"It is possible, some officials said, that the transfer of the technology occurred several years ago."

This could explain why the Administration cut deals with NK this past year as they had already come clean about their past dealings with Syria.

I don't quite believe this story. But if it is true, why all the secrecy? As the article points out, Assad has been forthright about stating the Syrian desire for nuclear power; Syria already has one small reactor. I still don't get it. Perhaps the strike was just a teency bit premature? And why didn't Assad respond to the incident more forcefully? Building a nuclear reactor can't be hidden from satellite view forever. I smell propaganda.

And is nuclear reactor design really a secret? I assumed it all could be found online and in scientific journals, not to mention that Syria probably has its share of nuclear engineers.

It's better to hit the terrorists early than to hit them too late. The Israeli strike will be a deterrence to Iran and Ahmadinejad that it better not create nuclear weapons or it will suffer the same fate as Syria.

I'm calling bullshit. No named sources, no third-party evidence, clear motivation by the hawks in the administration to push such a line, ample past evidence of lying by the administration, and ample past evidence of the NYT publishing crap just like this.

"...Behind closed doors, however, Vice President Dick Cheney and other hawkish members of the administration have made the case that the same intelligence that prompted Israel to attack should lead the United States to reconsider delicate negotiations with North Korea over ending its nuclear program, as well as America’s diplomatic strategy toward Syria, which has been invited to join Middle East peace talks in Annapolis, Md., next month..."
----

Haha! I know what's up. We are going to strong arm Syria into buying a Westinghouse or GE design and contracting that out with our supervision.
:-)

Heaven knows I'm no fan of Syria or any of the other non-democratic middle eastern countries, but I'm feeling increasingly uncomfortable with the attitude of my country's leadership that WE get to decide who does and who does not have nuclear power, nuclear weapons, etc. Its evidently a non-secret in intelligence circles that Israel has nuclear weapons so we look even worse when we try to prevent other middle eastern countries from any nuclear capacity. I'm not saying that they should have them, but I couldn't blame a lot of other countries from taking the attitude toward the U.S. of "who died and made YOU guys god?"

"re-establish the credibility of our deterrent power."

IOW, the reason Israel bombed Syria is the same reason a middle aged man buys a fast sports car.

It will be a wild ride if you guys get your choice as president next year. Fortunately, that is unlikely as reality has a way of intruding on dreams of one-worldism.

Mike K,

No way dude. Hillary has got the Westinghouse and GE money cornered. You guys are screwed!

"... a site that Israeli and American intelligence analysts judged was a partly constructed nuclear reactor."

Nuclear reactors all have some pretty distinctive characteristics, like one or more containment buildings and at least two cooling towers. If it took intelligence analysts to judge this site was a 'partly' constructed nuclear reactor, then it must have been a 'very premature' strike. I guess they had to decide whether it was a reactor or a trio of round ice skating rinks for the Syrian team to use in practice. Syria, btw, has signed the NPT. And that does not deny them the right to build nuclear reactors.

Heaven knows I'm no fan of Syria or any of the other non-democratic middle eastern countries, but I'm feeling increasingly uncomfortable with the attitude of my country's leadership that WE get to decide who does and who does not have nuclear power, nuclear weapons, etc. Its evidently a non-secret in intelligence circles that Israel has nuclear weapons so we look even worse when we try to prevent other middle eastern countries from any nuclear capacity. I'm not saying that they should have them, but I couldn't blame a lot of other countries from taking the attitude toward the U.S. of "who died and made YOU guys god?"

It's the same reason the average person feels more comfortable with a bank guard having a gun than a bank robber having a gun, even if it's the same kind of gun.

Nobody worries about Israel, France, England, or for that matter even China, doing something insane with an atomic bomb. Syria, North Korea and Iran are something else. A few years ago Libya would have been on that list.

Why are both sides trying to hide this? On a side note, it'd be interesting to see what Google Earth showed of this alleged nuclear site.

Until I see something other than unnamed US/Israeli sources screaming nuke, I'm thinking pack-o-lies coupled with something embarassing for the Syrians, like a Hezbollah/Iranian arms transfer point.

Probably also Israeli electoral politics. Olmert's approval rating rose by 10% after the strike, and he pleased his Washington pals as well -- who now may consider that Bibi is not the only one they can count on to bomb Israel's neighbors.

Funny how fast the NYTimes spin (and Kevin Drum spin apparently) has changed from "Syria can't possibly have been making nukes" to "The Syrian nukes weren't any kind of threat to Israel yet and the raid was unjustified".

The commenters here are still catching up though.

I don't believe anything the Bush administration or the current Israeli government say. They're all cut from the same shoddy cloth. Their default position is to lie and their motives are always despicable.

Their default position is to lie and their motives are always despicable.

Posted by: Helena Montanta

This should be the default position of every American with respect to ALL governments and all politicians.

I agree with Nepeta and Frederson above. There is something fishy about this story. Don't ever forget that the CIA has operatives planted in the media. We aren't getting the whole truth here. Why wasn't more made of this by the Bushies, if this was nuclear-related? They are always pounding their chests over how "tough" they are on terrorism (despite the fact their bungling led to the largest attack ever on American soil). Syria is also one of the poorest Middle Eastern countries there is - where would they come up with the billions needed for a reactor? Something isn't kosher about this (pardon the very poor pun...)!

Perry is right -- folks oughta apply the same standards to their own 'reasoning', which is generally just prejudice rationalized, that they like to think they apply to nations and governments. Commenters have kinda rapidly gone from 'it wasn't' to 'yeah, so?'. THAT's bullshit -- and y'all oughta know better, if only to realize when you're doing it.

It's Occam's Razor again -- the simplest explanation that covers the available evidence is generally the best, and thus oughta be the one you try to knock holes in.... so you need to compare your counters to the simplest explanation.

Israel has essentially clammed up about this -- which makes sense, since it was a military act and actions speak louder. It's SYRIA that has plainly tried to bullshit the planet, right? The evidence is plain as it gets:

First they said nothing (which isn't bullshit, but is a bit more telling in the nation that, if innocent, was the victim). Then they said the Israelis hit nothing, cuz there was nothing to hit. Then they said the Israelis hit an empty building. (Which sorta begs the question why the Israelis would DO that, leading to Disputo's bizarre argument that somehow Israel is America's proxy erection "Israel bombed Syria [for] the same reason a middle aged man buys a fast sports car.")

Do you really think so little of elected governments? Get out more, MEET some elected officials (and military folks), ask 'em real questions instead of this fever swamp crap.

Now we have a reasonably clear report that, well, it WAS a nuke site designed by the North Koreans: what does that tell ya? So folks decide there really isn't a nation called "Syria", it's like the moon landing, staged in a Hollywood basement by.... them.

Get a grip.

We know the North Koreans were there -- THEY'VE said so.

So folks are trying their damndest to make this about something else, anything that comes to mind. It must be the CIA moles in the media! Or the all-powerful Israeli lobby!

Um -- why would anybody want to have the NORTH KOREANS help generating electricity?

(cue crickets)

Not so much an erection by the Isrealis, more of a surgical Brith or Bris performed by air. Even more, turning the Syrians into eunuchs.

And, Doc Mikey, your one-worldism view is laughable - The true one world view of political thought today, places it's leader at the center of the universe, and that is Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Cheney uber-alles. Supply your own umlaut.

LOL! You know what is supposed to stick to a fan if toss enough of it?

LOL!!

What next?

Excuse me.I meant to say wall. I'm laughing too hard over this silly story.

(obstinately) Well, if it's so silly, why WOULD anybody hire the North Koreans to help 'em generate electricity?

Why are the Israelis so quick to bomb Iraqi and Syrian reactors, but have taken no action against Iran?

skeptonomist,

It is called out sourcing - US Navy and the "Into the air, Junior Birdmen" for their bidding, bringing Ke-Rhist and HaySeus to the heathens.

Perhaps the Syrian site resembled one in North Korea because both countries were sold the same set of plans by Pakistan's A.Q. Kahn.

Third, do you ever speak up and NOT detract from a discussion?

There are at least three significant reasons why Syria is different:

1) Syria was using North Koreans to build the damn thing. As I keep pointing out, there isn't any reasonable explanation for an energy-generating nuke site to use North Korean technology.

2) Iran doesn't use North Korean nuke technology, much less North Korean scientists. IIRC, they've used French stuff.

3) Iran has never been a front-line anti-Israel state, for a lot of reasons. Among other considerations, it's Shi'ite and Israel's principal opponents are Sunni-run states.

I keep pointing to the obvious, folks: Iran is MUCH better off as a nearly-nuke power, than by provoking Israel. Iran knows that -- and, significantly, so does Israel. Bush's clumsiness notwithstanding, lots of national governments really do know how this works.

All the available evidence points to Israel pouncing on a hostile neighbor as soon as it crossed a line (quite possibly cuz of the North Koreans at the site), so that EVERYBODY knows where the line is.

Why make it more complicated, especially when you have to leave out facts?

And, Third: we're progressives, remember? We're the ones who DON'T lump dissimilar states together into an "axis of evil", cuz North Korea is NOT like Iran -- right?

So why would you be so fucking dumb as to link 'em? North Koreans in Syria -- why, that's JUST the same as the French in Iran, isn't it?

(forehead hitting keyboard)

….Nobody worries about Israel,….doing something insane with an atomic bomb. Syria, North Korea and Iran are something else… harry at 1:18 AM

…In 1991, China started constructing Syria's first research reactor, a 30KW miniature neutron source reactor (MNSR) to be located at the Der Al-Hadjar Nuclear Research Center near Damascus. China provided Syria with approximately 980 grams of 89% enriched U235 to operate the reactor. That facility went critical in 1996 and become fully operational in 1998. The MNSR gives Syria the capability to produce neutrons for nuclear analysis, isotopes for industrial applications, and radioisotopes for training purposes, but is unsuitable for weapons production…..
In early 2007 Syria announced possible plans to pursue nuclear energy in order to meet increased energy consumption in the country. Syrian officials have stated that nuclear energy could provide a feasible energy alternative in light of concerns of oil depletion and a ten percent annual increase in electricity use.[2] However, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad stresses that Syria is not seeking to become a nuclear power, and argues that Damascus’ ultimate aim is a nuclear-free Middle East.[3]…

Under the non-proliferation treaty, states have a right to develop nuclear energy. All this talk of bombs comes from two countries with histories of jingoistic demagoguery.

Hope you don't need a band aid for your forehead, Americanist -

Of course, Isreal reacted quickly to the perceived threat in Syria - However, the question was why they have not hit Iran. Why should they, in any event - Cheney is frothing at the mouth in his desire to bomb Iran - The Isreali's know that Cheney WILL have Shrub order strikes. It matters little, whether NK, the French, or the Martians are helping Iran, Cheney craves war.

Whee! Mushroom clouds.

http://www.zvis.com/nuclear/nukimgs.shtml

Based on this singular logic..One might be able to built a case for the nuclear reactors in the USA to be valid targets?? After all, If you set yourself up as judge of another Sovereign intents, then..you could-be subjected to same preeminent actions by any other Sovereign state..Interesting, when we are struck, it's an act of terrorism, but..when we commit similar acts...it's in the interest of destroying a highly questionable future intents~ If "We" are so extremely blessed, why did the WTC happen in the first place??

"Syria can't possibly have been making nukes" - Perry

"Commenters have kinda rapidly gone from 'it wasn't' to 'yeah, so?" - Americanist

Syria was not 'making nukes.' The initial reports suggested that a nuclear experimentation site, implying nuclear weapons, was hit by Israel. Syria had been accused by Israel back in '98 of collecting uranium as a byproduct of its fertilizer industry. (I think I've got that right. My retention time for this stuff lasts about one day.) So, even if Syria were in the process of building a nuclear reactor, that is their right under the terms of the NPR and in itself does not imply any pursuit of nuclear weapon technology. There is still the long road to figuring out how to enrich uranium, which the Iranians supposedly just recently figured out. So, we're talking really premature here in regard to any nuclear weapons threat. So, Americanist, I don't say 'yeah, so?.' I say that the Israeli proclivity to bomb nuclear reactor sites in neighboring countries is acting contrary to international law.

"under terms of the NPR"

ugh, not the radio station. I meant to say the NPT (Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty)

Welcome back Judith Miller, we missed you!

As other writers have pointed out, this story has so many suspicious and incongruous facets that I am beyond highly skeptical of its veracity. However, I am glad to see the New York Times return to its roots vis-a-vis its Middle East policy. I am a sucker for consistency.

Every other time Israel has bombed a neighboring country for any reason, the rest of the world has acted with great vocal intensity, especially Syria, Israel & the US. My question is why is this attack so different? No Muslim populated neighbor said a word; the only protests were a weak one from Syria & one from North Korea. The US, Israel, Europe, Russia & China were all silent at the time of the attack. So, pray tell, what is so different this time?

Who Knows? Actually almost everything we have heard about this has been from unnamed sources originating from one paper (The Times, of London) which happens to be owned by Rupert Murdoch. By itself, this story is nothing but a big mystery.

A few days previously, another story about 6 nukes attached to cruise milliles being loaded onto a B 52 & sent to the Middle East staging area, aka Barksdale AFB, was officially 'leaked' to The Military Times. Scuse me, if I don't believe the official version - of either story. Are these 2 stories connected? Again, who knows? I look at it as a possible working scenario. Maybe they are connected, maybe not.
====================================================
So why hasn't Israel bombed Iran yet? Look at a GD map & the answer is obvious. Iran is simply out of range for Israeli jets. Their only possible route is to the north of Syria & Iraq; even GWB isn't dumb enough to allow them to overfly territory we control. It is simpler just to use our own B 52s when or if the time comes.

One more time, folks, cuz y'all are trying REAL hard to miss the point: Why would Syria ask NORTH KOREA, of all nations, to help 'em generate electricity?

(crickets chirping)

And, um, Mike? When you're talking about nukes, "massive retaliation" means RETALIATION -- a second strike, after having been hit BY the first.

Israel is actually smaller than its neighbors -- Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, etc. (I'm not counting the West Bank and Gaza, although if somebody wants to speak up for North Korean assistance to launch a Palestinian Authority nuclear program, by all means: surprised it took you THIS long.)

EVERY country surrounding Israel has happily sent terrorists to blow up Israeli civilians on buses, in pizza parlors, in farms, etc.

Just what on earth would make you want Israel to WAIT until some asshole blows up a nuclear weapon in an Israeli mall before it can DO something about it?

(patiently) The last time Israel did something like this, it was Osirak in Iraq in 1981. They were right to do that -- even though LOTS of folks (including Syria) leaped up to holler what terrible people the Israelis were to do it.

And yet -- everybody acknowledges that Saddam doubled his efforts to get a nuclear weapon after the Israeli strike cripped the program. When somebody tries harder to build a nuke after you smacked 'em for trying the first time, IT PROVES YOU RIGHT. Saddam tried damned hard all the way through the first Gulf War -- you know, the one where he attacked Kuwait and tried to eat it?

This time, Israel whacked Syria and the response is a puzzling silence. But the facts are pretty clear: North Korea was helping Syria build something that crossed a line, and Israel took it out. So now everybody has been reminded where the line is.

You folks need to pull your collective head out of your collective ass: if you want to argue that Israel SHOULD get nuked, say so.

Cuz otherwise, so far as this thread shows, you've got nothing to say.

And, DO tell us about those North Korean experts on generating electricity.

Americanist,

For all you know North Korea had nothing to do with helping to design the reported
beginning construction of a NUCLEAR REACTOR in Syria. Nuclear reactors are not offensive weapons. North Korea has sold Nodong missiles to Syria and reportedly aided the Syrians in equipping them with chemical weapons. Certainly you wouldn't criticize the business of 'arms sales' without a wink at the US who sells to just about anybody with a wad of cash. So I guess you think Israel is now the final arbiter on who gets nuclear power and who doesn't in the ME and we all should cheer? The whole idea of the NPT was that all countries could have nuclear energy as long as they allowed intensive inspections to make sure that fuel wasn't being reprocessed for weapons. Syria doesn't need a nuclear reactor to get their hands on a dirty bomb (the only kind a terrorist could set off in Israel). There's plenty of the dirty stuff circulating in black markets around the world. You have a simplistic view of 'the good guys' and 'the bad guys.' There is no comparison between the death rate of Israelis due to terrorist bombings and Palestinian casualties at the hands of the IDF. You can guess, I assume, which is the larger number. What I have yet to figure out is why nation state military aggressions are not considered equivalent to terrorism. Certainly the loss of innocent life is a feature of both. Just look at Iraq today, despite whatever Saddam was doing in the 80's, other than fighting the current US nemesis with US help. Is there ANY justification, ANY reason for self-congratulation on the abject misery and death the US invasion has caused the citizens of Iraq? So who exactly are the good guys and who are the bad guys? I guess you're the sole arbiter of that.

A commenter wrote:

Based on this singular logic..One might be able to built a case for the nuclear reactors in the USA to be valid targets??

This is an increasingly common argument that one hears. I'd really like to know what Kevin Drum thinks about it.

"a case for the nuclear reactors in the USA to be valid targets"

If there is a better example of when you people lose your marbles, I haven't seen it.

Well, first of all, tA can be safely ignored because he is buying everything that the JudithMillerTimes is spoon feeding him. No use engaging him in any discussion at all, unless you want to debate a surrogate for TPTB.

Secondly, the notion that no one is talking about this incident, as Bob in FL claims, is utter BS, and just more disinfo that is being promulgating by the Western press.

Third, nepeta says:

I say that the Israeli proclivity to bomb nuclear reactor sites in neighboring countries is acting contrary to international law.

At the very least. That this is not the first thought of everyone in the US when they hear about yet another bombing/assassination/bulldozer-death by Israel is yet another testament to how thoroughly brainwashed most westerners are. It is a crime to just go around bombing other countries. But most USAmericans have been brainwashed to think that Israel can do no wrong, and that any action they take must have a rational, legit reason. And that is precisely the hidden assumption that underpins this ridiculous game that everyone is playing of "What did Syria do?" and you'll continue to talk in circles until you confront that premise.

The real question is "What did Israel do?" and the answer is that once again they violated intl law and committed a war crime.

Btw, if you knuckleheads are insistent on discerning the motivations behind this incident, check out the latest post from Juan Cole:

"The strike probably killed the November peace process summit that Condi Rice had been working toward"

You really need to look no further than that for a reason why Olmert decided to continue the long Israeli tradition of violating intl law.