Monday
Jul142008
Israel’s airstrike on Syria still creating political puzzlement
Monday, July 14, 2008 at 12:22PM
The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) held a discussion on “Israel’s Airstrike on Syria’s Nuclear Reactor: Preventive War and the Nonproliferation Regime.” In September of 2007, Israel attacked what was rumored to be a partially constructed nuclear facility in Syria, and this facility has remained a subject of speculation in the months following the attack. Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, explained that there was very little information pertaining to this Syrian site immediately after the raid. Now, seven months after the fact, Kimball said U.S. intelligence believes that the site was a small nuclear facility under construction for Syrian military purposes.
David Albright, the president of the Institute for Science and International Security, said that Israel’s airstrike on Syria is a very strange and almost bizarre issue. Albright said that there was no doubt in his mind that a plutonium producing nuclear reactor was being constructed in Syria. He explained that there had been too much debate on whether a reactor was present and not enough discussion on whether Israel should have attacked the site in the first place. Albright also said that The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has not been paying enough attention to illicit nuclear trading; evidence had been obtained showing that Syria had used a North Korean trading company in order to get ahold of the nuclear materials needed for the facility.
Avner Cohen, a senior fellow at USIP, agreed with Albright and said the situation was “quite bizarre” and caused a lot of political puzzlement. Cohen explained that this attack was similar to Israel’s attack on Iraq in 1981, but also very different. In 1981, Cohen said that Israel attacked the Iraqi-an site on their own and acknowledged, defended, and justified their actions after the fact. The 2007 attack on Syria, however, was accomplished with communication with North Korea, and was not acknowledged. Cohen explained that not only did Israel not acknowledge the attack, but Syria also said nothing and made no complaints other than an air space violation. According to Cohen, this response of a “very loud silence” is the main difference between the two Israeli-an attacks.
Leonard Spector, the deputy director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, talked about the attacks correlation with Iran. He said that the deliberate silence following the incident does not serve as a “green light” for taking action in Iran. Spector also talked about the Six Party talks and explained that though these talks are making progress, they are still “a far way from home.” Spector said that construction of the nuclear site in Syria was under way during the Six Party talks and nuclear exports with North Korea were taking place during these talks.
David Albright, the president of the Institute for Science and International Security, said that Israel’s airstrike on Syria is a very strange and almost bizarre issue. Albright said that there was no doubt in his mind that a plutonium producing nuclear reactor was being constructed in Syria. He explained that there had been too much debate on whether a reactor was present and not enough discussion on whether Israel should have attacked the site in the first place. Albright also said that The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has not been paying enough attention to illicit nuclear trading; evidence had been obtained showing that Syria had used a North Korean trading company in order to get ahold of the nuclear materials needed for the facility.
Avner Cohen, a senior fellow at USIP, agreed with Albright and said the situation was “quite bizarre” and caused a lot of political puzzlement. Cohen explained that this attack was similar to Israel’s attack on Iraq in 1981, but also very different. In 1981, Cohen said that Israel attacked the Iraqi-an site on their own and acknowledged, defended, and justified their actions after the fact. The 2007 attack on Syria, however, was accomplished with communication with North Korea, and was not acknowledged. Cohen explained that not only did Israel not acknowledge the attack, but Syria also said nothing and made no complaints other than an air space violation. According to Cohen, this response of a “very loud silence” is the main difference between the two Israeli-an attacks.
Leonard Spector, the deputy director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, talked about the attacks correlation with Iran. He said that the deliberate silence following the incident does not serve as a “green light” for taking action in Iran. Spector also talked about the Six Party talks and explained that though these talks are making progress, they are still “a far way from home.” Spector said that construction of the nuclear site in Syria was under way during the Six Party talks and nuclear exports with North Korea were taking place during these talks.
How does the U.S. approach Iran?
"If the United States is able to set a new tone in context with the
relationship in Afghanistan and elsewhere I think in of that
itself will change the nuclear calculations of Iran's leadership."
said Karim Sadjadpour, an associate at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace.
In a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing titled "Iranian
Political and Nuclear Realities and U.S. Policy Options" witnesses
gave their recommendations on how the U.S. should approach Iran
concerning nuclear production. The hearing comes after a report
released by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stating that
Natanz, an Iranian nuclear plant, has gained enough reactor-grade
uranium to allow Iran to create an atomic bomb.
Sadjapour focused on three key options that he thinks the U.S. should
follow. The first being to commence the dialogue with Iran by aiming
to build confidence on areas of common interest such as Afghanistan
and Iraq rather than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the nuclear
issue. "Focus on Supreme leader in Iran, Khamenei not the President,
Ahmadinejad. If I had to describe him (Ahmadinejad) in one word, is
mistrustful...He believes that if you compromise you project
weakness." he said. Sadjapour also stated that it is imperative that
the U.S. maintain an airtight international approach saying that each
country should approach Iran with the same talking points.
Former U.S. Ambassador to Zambia and Egypt, Frank Wisner, said that Iran
is important, Iran is dangerous and Iran is urgent. "I do not believe
in the military option...there is no room for a military
response...the issues of national survival that are first and foremost
on Iran's mind gives me some hope that we can get traction if we chose
to engage and engage fully but I won't pretend for a moment that
dealing with Iranians will not be extremely tough. There will be many
setbacks and many deceptions...I personally welcome as I'm certain all
of us do, an appointment of a new special representative to take a
hard look at Iran and our foreign policies." he concluded.