from Iran and North Korea.
MS. HARF: We’ve --
QUESTION: Can you confirm these reports?
MS. HARF: We’ve seen those reports, are seeking more information, certainly cannot confirm them.
...
QUESTION: On the Spiegel story, you said you’re seeking – who are you
seeking more – I mean, you know – you should know this area better than
anybody --
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: -- certainly better than a German, although highly respected, news magazine.
MS. HARF: I would agree with you that we probably have information they don’t.
QUESTION: So who are you seeking information from or are you --
MS. HARF: Seeking internally or from our partners to see what more we
can – if we can cooperate this, but again, not sure we can.
QUESTION: Is that – well, you couldn’t corroborate it because of
intelligence reasons or because the story’s false and you want to leave
it out there?
MS. HARF: We don’t know yet. We just saw the reports and we’re looking into it.
QUESTION: Will you discuss this issue with the Iranians in the upcoming talks?
MS. HARF: No. The upcoming talks are about the Iranian nuclear program.
QUESTION: Yeah, but if they are helping the --
MS. HARF: Yes, but we don’t discuss other issues with them at those talks, as you all know.
QUESTION: But if they are --
MS. HARF: Let’s move on to North Korea and let’s --
QUESTION: But if they are helping the Assad regime to build a nuclear facility --
Face, palm, whack!
Labels: al-Kibar, Bashar al-Assad, Iranian nuclear threat, Syrian nuclear program, US State Department
Obama's best friend forever denied use of base for Foley-Sotloff rescue - was an Israeli base used?
From a lengthy Wall Street Journal article that I received by email on the failed July 3 attempt to
rescue US hostages James Foley and Steven Sotloff from ISIS (Hat Tip:
Dan F). The two were both subsequently beheaded, with videos posted online.
The U.S. hoped to launch the raid from a base in Turkey that would give easy
access to Raqqa. But the Turks, worried about their own hostages, were wary,
U.S. officials said, so the U.S. sent the team to another country in the region
for final preparations.
Shifting the operation didn't delay matters, said one of the military
officials, although the distance to Raqqa increased. A senior Turkish official
denied that the U.S. approached Ankara seeking a base in the country. The
ultimate host country agreed on the condition the U.S. not reveal its
identity.
Gee, I wonder what country was the 'ultimate host country.' There are only two possibilities really: Israel or Jordan.
Incirlik (Turkey's air base) to Raqqa is 458.3 kilometers by land.
One base that might have been used is Jordan's al-Muwaffaq air base, which is
east of Amman. I could not find out how far away that air base is (Amman is 526 kilometers away), but flying from Jordan would have required taking a roundabout route or crossing substantial Syrian and/or Lebanese territory.
Among Israeli air bases, Ramat David is 671.5 kilometers from Raqqa by land, Palmachim is 778.9 kilometers from Raqqa by land, Hatzor is 799 kilometers from Raqqa by land, and Hatzerim is 854.4 kilometers from Raqqa by land. But the advantage of using an Israeli base is that you go straight out over the Mediterranean until you reach the Syrian coastline and then fly along the Euphrates (see the bottom left map)... as Israel did when it destroyed Assad's nuclear capability at
al-Kibar.
Hmmm.
Labels: al-Kibar, Barack Hussein Obama, ISIS, kidnapping, murder, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Syria, Syrian nuclear program
Israeli boots on the ground in Iran?
You might recall that when Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel was here in April, an
arms deal with Israel was announced. One element of the deal was up to eight V-22 Ospreys, an aircraft that can land like a helicopter
and carry two dozen special operations forces with their gear over long
distances at aircraft speeds. At the time, we were told it would be used for search and rescue missions in case Israeli pilots bombing Iranian nuclear facilities were shot down. But USA Today reports that
there's more to it than that (Hat Tip:
Lance K).
The Osprey "is the ideal platform for sending Israeli special forces
into Iran," says Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst now at the
Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy.
The
aircraft could help solve Israel's inability to breach Iran's uranium
enrichment facility buried under a granite mountain at Fordow. It might
be impregnable to even the heaviest conventional bunker-busting
munitions in the U.S. arsenal, Pollack said. Israeli military planners
have been brainstorming how to conduct an effective operation, Pollack
said, citing conversations with senior Israeli military officers.
"One of the possibilities is (Israel) would use special forces to assault the Fordow facility and blow it up," Pollack said.
...
Other parts of the arms package include Boeing's KC-135
"Stratotanker," which can refuel Ospreys and other aircraft while
airborne and extend the tilt-rotor aircraft's 426-mile range almost
indefinitely. The deal also includes anti-radiation missiles that are
used to target air defense systems, and advanced radars for Israel's
fleet of F-15 fighter jets, according to a Defense Department press
release.
That equipment would increase Israel's capabilities
against Iran, said Ely Karmon, a senior research scholar at the
Institute for Counter-Terrorism at The Interdisciplinary Center in
Herzliya, Israel.
The refueling equipment would extend the reach
of Israeli special forces, which could be used against Iran as they were
in Israel's attack on a Syrian nuclear facility under construction in
2007, Karmon said.
In the 2007 attack, at least one Israeli team
was on the ground to provide laser targeting of sophisticated air
munitions, Karmon said. "The same would be done for Iranian sites."
Hmmm.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: al-Kibar, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli attack on Iran, Syrian nuclear program
What we can learn from Israel's bombing of Syria's nuclear reactor
Elliott Abrams, who was in charge of the Middle East at the National Security Council when it happened, has an insider's look at how Israel destroyed Syria's al-Kibar nuclear reactor. It's a long piece and I urge you to
read the whole thing.
Here are his lessons from the incident, and afterward I will give you mine:
First, good “process” and good policy are related but distinct. In
the end what counts is output, not input: the foreign policy we adopt,
not the proposals that are advanced. And that output depends, when it
comes to foreign policy, mostly on one man: the president. That’s the
second lesson. Advisers advise; the president decides. All the books
about how rival bureaucracies or powerful lobbies determine policy are
off the mark; the simpler and truer conclusion is that at any given
moment our foreign policy reflects the views of the president.
Finally, this incident is a reminder that there is no substitute for
military strength and the will to use it. Think of how much more
dangerous to the entire region the Syrian civil war would be today if
Assad had a nuclear reactor, and even perhaps nuclear weapons, in hand.
Israel was right to bomb that reactor before construction was completed,
and President Bush was right to support its decision to do so. Israel
was also right in rejecting fears that the incident would lead to a
larger war and in believing that it, and the United States, would be
better off after this assertion of leadership and determination. That
lesson must be on the minds of Israeli, and American, leaders in 2013.
If only Ariel Sharon had the guts to do the same to Iran in 2003 before its program got quite so far off the ground....
Every argument made in this piece about Syria could be made about Iran - indeed has been made about Iran. We would have been better off not going to the UN or the IAEA, but rather taking care of Iran's nuclear capability a long time ago when the cost would not have been so potentially high.
The way that Condi Clueless (in particular) and Bob Gates were able to influence President Bush to put the 'Palestinians' ahead of dealing with Syria, shows how much influence people in those positions can have and why it's so important that Chuck Hagel be defeated (even if John FN Kerry is already in).
And as much as I don't like him, in this case, Olmert definitely did the right thing. There's a lesson there for Netanyahu: Have courage and do what needs to be done.
Labels: al-Kibar, Binyamin Netanyahu, Condoleeza Rice, Ehud K. Olmert, Elliott Abrams, George W. Bush, IAEA, Iranian nuclear threat, Robert Gates, Syrian nuclear program, United Nations Security Council
How Israel bombed Syria's al-Kibar nuclear reactor and kept it secret
In a continuing effort to convince the world that Israel cannot possibly take out Iran's nuclear program, the New Yorker publishes an account by David Makovsky (well, at least it's not Seymour Hersh!) that claims to set out in detail
how Israel bombed Syria's reactor and kept it secret.
Unfortunately, since I do not subscribe to the New Yorker, and no one who does has posted the full article on line as of this writing, I am working from an abstract (linked above) and from two summaries that have been posted in the Israeli media by
Arutz Sheva and
YNet, respectively. YNet's summary doesn't add anything beyond the abstract. Here's a bit of the abstract from the New Yorker.
In March, 2007, agents from the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, made a daring raid into the Vienna home of Ibrahim Othman, the head of the Syrian Atomic Energy Commission.
...
The information the Mossad operatives recovered was damning: roughly three dozen color photographs taken from inside the building, indicating that it was a top-secret Syrian plutonium nuclear reactor. The photographs showed workers from North Korea at the site, and the reactor, from the inside, had many of the same engineering elements as the North Korean reactor in Yongbyon.
...
Five years later, Israeli officials continue to not discuss the Al Kibar affair on the record. In the days after the discovery of the Syrian site, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert began hosting important meetings at his official residence, on Balfour Street. In April, the White House was informed about the discovery. The Bush Administration felt that it didn’t have enough evidence to justify a preëmptive strike, and so the Israelis began preparations for an attack on their own. The I.D.F., the Mossad, and the Foreign Ministry all favored a low-signature attack on the reactor. Just before midnight on September 5, 2007, four F-15s and four F-16s took off from Israeli Air Force bases. Using standard electronic scrambling tools, the Israelis blinded Syria’s air-defense system. Sometime between 12:40 and 12:53 A.M., the pilots indicated that seventeen tons of explosives had been dropped on their target.
And in case you're wondering why this is being published now (other than the fact that it was five years ago last week)....
The pressing question today is whether the lessons of that success can be applied to Iran. The situation in Iran differs fundamentally from the Syrian case. Experts have pointed to the risk of civilian casualties and prolonged retaliation. What’s more, a key Iranian site lies deep underground outside the holy city of Qom, and it is strongly fortified; an attack on it would run a higher risk of failure.
Well, yes, we're not likely to have the smashing success we had in Syria. But the Syrians didn't retaliate? Why not? And why are we so sure that Iran will retaliate (effectively)?
Arutz Sheva adds:
Immediately after the strike on Syria, the Assad regime’s official government news agency SANA reported that Israeli jets had violated Syrian air space and that “Air defense units confronted them and forced them to leave after they dropped some ammunition in deserted areas without causing any human or material damage.”
Israel denied it had bombed the site but since has gradually taken responsibility for the pre-emptive attack.
More than two years ago, Der Spiegel reported that American intelligence agents as early as 2004 picked up unusual conversations between Syria and North Korea. The information as related to Israel, and the IDF set up antenna aimed at Al Kibar.
In 2006, Israeli agents in London were able to install a program on a Syrian official's computer and collected information on construction plans and photographs showing pipes that led to a pumping station at the Euphrates.
One of the photos indentified North Korean nuclear scientists. The following years, Der Spiegel reported, an Iranian general defected to the CIA and revealed that Iran was funding a top-secret project in Syrian in coordination with North Korea.
I am willing to accept that we are unlikely to have the smashing success in Iran that we had in Syria (although the EMP, if it's as described, would be at least as successful in stopping Iran's program, although it would cause a lot more collateral damage than the Syrian raid caused).
On the other hand, no one else seems to be willing to take any action to stop Iran or at least to slow it down. If Iran is allowed to continue to the point of developing a bomb - or even a
breakout capability as has been discussed in earlier posts - that's a game changer. If God forbid that happens, Israel may be unable to act and the rest of the world may be all the more unwilling to act. So how can we sit on our hands and do nothing?
Labels: al-Kibar, Ehud K. Olmert, George W. Bush, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli attack on Iran, Syrian nuclear program
Abrams: Olmert defied Bush when he bombed Syria's al-Khibar reactor
Oh dear me. The chemistry between George W. Bush and
Ehud K. Olmert was far more positive than the negative vibes between Binyamin Netanyahu and Barack Hussein Obama. And yet, in an interview with the JPost, former Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams reports that Olmert
defied Bush's desire for negotiations by bombing the al-Khibar reactor on his own.
Abrams, asked about the recent comptroller report chastising the government for a haphazard decision-making process, said that Bush was provided with impeccable options, policy papers and intelligence.
"We took it all to the president – covert options, military options, diplomatic options – and he chose the wrong option," said Abrams, who at the time was the deputy national security advisor in the White House. "It is a mistake to believe that the process itself will provide you with the right answer."
Wednesday's State Comptroller's report was highly critical of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for not fully empowering his National Security Council as mandated by law, and for a sloppy, informal decision making process leading up to the Mavi Marmara incident.
Abrams, however, used the Syrian nuclear facility issue as an illustration to demonstrate that what is more important than thorough preparation and a good process is the right people making the right decisions. He also said that some of the best White House meetings were informal ones where no notes were taken.
According to Abrams, his preferred option in the summer of 2007 when intelligence information emerged that the Syrians were constructing a nuclear facility was for Israel to take it out, in order for Jerusalem to rebuild its deterrence capability following the Second Lebanon War a year earlier.
Vice president Dick Cheney argued for the US to bomb the facility itself, Abrams said, to rebuild America's deterrence capability.
...
But the option Bush chose, some six weeks before Israel acted, was the one preferred by secretary of state Condoleezza Rice: make the existence of the facility public and then go to the IAEA and UN and build an international consensus to get the Syrians to close the facility.
Abrams said he though the idea was "absurd," and that Syrian President Bashar Assad would defy the IAEA and not do anything.
When Bush informed Olmert of the decision in July 2007, Abrams recalled, Olmert said that the strategy was not acceptable to Israel. It was clear to everyone that from that point on there would be no sharing of plans, and that "Israel would let us know afterward," he said.
It kind of makes you wonder why we haven't done the same thing with Iran, doesn't it? Maybe because Olmert could be confident that he could disagree with Bush without destroying the relationship, while Netanyahu has to deal with the egomaniac currently in office in Washington.
By the way, the picture at the top of this post was taken at Massada, and I believe it was taken in 2008, that is after the al-Khibar raid. On the other hand, Annapolis took place about two months after al-Khibar and I cannot help but wonder whether Israel's agreement to attend that conference was somehow connected to Bush's agreement not to make a big fuss over al-Khibar. Hmmm.
One final thought. Imagine how different things would be today if Syria were a nuclear power. Probably the one thing Olmert did right during his term.
Labels: al-Kibar, Ehud K. Olmert, George W. Bush, Syrian nuclear program
Cheney urged Bush to bomb Syria
In a new book that's hitting the stores this week, former US Vice President Dick Cheney writes that he urged former President George W. Bush to
bomb Syria's nuclear reactor in 2007 (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
“I again made the case for U.S. military action against the reactor,” Mr. Cheney wrote about a meeting on the issue. “But I was a lone voice. After I finished, the president asked, ‘Does anyone here agree with the vice president?’ Not a single hand went up around the room.”
Mr. Bush chose to try diplomatic pressure to force the Syrians to abandon the secret program, but the Israelis bombed the site in September 2007. Mr. Cheney’s account of the discussion appears in his autobiography, “In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir,” which is to be published by Simon & Schuster next week. A copy was obtained by The New York Times.
All of this is not surprising. Two of Cheney's closest advisers were David and Meyrav Wormser. David resigned to
protest the Annapolis process (if it can be called that) in November 2007.
For two decades, we have called on Israel to take risks for peace and make painful concessions so that it will be accepted more broadly and solidly by the international community. And yet, after two decades, the voices questioning Israel’s very right to exist even in Europe are louder than ever. Polls there show that even the populations of even our closest allies revile Israel and Israelis more than even Iran or North Korea.
The prospects that this time will be different and that we will see real progress follow Annapolis, and that all these trends will be reversed, are bleak for several reasons. First, the concept behind Annapolis was divorced from the President’s forward strategy of freedom. Second, the Fatah leadership is so irredeemably weak that it cannot deliver. Third, we are ignoring the danger of the situation in Gaza. Fourth, the Annapolis framework “regionalized” the Palestinian issue when the historical record of regionalization of conflicts is tragic and violent. Finally, the Palestinian issue is not our highest national priority in the current strategic environment. Yet, it disproportionately occupies our attention at the cost of displaying commitment to more important causes, such as Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea. In short, Annapolis failed to emerge from, and thus advance, our national interests.
Meyrav (they're married to each other) was the person who told the World that the Bush administration had
given Israel a green light to strike Syria during the Second Lebanon War in 2006. If Israeli Prime Minister Ehud K. Olmert had the guts to attack Syria in 2006, there may not have been a need to take out its nuclear reactor in 2007.
Did the administration expect Israel to attack Syria?
"They hoped Israel would do it. You cannot come to another country and order it to launch a war, but there was hope, and more than hope, that Israel would do the right thing. It would have served both the American and Israeli interests.
"The neocons are responsible for the fact that Israel got a lot of time and space… They believed that Israel should be allowed to win. A great part of it was the thought that Israel should fight against the real enemy, the one backing Hizbullah. It was obvious that it is impossible to fight directly against Iran, but the thought was that its strategic and important ally should be hit."
You may want to read both those posts in their entirety. Cheney was probably the biggest Israelphile of the entire Bush inner circle (including Bush himself). As Defense Secretary during the first Gulf War, he presented David Ivry, the commander of Israel's Air Force when the IAF took out Iraq's nuclear reactor, with a satellite image of the former Osirak reactor site, and a note of thanks for making America's job easier in the first Gulf War.
If anyone has or gets hold of the book, please let me know what (if anything) Cheney says about the Second Lebanon War.
Labels: al-Kibar, Dick Cheney, Second Lebanon War, Syria
IAEA presents 'devastating' report on Syria to Security Council
The International Atomic Energy Agency has presented the United Nations Security Council with a 'devastating' report on Syrian attempts to develop nuclear weapons. And it feels like deja vu all over again. The Security Council would take action but
China and Russia are opposed.
The International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors voted in June to report Syria to the council, rebuking it for stonewalling an agency probe into the Dair Alzour complex, bombed by Israel in 2007 [pictured above. CiJ].
Western countries said Thursday's closed-door briefing by Neville Whiting, head of the IAEA safeguards department dealing with Syria and Iran, had made clear that Syria had a secret nuclear plant. They said the council should pursue the issue, but suggested it might not discuss it again before September.
Russia and China, allies of Damascus who can veto any council action, queried whether the council should be involved, as the Syrian complex no longer exists.
US intelligence reports have said the complex was a nascent, North Korean-designed reactor intended to produce plutonium for atomic weaponry, before Israeli warplanes reduced it to rubble. Syria has said it was a non-nuclear military facility.
British Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant told reporters Whiting had given a "devastating briefing ... from which you could only draw one conclusion -- that Syria did have at Dair Alzour a clandestine nuclear plant."
Damascus had "tried to conceal the purpose of that plant ... misled the IAEA about what the purpose was and ... failed to cooperate effectively with the IAEA in following up the questions that the IAEA put to them," he said.
Read the whole thing.
This is highly relevant despite the fact that the al-Kibar reactor has been destroyed, allegedly by Israel. The reason it is still relevant, which the article does not mention, is that Syria has
three other sites that they are refusing to allow the IAEA to examine.
What could go wrong?
Labels: al-Kibar, China, IAEA, Russia, Syria, Syrian nuclear program, UN Security Council
Syria had three other nuclear sites
Those of you with good memories may recall that back in 2008 when the IAEA went to inspect the remnants of the al-Kibar nuclear plant, which was allegedly destroyed by Israel, they wanted to look at
three other sites.
I'm sure this report issued by the IAEA is
just a coincidence.
The suspected Syrian nuclear facility in Deir al-Zor was linked to three other facilities in the country, London-based Al-Hayat reported quoting excerpts from an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report released Sunday.
The report did not give details on the facilities or on their locations.
Well, we do know that one of them is
right outside of Damascus.
Hmmm.
Labels: al-Kibar, Bashar al-Assad, Damascus, IAEA, Syrian nuclear program
Claim: Mossad raided London hotel of Syrian official
London's Daily Telegraph reports on the 2006 Mossad raid on a Kensington hotel in London in which agents downloaded the contents of a hard drive from a Syrian nuclear official's laptop, and implanted a trojan horse to monitor his work. The computer and its contents were valuable enough to leave the target - who was originally to have been killed - alive. The computer had important information about Syria's
al-Kibar nuclear reactor, which was destroyed - allegedly by the IAF - in September 2007 (Hat Tip:
Zvi S).
The operation began when Israeli intelligence picked up an online booking for a senior Syrian nuclear official at a hotel in Kensington, west London, in late 2006, according to the Israeli authors of the book Israel vs Iran: the Shadow War.
Mossad then dispatched three undercover teams to Britain including a team of "spotters" who were sent to Heathrow airport to identify the official as he flew in from Damascus under a false name. A second team booked into his hotel, while a third monitored his movements and any visitors.
The agents included members of the Kidon [Spear] division, Mossad's hit squad, and the Neviot [Springs] division, which specialises in breaking into houses, embassies and hotel rooms to install bugging devices.
The first day of the official's trip was apparently devoted to a series of meetings at the Syrian embassy in Belgrave Square but the following day he went shopping before his return to the airport.
The Kidon team followed him closely from shop to shop while the Neviot agents broke into his room and found his laptop. A computer expert took 15 minutes to download the hard drive and install trojan software that allowed Israel to monitor every keystroke he made.
When the computer material was examined at Mossad headquarters in Tel Aviv, officials found photographs and blueprints for a plutonium reactor at Al Kibar near Deir el-Zor, a remote desert town 80 miles from Syria's border with Iraq.
...
In August 2007 Israel apparently sent a special forces team into Syria to collect soil samples near the reactor, then at around 1am on September 5 2007 Israeli fighter bombers attacked the facility in a raid into Syrian airspace that destroyed the plant.
The ramifications of the al-Kibar raid
continue to plague Syria.
Satellite images and other information indicate Syria was building a covert atomic reactor when Israel bombed the site in 2007, a former senior UN nuclear inspector said on Tuesday.
Olli Heinonen, who stepped down as deputy director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2010, made his remarks at a time when some argue that Damascus may soon be referred to the UN Security Council over the issue.
Now a senior fellow at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, he said "satellite imagery, procurement, and infrastructure information tend to point (in the) direction that the destroyed building at Dair Alzour was, indeed, a nuclear reactor at an advanced state of construction".
In an email to Reuters, he said, however, that Syria had not "engaged in any substantial discussion" about Dair Alzour.
...
Western diplomats expect the Vienna-based IAEA to use stronger language in its next quarterly report on Syria which is due later this month, possibly by saying it believes the facility was a reactor under construction.
The United States and its European allies are expected to seize on this finding to push for a decision at the June 6-10 meeting of the IAEA's governing board to send the file to the U.N. Security Council -- a move last used against Iran in 2006.
The move would reflect growing frustration in the West over Syria's stonewalling of an IAEA probe into Dair Alzour, which US intelligence reports said was a nascent North Korean-designed reactor intended to make bomb fuel.
If only Brother Mohamed were still in charge at the IAEA.... Heh.
Labels: al-Kibar, Mossad, Syrian nuclear program
Confirmed: IAEA admits Israel destroyed Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007
The IAEA has confirmed for the first time that the Syrian facility that was destroyed by Israeli warplanes in 2007 was a
nuclear reactor.
The head of the UN atomic watchdog, Yukiya Amano, on Thursday said for the first time that Syria tried in the past to secretly build a nuclear reactor, which was destroyed by Israeli warplanes five years ago, The Associated Press reported.
Syria denies that the building which was bombed actually contained any nuclear facilities.
For over two years, Syria has refused IAEA follow-up access to the remains of a complex that was being built at Dair Alzour in the Syrian desert when Israel bombed it to rubble in 2007.
The IAEA carried out an agreed inspection of another Syrian plant earlier in April as part of a long-stalled probe into suspected covert nuclear activity.
"The inspection is being conducted as planned," an official of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said, giving no further detail.
The way things are going right now, a Western coalition may thank Israel in the not too distant future for destroying that plant. Just like George Bush and Dick Cheney thanked Israel in 1991 for destroying Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981.
Labels: al-Kibar, IAEA, Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, Osirak, Syrian nuclear program, Yukia Amano
Heh: Mossad spy in charge of Syrian nuke program
Those Jews are
everywhere, aren't they?
Tarek Abdel-Razek, who was arrested in Syria last week for allegedly gathering intelligence for Mossad, revealed while he was undergoing investigation the identity of another alleged spy in Syria, saying he was a senior officer who was in charge of the regime's nuclear project in Damascus, reported the Egyptian newspaper Al-Masry Al-Youm on Wednesday.
According to the report, Razek told investigators that the Syrian officer's name is Salah a-Najam, a colonel in Syria's military intelligence. He claimed that Najam seved as an agent of Mossad for many years and received a million and a half dollars from the Israelis.
Razek also said he met with Najam several times in Damascus and received information from him on the development of Syria's nuclear program, the location of nuclear facilities and sites where radioactive was was buried. The information, according to Najam, was transferred to an Israeli nuclear expert and contributed to the attack on the nuclear reactors in the Syrian desert in September 2007.
And my guess and hope is that Najam is long since gone from Syria.
Heh.
Labels: al-Kibar, Mossad, Syrian nuclear program
Wikileaks cable: Israel destroyed Syrian nuke reactor
US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice sent a cable to US embassies around the World informing them that
Israel had destroyed Syria's al-Kibar nuclear reactor, according to a cable to be released by Wikileaks.
The cable, which has not yet been published, was reported by the Israeli newspaper Yediot Acharonot before its official publication on the website.
The document sent was sent on April 25, 2008, by Rice, then secretary of state. It read, in part, "On September 6, 2007, Israel destroyed a nuclear reactor Syria was clandestinely constructing, we judge with North Korean assistance."
The cable includes detailed information about the attack and is the first official confirmation of the attack, Yediot reported.
"I want to inform you that the purpose of that Israeli mission was to destroy a clandestine nuclear reactor that Syria was constructing in its eastern desert near a place we call al-Kibar," Rice wrote. "The Israeli mission was successful - the reactor was damaged beyond repair. Syria has completed efforts to clean up the site and destroy evidence of what was really there, constructing a new building on the old site."
The document confirms that Israel and the United States collaborated on intelligence for the mission. "The US intelligence community conducted an intensive, months-long effort to confirm and corroborate the information Israel provided us on the reactor and to gather more details from our own sources and methods," Rice wrote.
Heh.
Labels: al-Kibar, Condoleeza Rice, Wikileaks
US part of conspiracy of silence on Syrian nuke program
Graham Allison, the director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School and author of "Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe" (Times Books, 2004), and Olli Heinonen, the former deputy director of the IAEA and a senior fellow at the Belfer Center, point out an unintended consequence of Israel's (alleged) destruction of Syria's al-Kibar nuclear plant a little more than three years ago. Since the plant was destroyed by Israel over the protests of then-IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei, rather than 'discovered' by the IAEA, the nations of the world are ignoring the fact that destroying the plant did not necessarily destroy the program. Syria is refusing to cooperate with IAEA inspections, and the 'international community' - led by the United States - has entered into a
conspiracy of silence about the issue.
The United States has joined other major powers in a dangerous conspiracy of silence on Syria's nuclear program. Syria foreswore nuclear weapons when it ratified the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1969. To assure the world that it is fulfilling that commitment, Syria also signed a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 1992.
Yet Syria was able to secretly buy a nuclear reactor from North Korea, a country facing the most restrictive sanctions regime in the world. If Israel had not bombed the Al-Kibar reactor site in an air strike in September 2007, it would be producing plutonium by now for Syria's first nuclear bomb.
But this violation of Syria's treaty commitments was not discovered by IAEA inspectors. And the program was not halted by the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. So it has been convenient for world powers to let Syria slip off the radar and to move on as if these events had not occurred.
It is by no means certain that Damascus has given up its nuclear ambitions. Since November 2008, nine IAEA reports (the latest released last month) have documented Syria's noncompliance with its requests for more details about its nuclear program.
Read the whole thing. President Obumbler is more interested in 'engaging' with Syria than in stopping their nuclear ambitions. Just like with Iran. The two countries' nuclear programs are just inconvenient facts he'd rather ignore.
What could go wrong?
Labels: al-Kibar, Barack Obama, IAEA, nuclear proliferation, Syrian nuclear program
Saddam's missing nukes found? Another Syrian nuke site?
You will recall that there are three sites in Syria, which are associated with the al-Kibar reactor site that was mysteriously destroyed in September 2007, and to which the Syrians have
denied the IAEA access. Now, thanks to satellite images, there is more evidence of
suspicious activities at the sites in question.
The Sueddeutsche Zeitung has reported the names of three cities in Syria which are near sites suspected of being functionally related to a destroyed covert reactor construction project. These suspect sites are located near Masyaf, the village of Marj as-Sultan near Damascus, and Iskandariyah (see figure 1).
ISIS has learned that the site seen in Figure 2 is the suspect site located near Masyaf.
This site is located approximately six kilometers northeast of Masyaf city center 1 in Syria (see figures 3 and 4), and appears to be comprised of storage buildings. Aside from what could be a line of berms or trenches (see figure 5), the site does not appear to have many security measures visible in commercial satellite imagery. The entire site, however, is situated in a ravine between two hills and buildings at the site are located along the base of the hills—a common method for providing general protection and isolation. This could indicate that the site is a military depot/storage facility. Hundreds of items can also be seen stored in rows out in the open (see figures 6 and 7). It is unclear what these items are.
Read the whole thing. The bottom line is that without access to the sites in question, no one can tell for sure what they are, and the Syrians are refusing to grant the inspectors access to the sites.
JPost has some even
more curious speculation of what might be in Masyaf:
Several years ago, a military base near Masyaf was mentioned as a possible hiding place for weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein might have sent to Syria before the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
ISIS head David Albright, who analyzed the satellite footage, told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday that the site at Masyaf could be a military storage facility. Hundreds of items seen stored in rows out in the open could be missiles or truck beds, he said.
“We have identified one site and learned the approximate locations of three other sites as well,” Albright said.
Hmmmm....
In the meantime, the IAEA continues to beat its head against the wall trying to gain access to these sites.
IAEA director-general Yukiya Amano told the board on Thursday that he recently sent a letter to Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem urging him to grant inspectors access to the sites.
“Syria has not cooperated with the agency since June 2008 in connection with the unresolved issues related to the Deir Alzour site and some other locations,” Amano said. “As a consequence, the agency has not been able to make progress towards resolving the outstanding issues related to those sites.”
Albright said that he commissioned the satellite photos of the suspected site near Masyaf to raise awareness of Syria’s continued violations ahead of the IAEA meeting.
“The issue needs more attention and there needs to be a special inspection by the IAEA at al-Kibar and other sites that are relevant,” he said. “The issue is not getting enough attention and Syria can destroy evidence and can get away with it by stonewalling the IAEA.”
And the Obama administration would still like to 'engage' with Syria. But fortunately, Congress won't let them.
Labels: al-Kibar, IAEA, ISIS, Masyaf, Saddam Hussein, Syria
IAEA to refer Syria to Security Council?
The United States has warned Syria that its failure to cooperate with IAEA inspectors may yet result in Syria being
referred to the UN Security Council. Syria has denied inspectors access to the site of the al-Kibar nuclear facility - allegedly destroyed by Israel in 2007 - for more than two years.
The United States warned Syria on Friday that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) may take actions against it if it does not allow IAEA inspectors to tour Deir al-Zur and other sites, where Damascus is suspected of having operated a nuclear reactor program, Israel Radio reported.
The IAEA's US representative, Glenn Davis, said it was crucial for Syria to accept the inspectors' requests to tour the sites in question, and to study their findings.
Syria has blocked inspectors from touring Deir al-Zur for over two years. In September, a US envoy suggested time was running out for Syria to cooperate with the UN atomic agency probe of alleged secret nuclear activities before the agency invokes its seldom-used authority to call for a special inspection — a possible prelude to UN Security Council involvement.
Three years ago, IAF warplanes reportedly bombed what the US said was a nearly finished nuclear reactor, launching an agency investigation. After an initial visit to the site, agency inspectors have not been allowed to return — or visit other suspect sites — and the agency's chief, Yukiya Amano, says Syria's lack of cooperation could mean that information sought by the agency could be lost with the passage of time.
Syria denies hiding nuclear activities.
Martin Peretz argues that the Syrians constitute
as big a danger as the Iranians.
There is much evidence of Syrian violations of the treaty which--remember!--it has signed. Olli Heinonen, former deputy director of the I.A.E.A. and head of its department of safeguards, makes the case for an "immediate special inspection" of Syria's violations. A key option for inspectors of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the world body charged with stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, is a "special inspection" an intrusive visit made when the IAEA judges the information provided by a state to be inadequate. But The IAEA is reluctant to use such inspections, even though, in the case of Syria, circumstances cry out for one. This reluctance challenges the authority and credibility of the agency, its board of governors (made up of the representatives of thirty-five of its member states), and the ultimate guardian of the world nuclear order, the United Nations Security Council.
Of course, up to the day before yesterday, President Obama was snuggling up to Bashar Assad. But Assad kicked him in the groin. Maybe the U.S. will be less indifferent to what Syria now does. But, then, how much influence does America have with U.N. agencies? Not much.
My sense is that the US has a lot more influence in the IAEA than it does in the 'softer' UN agencies like the 'human rights council' and UNESCO. The problem is that I don't see Obama using that influence.
Labels: al-Kibar, IAEA, inspection, nuclear weapons, Syria
.jpg)
