Left Flank

Even with The Sunday Times' subsequent political thriller, I still have to agree with Kevin Drum's conclusion:

The whole thing is still murky, since everyone seems to agree that it doesn't really make sense, but it's now pretty hard to ignore. Either someone is dead serious about planting some disinformation about a Syria-North Korea nuclear connection in the press, or else there really is such a connection. I don't know what to think about it myself, but it's now officially a story to follow.

I doubt the evidence of North Korean-procured (or, perhaps North Korean-assisted) nuclear materials, because some American conservatives want to believe it, and Israel wants to embarrass Syria. It could really be the proof no one wants to accept, but then it also could be the spin that helps everyone get what they want before anyone finds out the truth. In the wake of the Iraq War, I will never accept the lack of an implausibility for the certainty that necessitates military action. And, in the wake of American intelligence failures, I will never accept a foreign intelligence source's conclusions just because the Central Intelligence Agency cannot conduct HUMINT.

But, what did happen?

Israeli commandos from the elite Sayeret Matkal unit-almost certainly dressed in Syrian uniforms-made their way stealthily towards a secret military compound near Dayr az-Zawr in northern Syria. They were looking for proof that Syria and North Korea were collaborating on a nuclear programme.

Israel had been surveying the site for months, according to Washington and Israeli sources. President George W Bush was told during the summer that Israeli intelligence suggested North Korean personnel and nuclear-related material were at the Syrian site.

Israel was determined not to take any chances with its neighbour. Following the example set by its raid on an Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak 1981, it drew up plans to bomb the Syrian compound.

But Washington was not satisfied. It demanded clear evidence of nuclear-related activities before giving the operation its blessing. The task of the commandos was to provide it.

Today the site near Dayr az-Zawr lies in ruins after it was pounded by Israeli F15Is on September 6. Before the Israelis issued the order to strike, the commandos had secretly seized samples of nuclear material and taken them back into Israel for examination by scientists, the sources say. A laboratory confirmed that the unspecified material was North Korean in origin. America approved an attack.

Another question I have is: why did The Times get the scoop, when on Friday, Glenn Kessler was still non-committal.

The Israeli attack came just three days after a North Korean ship docked at the Syrian port of Tartus, carrying a cargo that was officially listed as cement.

The ship's role remains obscure. Israeli sources have suggested it carried nuclear equipment. Others have maintained that it contained only missile parts, and some have said the ship's arrival and the attack are merely coincidental. One source suggested that Israel's attack was prompted by a fear of media leaks on the intelligence.

The Bush administration's wariness when presented with the Israeli intelligence contrasts with its reaction in 2002, when U.S. officials believed they had caught North Korea building a clandestine nuclear program in violation of a nuclear-freeze deal arranged by the Clinton administration.

A Boston Globe editorial considers «...that an Iranian arms shipment bound for the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon was the objective of the operation.»

Joshua Landis, after the September 6 raid, also quotes numerous offiicials in Israel, Syria, and the US. One theory put forth by the Syrian VP goes like this:

A number of commentators, including Syria's Vice President Sharaa, have speculated that Israel is being used by President Bush, but this operation could just as well be Bolton/Cheney/Olmert going around Bush and the State Department and elements of the government. They know they can do what they want with Israel and get away with it. In this context, it is not Israel doing our dirty work, but Olmert/Cheney/Bolton doing what they want while laughing at Bush.

The Economist echoed this line:

What Israel bombed and why is still unclear. The American reports suggest that it was weapons destined for Hizbullah, the Iran-backed Islamist Shia movement that dominates southern Lebanon, but these have been passing through Syria for years. One theory is that it was suspected nuclear material from North Korea (apart from Iran, North Korea was the only country to leap indignantly to Syria's defence); another, that Israel was trying out flight paths for a possible war with Syria or attack on Iran, or testing out new Syrian air defences that were reportedly recently supplied by Russia. Syria's own muted response and failure to retaliate suggest that whatever happened, it was most embarrassing.

Certainly, Israeli air force officers are said to be jubilant about the mission's success, though officials have stayed tight-lipped, and those Israeli journalists who hint that they know what happened aren't telling. Whatever the target, it must have been something special for Israel to launch an attack now, at a time when both countries have been building up their forces for a possible war while trying to reassure each other publicly that they do not want one. Indeed, having the leaks come from America rather than Israel may have been an attempt to avoid further escalation.

Kessler, in FP Passport, also offered this:

The story today reported that Israel shared this intelligence with the United States; it pointedly noted there are many questions about this intelligence and it has not been verified. Certainly, the official silence on this story has been striking, which makes it all the more puzzling.

The Boston Globe editorial also conjectures (and, Landis' post concurs):

One rationale for the silence may be that the raid delivered a message to Syria that does not need to be expanded upon. Indeed, the floundering public responses by Syrian officials make it appear the regime of Bashar al-Assad does not want the world to know, or even speculate about, which target the Israeli planes were after. And North Korea's suspicious condemnation gives the impression that Pyongyang does have something at stake - if not nuclear materials or engineers, then perhaps missiles or some other military export.

Indeed, CFR's Gary Samore is puzzled, too:

North Korea and Syria both deny the nuclear deal, but Syria has, despite announcing the Israeli raid, never said what actually happened.

Syria has always been an interesting case, because you would think a country in that position, faced with an enemy that has both conventional and nuclear superiority, would want to develop a nuclear option. That would make a lot of sense. But up to now the Syrians seem to have been content with a chemical and biological capability, which they would use as a deterrent against Israel. And it's always been curious that the Syrians have never, as far as we know, developed a nuclear weapons program, unlike many other Arab countries: Egypt, Libya, and so forth.

Joseph Cirincione, in the same post in which Kessler appeared, is also skeptical of a Syrian nuclear program.

I have been at the IAEA's General Conference in Vienna all week. No delegation has raised this issue in the conference. The last two times there were attacks on nuclear facilities?the Israeli Osirak bombing, and the Iraqi attack on Iranian facilities during the Iran-Iraq war?the attacks brought the conference to a screeching halt. This time, nothing.

I have spoken to dozens of experts and officials here, including American officials. None has any knowledge of any significant Syrian nuclear program or can imagine what sort of North Korean exchange with Syria would have constituted a nuclear threat worthy of an airstrike.

The last time American officials raised claims of suspect activities, in 2003, IAEA inspectors went to Syria for a «transparency inspection» and were given wide latitude above and beyond the official requirements of routine inspection. The inspectors accounted for all equipment and facilities and judged it improbable that key elements of the equipment could be diverted from the stated research use without clearly impacted the use for which they were intended. The claims, trumpeted by then-Under Secretary of State John Bolton, were baseless.

That two bloggers whose opinions I value have strong contrary opinions is only a symptom of the secrecy surrounding the September 6 raid and the plausibility of its nuclear revelation. ROK Drop taps into the Malkin echo chamber for confirmation, plus for news that the Bush administration is pushing sanctions against the DPRK. DPRK Forum is skeptical, but would err on the side of caution against the DPRK. It's no surprise conservatives cannot abide moral uncertainty regardless of facts, but their preference for the former has hardly been more damaging to American interests (i.e., being led around by Israel).

Even with today's supposed revelation, that the nuclear material recovered in Syria is «North Korean», there isn't the sort of official announcement one would expect from both Israel and the US if a link between the DPRK and Syria were verified. Nor do I expect such an announcement ever. Silence increases the value for Israel and the US of using the September 6 raid to make both the DPRK and Syria squirm for their two separate agendas. In other words, this is all a negotiating tactic, with bombs instead of words.

Objectively, I think the North Korea?Syria nuke story is buncombe. Both Damascus and Pyongyang are energetically trying to normalize relations with the United States, and not provide the U.S. with a casus belli to destroy their countries.
I think it?s more likely that the story represents a cynical attempt by Bolton and the hardliners to foment a new crisis in a new part of the world in order to justify their policies and expand their power.

This new initiative is necessary, I believe, because the previous boogeyman?nuke-wielding North Korea?has disappeared from the mainstream Washington radar since the denuclearization agreement is basically chugging along as planned, despite hardline efforts to sabotage it through the BDA fiasco.

It?s time to change the terms of debate or, if you would, move the battle to more favorable ground.

Dragging Syria into the North Korea equation replaces a venue in which the United State currently displays no appetite for risky confrontation?North Asia?with an arena much more hospitable to the hardliners?the Middle East--in which the United States is desperately pursuing unilateral high risk policies targeting Iran and Syria in an attempt to gain traction in Iraq.

So the Boltonian hardliners can wrongfoot the State Department moderates by hinting that Foggy Bottom is being snookered by the perfidious North Koreans. At the same time, welcome grist is provided for the anti-Syria mill as the Bush administration is trying to forestall French-led rapprochement with Damascus.

Something else worth reading is ACW's post about extracting uranium from phosphates.