Yes, Virginia, Syria was building a nuclear reactor
November 20, 2008 – 9:10 pm
According to a confidential IAEA report, the site in Syria bombed by Israel last year was likely a nuclear reactor:
…The [IAEA]…said that soil samples taken from the bombed site had a “significant number” of chemically processed natural uranium particles. A senior U.N official, who demanded anonymity because the information was restricted, said the findings were unusual for a facility that Syria alleges had no nuclear purpose…
The report took note of Syrian assertions that any uranium particles found at the site must have come from Israeli missiles that hit the building, near the town of Al Kibar. And it cited Damascus officials as saying the IAEA samples contained only a “very limited number” of such particles.
But the report spoke of a “significant number of … particles” found in the samples.
The senior U.N. official said “the onus of this investigation is on Syria” and noted that the traces were not of depleted uranium — the most commonly used variety of the metal in ammunition, meant to harden ordnance for increased penetration. [i.e. the nuclear material found at the site was not from an Israeli bomb.]
If Syria was innocent, why would they destroy evidence at the site and restrict IAEA access to similar sites?
Satellite imagery made public in the wake of the Israeli attack noted that the Syrians subsequently removed substantial amounts of topsoil and entombed the building in concrete. But the report also suggested similar activities at three other Syrian sites of IAEA interest.
“Analysis of satellite imagery taken of these locations indicates that landscaping activities and the removal of large containers took place shortly after the agency’s request for access,” it said.
Beyond one visit in June to the Al Kibar site, Syria has refused IAEA requests to return to that location and examine the three other sites, citing the need to protect its military secrets.
In addition, said the report, “Syria has not yet provided the requested documentation” to back up its assertions that the bombed building was a non-nuclear military facility.
A few days ago, IAEA chief Mohamed El Baradei said that tests were inconclusive. Given the actual contents of the report, it seems likely he was trying not to ruffle any feathers. Syrian apologists take note.
Oh and by the way, the same IAEA report says that Iran is “stonewalling” inspectors:
The report on Iran — which also went to the U.N. Security Council — cautioned that Tehran’s stonewalling meant the IAEA could not “provide credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities.” And it noted that the Islamic Republic continued to expand uranium enrichment, an activity that can make both nuclear fuel or fissile warhead material.
While that conclusion was expected, it was a formal confirmation of Iran’s refusal to heed Security Council demands to freeze such activities, despite three sets of sanctions meant to force an enrichment stop.
Posted in politics |
5 Responses to “Yes, Virginia, Syria was building a nuclear reactor”
And ? your point is what ? I don’t know how many nuclear reactors the US has. But if Syria chooses to build one, so what ? Your concern should be nuclear weapons-and Israel has hundreds of them. as do we. You might also ask yourself among a group of countries picked at random..hmmm…let’s say the US, Israel and Syria-which of them arbitrarily invades its neighbors or invades other nations which pose no threat ? you’re a brilliant economic writer but you appear to draw your political opinions from right-wing talk radio. I might draw a parallel with John Madden-knows football but stays away from issues he doesn’t understand.
By Al on Nov 21, 2008
Al, my point is that Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism and that Israel’s bombing of that reactor was legitimate. But don’t ask me, ask all other Arab governments that kept their mouths shut when Israel struck. They don’t want Syria to get the bomb either, which is why they ALL tacitly supported the Israeli airstrike. The ONLY country that protested was North Korea. Odd no? Not when you consider it was Kim Jong Il who was helping Bashar Assad build his reactor.
Syria is one of two primary state sponsors for the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Both of which have attacked Israel without provocation for years. Even after Israel withdrew from disputed territories in South Lebanon and Gaza, these two organizations continue to attack via rockets/kidnappings. Syria is hardly an innocent.
The U.S. arbitrarily invaded Iraq, I grant you. But Israel hasn’t arbitrarily invaded anywhere for decades. There was the Osirak bombing in 1981, but that also kept nukes out of the hands of a nasty dictator: Saddam Hussein. Israel entered Lebanon two summers ago because Hezbollah attacked them.
Syria’s reactor wasn’t for power, it was for its nascent nuclear weapons program. You’re right, the Israelis and the Americans have the bomb and the Syrians don’t. I hope it stays that way.
By RolfeWinkler on Nov 21, 2008
Rolfe,
I have to concur with Al assertions of your wildly biased assertions regarding Israel. Zionist claptrap really doesn’t make for well reasoned conclusions.
People who know about nuclear reactors are skeptical about assertions of nuclear enrichment at the facility. And here’s why:
There are basically two types of reactors: graphite cooled and water cooled. Graphite cooled reactors are the type of reactors in North Korea and Russia–Chernobyl was a graphite cooled reactor.
If this was a nuclear facility of the sort that Israel infers, there would be graphite EVERYWHERE because of the explosion. It would be impossible to hide.
I’m all for being against nuclear reactors–though I completely understand why Syria and Iran want them–nuclear energy would help with their substantial energy needs. Nuclear enrichment has heavy long term costs, for the short term gain.
Long term costs for short term gain. Hmm, that sounds like the economic stimulus package!
I’m all for inspections as well. LET”S START WITH ISRAEL”S REACTOR and go from there.
By Lisa on Nov 22, 2008
I have to take issue with this comment:
“Even after Israel withdrew from disputed territories in South Lebanon and Gaza, these two organizations continue to attack via rockets/kidnappings. Syria is hardly an innocent.”
Israel has not returned the Golan Heights to Syria or the Shebaa Farms to Lebanon. They’ve riddled the area with landmines. You can’t fathom why someone would have a problem with that.
The thinking of the area is that Israel only understands force. That’s unfortunate, for many reasons. Also, unfortunate, is that that is exactly the image the Israelis want to portray themselves.
You haven’t made the real connection here, Rolfe, and I think it’s because it scares you to consider it. You’re a smart man–don’t let ideology undermine your ability to think critically.
With the withering of American exceptionalism, a peeling of a layer of protection comes off of its allies. Israel is in a world of hurt without a strong America–for more than military reasons.
It’s been America that has intervened from the UN taking action against it. Israel has ignored over 60 resolutions calling for its withdrawl from the Occupied Territories. It may not be able to ignore a cultural and economic boycott ambling its way.
The Israelis have been taking land and water that isn’t theirs for years. When you say that ‘Israel hasn’t arbitrarily invaded anywhere for decades’ you must not be including the OT–which clearing they have and are actively invading, settlement by settlement.
Justice brings peace, Rolfe. It simply won’t happen without it.
I’d also like to point out that Syria has taken in nearly 2 million Iraqis–fleeing danger wrought at the hands of Americans and encouraged by Israel. Imagine our population swelling over 10% in 5 years from immigrants. Their graciousness in that act seems to escape you.
Bet you didn’t know it though.
‘You’re right, the Israelis and the Americans have the bomb and the Syrians don’t. I hope it stays that way.’
Guess what? It won’t. Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE–all are establishing or re-instituting a nuclear energy program. Think none of them won’t want nukes? I’m against nuclear power because I don’t think we need it–and, as I said, the long term costs far outweigh the short term gain. These places are far from being in the dark ages–and militarily they won’t stay behind either.
It’s better to be against all nukes, even Israel’s. Israel’s nuclear program will ultimately hurt Israel more than you know.
By Lisa on Nov 22, 2008
Lisa, the IAEA report has nothing to do with “Zionist claptrap.” The Syrians were building a reactor, not for power, but to develop nuclear weapons. Regarding the absence of certain material at the site, you’re ignoring this finding from the report:
—Satellite imagery made public in the wake of the Israeli attack noted that the Syrians subsequently removed substantial amounts of topsoil and entombed the building in concrete….And the report also suggested similar activities at three other Syrian sites of IAEA interest.
“Analysis of satellite imagery taken of these locations indicates that landscaping activities and the removal of large containers took place shortly after the agency’s request for access,” it said.—
Even after all of that the IAEA still found convincing evidence that Syria was building a reactor.
Here’s what I don’t understand about your argument. On the one hand you’re defending the Syrians, saying they weren’t trying to build a reactor and ignoring all the independent evidence to the contrary. (The IAEA report, the Syrian cover-up, absence of Arab protests against Israel’s actions). On the other hand you’re saying they have the right to build such a reactor. Which is it?
The fact that they’ve taken in 2 million Iraqis is a non sequitir. It has nothing to do with their continuing war against Israel. I’m not saying the Syrians are terrible people; I’m saying their government sponsors terrorist groups whose stated goal is the annihilation of the Jewish state. That is simply a fact.
If Canada sponsored Native American terrorist groups that regularly attacked the U.S. with the stated goal of taking back land lost in the 1800s, how would you expect America to respond? And what if those same terrorist groups didn’t just want the land they lost, they wanted all the land period?
What it comes down to, I believe, is whether one thinks a “Jewish” state should even exist. I’d be curious to know your thoughts. If you think not, I’d ask you to consider where Jews are expected to go. If Israel becomes Palestine, a majority Muslim nation, Jews will be driven out and the country would quickly deteriorate into another backward nation like all the others in the Middle East.
Also, if there shouldn’t be a state for Jews, why should there be dozens for Muslims?
Those states kicked out their Jewish minorities and now all they have is a sliver of land (and no oil) on the Mediterranean. Ironically, Israel is the only country in the Middle East where Arabs can vote in free elections.
As for U.N. resolutions, the U.N. has absolutely zero credibility on the Arab-Israeli issue. Witness the Human Rights Commission. If you’ve spent any time looking at how the HRC has conducted its business over the past few decades, I hardly need to explain this.
The Arab world is in a perpetual state of war against Israel. Why? Because Palestinians don’t have water rights? Arabs don’t give a shit about the Palestinians. They use them as proxy fighters to keep Israel on its heels to whatever degree possible.
I don’t think Israel is blameless. I would love to see peace with the Palestinians and a two-state solution. There are crazy, fundamentalist Jews just like there are crazy, fundamentalist Muslims. I was a supporter of pulling out of Gaza, and South Lebanon. And yet Hamas and Hezbollah have used these unilateral retreats, not as an opportunity to make peace, but as an excuse to perpetuate war….building up their forces and launching rocket attacks.
Peace isn’t possible until terrorism stops. And terrorism won’t stop until terrorist groups are defeated or co-opted. That isn’t going to happen while states like Syria continue sponsoring them.
By RolfeWinkler on Nov 22, 2008