Two months ago, Sy Hersch indicated that, if anything, it's probably a chemical weapons site.

It explains both Syrian and Israeli silence following the bombing pretty well.

Syria won't call in the IAEA because they figure it will discover chemical weapons traces.

Israel won't admit what was right and what was wrong about its intell.

Hersch says the infamous "Korean" ship hadn't made a transit of the Suez Canal for months before docking at the Syrian port of Tartus, either.

So, Syria was up to something no good (it already has a huge stockpile of chemical weapons), but not bomb-building.

Isn't it a shame we can't trust our government to tell us the truth? Without knowing anything about the merits of the issue, the Bushies have lied to us so much, so often, and so long about similar issues elsewhere in the middle east, that their saying it was a bomb-related nuclear plant gives it something less than a 50-50 chance of being true.

"The evidence looks pretty strong that North Korea did indeed sell nuclear technology to the Syrians, but on the Syrian side it looks mostly like a boondoggle..." Well, some people, who shall remain nameless, supported one war on roughly this kind of basis --- looks like we're on the way to another.

There are problems with the story, though.

Why was this kept quiet for so many months? The Israelis wouldn't say what they attacked, and neither did the US.

Why didn't the US comply with its obligations under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, and tell what it knew to the IAEA? Syria signed the treaty, so the IAEA, if it had been notified, would have demanded an inspection. By handling it the way they did, any evidence is gone, as Syria swept everything clean after the attack.

Also, why now? What is the purpose of the timing of this story? The attack was more than half a year ago.

There are reports that Syria has been putting out peace feelers, that Israel is willing to at least talk, but the US is vetoing talks. Is the purpose to prevent any attempt by Syria to decrease its isolation?

The loud message from shrub's decision to invade (nonnuclear) Iraq and leave (nuclear) North Korea alone was:

"GET NUKES NOW!"

Nukes make an excellent insurance policy against american neocon meddling. IOW Syria would be stupid not to get going on some sort of nuclear program.

OTOH I'd be pretty leery of crediting any administration claims on any subject where they have an ax to grind. If there's no independent verification of these pix, and no evidence of Syria constructing reprocessing facilities, then we have nothing very credible to work with here.

A shame, really. But it's where shrub's Iraq warmongering lies have left us.

Skepticism should be the guiding principle
...the IAEA is condemning both Israel and the U.S. -- Israel for the unilateral attack on Syria without even asking the IAEA to inspect the facility (an inspection Syria would have been required by the NPT to allow), and the U.S. for withholding from the IAEA its claimed evidence of Syrian nuclear activities....

As to the low confidence, that seems to be justified:

...It is unclear how the Syrians planned to get the uranium they needed. Once they got it, the reactor would have had to run for roughly 18 months before the fuel was “cooked.” And then to turn it into weapons-grade plutonium, it would require reprocessing, presumably outside the country unless Syria found a way to build its own plant....
Only selected pictures were released by the intelligence agencies on Thursday, including a video that combined still photos and drawings, and had a voice-over that gave the presentation the feel of a cold-war-era newsreel about the Korean War...

Actually, no confidence would be justified given the repeated fear mongering and dissembling by the Bush administration. If the Israelis don't de-commission their nuclear weapons, why should any one in the region not want a nuclear deterrence?

Gadfly:

Sy Hersh is an interesting guy. He's almost entirely reliant on a network of anonymous sources who share his skeptical and deeply cynical view of the world. About half the time, that leads him to see through official lies and break truly earth-shattering stories. And at least as often, it leads him to produce thinly-sourced, heavily-hedged, conspiratorial garbage. His Abu Ghraib piece was of the former genre; it's now clear that his coverage of Al Kibar fell into the latter camp. Let me ask - does that look like a chemical facility to you?

Why didn't the US comply with its obligations under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, and tell what it knew to the IAEA? Syria signed the treaty, so the IAEA, if it had been notified, would have demanded an inspection. By handling it the way they did, any evidence is gone, as Syria swept everything clean after the attack.

Because then the IAEA would have inspected and then the US could no longer use the Boogeyman of Sryian nukes.

And yes, Sy Hersh is by turns incredibly perceptive or spectacularly full of it depending on the day of the week.

Why should I believe these pictures are, in fact, what they claim? We've been lied to so many times that the only rational assumption is that the US Intelligence Community is manufacturing evidence to justify Bush Administration actions.

So: These are fake until proven real by an unbiased source -- I'd accept the French, maybe, but anything from the US Government or the US Press is assumed to be fake.

Sorry. They've cried wolf too many times.

Bomb them anyway! Invade now! More wars! More wars! We must take over the entire Middle East! The entire world! Only then can we be safe.

Kevin:

Let's not get carried away with "low confidence." The intelligence officials (from the transcript, it looked like Hayden and McConnell) were being very careful. They explained that until 2001 they hadn't a clue that anything was happening. Then, they came into information which tipped them to some transactions, and in light of that, were able to use older information to backdate it to around 1997. So for four years, this project was proceeding entirely without our knowledge. Then it took until 2003 to confirm that the cooperation was nuclear related. And another two years after that before they localized it to Dayr az Zawr. By the time they located it on satellite imagery, the building was already complete, and the reactor well on its way to being finished. And from other media reports, it appears we couldn't even find it on our own - that we were tipped off by the Israelis.

So put that together. Four years to get an inkling. Two more to find out its nuclear. Than another two to locate it. And another year to get specifics. So I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that our HUMINT and technical means aren't serving us terribly well in Syria or the DPRK right at the moment.

What the officials actually said was this: We now have a large amount of direct evidence that Syria was building a reactor with North Korea, for Syrian use. So, based on that evidence, they rate those conclusions 'high confidence.' We have not, however, been able to figure out how they were going to fuel it, or how they intended to separate out the plutonium. We don't have that information because, as the above timeline makes clear, we colosally suck at figuring out what's going on inside Syria. If you can't find an enormous reactor facility for two years, even with all its siting constraints, it stands to reason you might not be able to find a (far smaller) processing facility, which can be sited almost anywhere. So what we have as an overwhelmingly compelling case that the Syrians were working on nuclear weapons, and the intelligence officials in the briefing do indeed seem adamantly convinced of this. But to their credit, they're careful to note that such a conclusion ought to be undergirded by three pieces of evidence - production of fuel, reactor facility, and processing. We only have evidence of the middle piece.

So it's not that they're making a judgment, and determining that it's improbable that the Syrians had an active, and indeed reasonably advanced, nuclear weapons program. They're simply saying that an inferential judgment, no matter how compelling, is rated 'low confidence.' Until we find the other facilities - and it stands to reason that they're out there - they won't rate the existence of an integrated program at 'high confidence.'
But that doesn't mean it wasn't there, just that we're too inept to find it.

Kevin wrote:

Basically, the intelligence community is convinced that (1) the Al Kibar facility is a plutonium reactor of North Korea design, (2) it's poorly suited for either research or electricity production, and (3) the photos they have are genuine.

Kevin, I think it's pretty irresponsible that you and other media figures will refer to a politician and say that he or she "stated" or "claimed" something, but when it comes to the intelligence community, you back them up and say things like "they are convinced" instead of writing "according to..." or something similar.

Did you read this today, Kevin? You should act like a propagandist.

Intelligence agencies are almost completely opaque to us. They are in the business of deception. We should not take everything they claim about themselves and their beliefs at face value.

This whole story about the Syrian "reactor" has been pretty suspect from the beginning. If they were so sure that's what we hit in the first place, why didn't they explain that more decisively then, instead of just letting people draw their own conclusions?

The intelligence community helped get us into the Iraq war- that is, we ended up getting into the war, and the CIA or anyone else sure hasn't been kicking down Congress' door asking for articles of impeachment. We have no idea what their real motives are or what kind of people they are. We have ex-CIA agents going on TV and making themselves appear pretty moderate, but we really don't have any clue that they're not all Gen. Boykin-types.

And I left out a link that should have been in my previous comment (where I wrote "Did you read this today, Kevin?"): link

We have absolutely no clue whether a lot of the statements we hear from the intelligence community are meant to mislead the public or not.

I wrote:

You should act like a propagandist.

Meant to be "shouldn't," of course.

This is not evidence; it is pictures with words and arrows released by a highly politicized group. Who knows where all this stuff comes from or what it is. It doesn't matter if the narrative seems rational. Given the history of this stuff it is very likely untrue. How many lemons does the auto dealer need to sell before you realize he is a crook?

I'm shocked you don't get it Kevin.

Syria was going to get the yellowcake from Saddam via Al Qaeda in Iraq. Then they would use Iranian Qod force to distribute the suitcase nukes throughout the world and the US. That's why we invaded Iraq. To cut out the middle man.

Now that the middle man's cut out. They have nothing and we rule.

Geez.

Cynic, et al.... it doesn't look like a nuclear facility, I'll put it that way.

Swan, "anonymous" et al.... yeah, I think Kevin is drinking too much Kool-Aid on this.

Cynic, et al.... you got proof it IS a nuclear site?

Assad is a very smart guy. This facility was a decoy. The real facility(s) are no doubt buried and near populated areas. Why would they build this thing out where spy satalittes can photograph it every 90 minutes or so over seven years?
What is going on here should be clear to all. THe N. Koreans are outsourcing their bomb-grade plutonium manufacturing to Syria. It's a win-win for both countries. The N. Koreans get their trade deals and low-interest loans as they are no longer producing the materials, and Syria gets a piece of the action. Some of it goes back to N. Korea.
In two or three years, Assad is a hero to the Middle East after he conducts an underground test of a nuclear device. He then has clout to negotiate with Israel for the Golan.
In the meantime, the real facility is being built underground somewhere in Syria. Why do you think Assad didn;t go afte the Israelis after the raid? He is biding his time.
Stay tuned.

I really dislike having to be so skeptical of my own government. Damn this sucks.

Once trust is lost it take a long time to regain it, and that is when you start being honest.

C'mon, look at the picture again. Those aren't "controlling rod and refueling ports," they're ALIEN EGGS. Watch out for face huggers!

Why am I reminded of some photos of biological weapons trailers?

You know.... the ones that turned out to be weather balloon facilities.

We cringe at OTHERS making plutonium, yet we continue to churn out the stuff, by the ton.

Oh yeah, I forgot, the US is above reproach.

God Bush America!

This whole incident doesn't make sense on so many levels:

- Syria is one of the poorest countries in the Middle East, having little indigenous oil. How could they afford the mult-billions to purchase this sort of nuclear technology outright?
- Why would North Korea risk the progress they made in the past two years in winning an accord with the West over a clandestine sale of nuclear technology from which they could get little or no benefit in return?
- Why did the Bush Administration handle this incident so coyly? It is so completely out of character for Bush to not come blustering out and start threatening attacks against Syria for their actions, if this really was a nuke plant. He would have had a massive hard-on to attack Syria with every cruise missile and smart bomb we could throw at them, if they really were trying to nuke up.
- Why did Israel not trumpet their achievement if they had successfully wiped out a nascent Syrian threat, the way they did with the Iraqi reactor at Osiriak? If Israelis are anything, they are prideful.

I just don't get it. Neither does Juan Cole, whose opinion I respect very much. Click here fpr his thoughts. Something just doesn't add up here....

The administration said it withheld the pictures for seven months out of fear that Syria could retaliate against Israel and start a broader war in the Middle East.

I don't get this. Israel launches a missile to demolish a nuke site in Syria and pictures of the site were kept secret because Syria might retaliate?

Am I missing something?

*

Considering the relationship between Iran and Syria, is it not conceivable that the weapons grade materiel be produced in Syria?

Deflator, that's another point that Hersch made -- where's the Osirak-type boasting?

Anyone else wonder why the Syrian reactor was shot in sepia-tone?

I'm not suggesting "Capricorn One" here, but it looks like a file photo. Plus, I don't see any signs of "active" construction. You'd expect a lot more clutter around a vessel-installation-in-progress, and this is cleaner than a yearbook photo.

Smells like a rat!

If this thing was super top secret why would there be such nice tourist photos? Why wouldn't they put a four story building underground? A nice touch is the license plate on the car in the back to put the picture in place.

And we learn from ABC News (the Australian one):

But Mike Chinoy, from the Pacific Council on International Policy, says the claim needs to be taken in its political context, as North Korea's denuclearisation reaches a critical stage.

"Everything I'm hearing from my own sources in Washington is that what you have now is a kind of push back by Vice-President [Dick] Cheney and his office and other hardliners who are opposed to diplomatic dealings with North Korea," he said.

"[They are] hoping that by making public these allegations of nuclear cooperation it will torpedo the diplomatic process."

Who are ya gonna believe? Shrug.

Those aren't "controlling rod and refueling ports," they're ALIEN EGGS. Watch out for face huggers!

LOL, thanks for that. MHR brought up Jimmy Carter and that's it, I've got it! They were waiting for Carter to go to Syria and talk with Hamas and Assad. Perfect timing! Actually, kidding aside, I kinda wonder about that. Anyhow, I think it is a nuclear reactor. How about this one: We got South Korean CIA agents to sell it to Syria real cheap, and planted moles all through the Syrian's project to: 1) Dig up more intelligence that we wouldn't be able to get otherwise, and 2) Nail them to the wall down the road when the timing was right, but before any nuclear material got involved.

Bellumregio sounds like he's trying to be sarcastic. Despite whatever implicit point he may be trying to make, my point still stands that we shouldn't assume that this story is for real just because our intelligence agency is selling it to us. Quite to the contrary, in fact: that's a reason not to assume it's true.

Bellumregio sounds like he's trying to characterize other people as assuming lies are being told, but of course, my comments weren't about that- they were about intelligent skepticism.

...it's poorly suited for either research or electricity production...

But it would do fine for plutonium production, just like for the DPRK.

And just to spell things out a little better: unless you've seen the site in the photograph in person, you have no idea where that picture was really taken.

Just because someone shows you a picture of some guy who looks like Abe Lincoln, swears to you it's a picture of George Bush, and says he's convinced George Bush is Abe Lincoln, does not mean that George Bush is actually Abe Lincoln.

Just because Syria would have been getting a pretty lousy pointless deal with a lot of downside beyond wasted money doesn't mean that they didn't really think they might be getting something that could lead to a nuclear weapon program. I mean, if a much more technologically savvy nation like the US can spend tens of billions of dollars a year on deploying a missile defense system that doesn't work and doesn't show many signs of working any time soon, then I would be careful of underestimating the ability of anyone else to be similarly conned by the promise of some shiny high tech dramatic change to their strategic position.

Not saying that I have an opinion that Syria did really have a nuclear reactor of some sort, just that I'm not going to assume they're much smarter and harder to get boondoggled than we are as a basis for rejecting the possibility entirely.

This makes Senator Clinton's remarks about a "nuclear umbrella" at the recent debate a lot more worth thinking about.

Despite all the screeching from her detractors, a formal agreement that allows the Arab states and Iran to develop nuclear technology transparently, under UN inspection, is possible under this "umbrella" of deterrence.

If, as she said at the debate, she would offer an American "umbrella" against an Iranian attack to Israel AND the Arab states, she surely knows that the Arab states will demand an umbrella against a nuclear attack by ANY state...

She could say "fair enough", and go to Tel Aviv and say..."Seems ok to me. If you have objections, STATE them in public..."

There really are a LOT of possibilities in this, or am I just channeling Madeleine Albright?

What we got now is a situation where Israel can bomb the crap out of any nuclear reactor in Arab/Persian states any old time it wants to, yelling "Existential threat! Muslims with electricity!!!" every time.

Bush/Cheney/McCain would love to do the same to Iran but are confused that their puppets in Baghdad would probably kill off a few of our beloved troops in revenge. Or, maybe, lots of them.

In short, Ms. Clinton's promise to "obliterate Iran" if Iran attacks anybody with nuclear weapons it does not have, does not want, can't actually achieve for at least fifteen years, and is forbidden by its turbaned rulers to develop, sets the bar for an attack on Iran MUCH higher than it ever was.

It actually takes it off the friggin' table.

If the Syrians felt they had to have a nuclear program in 2001, which is what the CIA briefers claim, it doesn't seem likely they'd go to the NoKoreans. In Pakistan, A Q Khan was busily marketing a delicatessen of atomic devices. His approach involved Uranium Enrichment (centrifuges) instead of the conversion of Uranium to Plutonium which can be done with material bought on the open market. One would think that sneaking NoKorean heavy equip't past the Mossad into the EasternMediterranian ports that Syria is limited to would not be likely.

I agree, we have seen interesting pictures and a significantly dangerous scheme. And then the Bush Administration says 'Trust us!' Even they cannot think they have any credibility left.

Something important is happening. But I think it's happening within the Administration and it's likely that Cheney and other chickenhawks are playing with us. Trying to destroy Rice's negociations with NoKorea? Torpedoing a Syrian-Israeli contact? Distraction from the recent Israeli-spying scandal? All of the above?

wobbly: Despite all the screeching from her detractors, a formal agreement that allows the Arab states and Iran to develop nuclear technology transparently, under UN inspection, is possible under this "umbrella" of deterrence.

Clinton's proposal has nothing to do with an "agreement that allows the Arab states and Iran to develop nuclear technology transparently, under UN inspection".

There's already such an agreement. It's called the NPT (more specifically, IAEA Safeguard Agreements, and specifically the Additional Protocol).

In that respect, Clinton's proposal takes nothing off the table, and does nothing to address the underlying problems.

Whatever it takes to get Bushie and Western oil contractors to leave. It's a fight for freedom via freedom fighters to live free of ugly Westerm oil contractors greedy demands, and Western oil contractors gross love of screwing Mideast people over again and again and again. Freedom IS a nuke, cause that is the only power Merika understands about democracy.

Can't fault them for that desire, can we now?

It isn't enough to say "this picture looks like that picture." Even if I believed the evidence was genuine, and not generated by Curveball's cousin SpitBall, I'd like to know whether there are other types of systems that look like that. Maybe an anti-vibration base being set up for heavy machinery for manufacturing explosives?

How anyone can still take a photo as evidence OF ANYTHING given what you can do with Photoshop is just laughable.

hi people im syrian living in syr i think u dont know de sittiuation in de middle east if u look today to de news u will see enoffe killing that will make u people feel sick it is what is going on in lebanon it will be onther bloody war there and that what western countryes want it is f****n sittiuation i want one of u to come and see de suffering of these communities when they are killing each other christian sunnis shiias .... ets it is all will gona dye in this war .bye