US
And Israel Maintain Menacing Silence Over Air Raid On Syria
By Peter Symonds
17 October, 2007
WSWS.org
More
than a month after Israeli warplanes attacked a target in northern Syria,
there are few firm facts and a great deal of conjecture about this unprovoked
act of aggression. No official statements have been made by the Israeli
government or the US administration. Syria has protested the attack
but provided scant information. Earlier this month, Syrian President
Bashar Assad said only that an unused building “related to the
military” had been bombed on September 6.
The New York Times on Monday
added to the speculation by claiming that the site was “a partly
constructed nuclear reactor apparently modelled on one North Korea has
used to create a stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel”. Based on
information from “unnamed American and foreign officials”,
the article provided limited detail, stating that it was still unclear
how much progress had been made on the reactor, what was to have been
the reactor’s purpose, or what North Korea’s role had been.
The article followed previous
leaks in the US press claiming that Israel had struck a nuclear facility.
In particular, former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton stridently
condemned what he claimed was North Korean-Syrian nuclear collaboration.
This demonstrated, he declared, that Syria should be inscribed in the
Bush administration’s “axis of evil” and that negotiations
with North Korea over its nuclear programs should be ended.
All these allegations, which
have been denied by Syria and North Korea, have to be treated with considerable
caution. The capacity of Israel and the US to spread misinformation
and fabricate lies and half-truths as the pretext for war is well-established.
The latest accusations against Syria recall US and British claims prior
to the 2003 invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein had plans to import
uranium from the African country of Niger. As it turned out, the documents
used to “prove” the case were forgeries.
What is significant is that
the New York Times article establishes that the Bush administration
was well aware of the Israeli plans for an air strike. According to
the newspaper’s sources, the partly constructed Syrian reactor
had been detected earlier in the year by satellite photographs after
being brought to American attention by Israel. “There wasn’t
a lot of debate about the evidence,” a US official told the newspaper.
“There was a lot of debate about how to respond to it.”
The story also confirmed
that Bolton was acting as the public mouthpiece for Vice President Dick
Cheney and the Bush administration’s hard-line militarist faction.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary Robert Gates
“were particularly concerned about the ramifications of a pre-emptive
strike in the absence of an urgent threat.” Cheney and supporters
not only backed the Israeli attack but insisted that the US had to take
a far tougher stance against both Syria and North Korea.
Behind closed doors, the
New York Times explained, “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 towards
Syria, which has been invited to join Middle East peace talks in Annapolis,
Md., next month.”
The Bush administration undoubtedly
gave tacit approval for the Israeli attack, but its subsequent actions
indicate that it did not regard the Syrian target as a serious threat.
The US took part in six-party talks with North Korea earlier this month,
and reached an agreement with Pyongyang over the disabling of its nuclear
facilities. At the same time, Rice reaffirmed an invitation to Syria
to attend the Middle East talks in Annapolis—an offer that Damascus
is unlikely to take up at this stage.
The most striking aspect
of the New York Times article is the most obvious: all factions of the
Bush administration, along with the newspaper itself, accept Israel’s
naked aggression against Syria as legitimate. In 1981, when Israeli
jets attacked and destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak,
even the right-wing Reagan administration, in response to international
outrage, felt compelled to issue a formal protest. Today, however, there
is not a murmur of opposition from the White House, the Democrat congressional
majority, or the media over Israel’s latest act of war.
Even if Syria had been constructing
a small nuclear reactor, its actions would not have been in breach of
its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Signatories
are required to demonstrate that their programs are for peaceful purposes
and to notify the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) when new
facilities are due to be completed and come on line. The IAEA stated
on Monday that it had no evidence of any undeclared atomic plant in
Syria.
Threat to Iran
The real purpose of the raid
and the subsequent tight-lipped official silence was to send a menacing
message throughout the region that the Israeli state can and will strike
without warning against any target as it sees fit. In the wake of its
humiliating military setback last year in southern Lebanon, Israel has
been determined to reassert its military superiority. While refusing
to speak about the nature of the Syrian target, a senior Israeli official
told the New York Times the strike was intended to “reestablish
the credibility of our deterrent power”.
Moreover, as several analysts
have pointed out, the chief target of the Israeli threat was not so
much Syria, but Iran, which has a far more sophisticated nuclear program.
Since the beginning of the year, the Israeli government has been warning
that it will not tolerate the completion of Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Like the US, Israel has dismissed Iranian claims that its nuclear programs
are for peaceful purposes. The New York Times reported in June that
Shaul Mofaz, Israel’s transportation and former defence minister,
told US Secretary of State Rice that any sanctions regime had to end
Iran’s uranium enrichment program by the end of the year. If not,
he warned, Israel “would have to reassess where we are”.
What little information is
available about the September 6 raid suggests that the Israeli air force
deployed its most advanced jets, which are capable of striking Iran
and returning. The Turkish military recovered at least one jettisoned
long-range fuel tank inside its territory. An article last month in
the Sunday Observer suggested that the operation was a trial run for
an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. By probing Syria’s defences,
the Israeli air force may have gained important data about Iran’s
capabilities. Both Syria and Iran bought and installed Russian air defence
systems this year.
More significantly, Israel
was able to test the political waters. Its September 6 attack provoked
no criticism from the European powers or in the Middle East. Since the
start of the year, the Bush administration has been seeking to consolidate
a coalition of so-called moderate Middle Eastern countries against Iran—including
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf states. By directly attacking
Syria, Israel, with US support, may have been seeking to weaken Syria’s
current alliance with Iran.
What was actually destroyed
on September 6 in northern Syria remains the subject of debate. Efraim
Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan
University, told the Los Angeles Times this week that the site was an
unlikely venue for a project of such significance. “The location
of such a site I don’t think would be the best place. It’s
too close to Turkey and Iraq. I have my doubts,” he said.
A Middle Eastern security
analyst in Washington told the New York Times last week that Turkish
officials had travelled to Damascus to present the Syrian government
with a dossier on what was believed to be Syria’s nuclear program.
The analyst said Syrian officials had vigorously denied the intelligence
and said the Israelis hit a storage depot for strategic missiles.
US analyst David Albright
told Reuters on Monday: “A very real question is whether Syria
is technically and financially able to build such a reactor. It would
be hard to justify an air strike on a facility so early on in construction
and, if supplied by North Korea, unlikely ever to be finished. Israel
may have wanted to send a signal to Iran. The US wants to scare Iran
[off nuclear work] and this air strike might have been a way to do it,
and explain some of Israel’s secrecy.”
Much more significant than
the identity of the Syrian target is the menacing threat of a broader
war that could engulf the region.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.