Syria is taking the ruins of the “unused military buildings” that were bombed by the IAF, and putting them where the IAEA will never find them. (Of course, they could FedEx them to Mohammed El Baradei, and he still would be unable to find any evidence of Syrian nukes, but that’s a different post altogether.)
Syria has begun dismantling the remains of a site Israel bombed Sept. 6 in what may be an attempt to prevent the location from coming under international scrutiny, said U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the aftermath of the attack.
Based on overhead photography, the officials say the site in Syria’s eastern desert near the Euphrates River had a “signature” or characteristics of a small but substantial nuclear reactor, one similar in structure to North Korea’s facilities.
The dismantling of the damaged site, which appears to be still underway, could make it difficult for weapons inspectors to determine the precise nature of the facility and how Syria planned to use it. Syria, which possesses a small reactor used for scientific research, has denied seeking to expand its nuclear program. But U.S. officials knowledgeable about the Israeli raid have described the target as a nuclear facility being constructed with North Korean assistance.
In an example of presenting both sides of the issue, the WaPo writers have given us an unintentionally funny couple of paragraphs. Please note that I am not making fun of the writers. This is actually an example of good journalism. But it’s hilarious without meaning to be.
While expressing concern over the prospect that Syria may have decided to launch a nuclear program in secret, some weapons experts question why neither Israel nor the United States made any effort before the secret attack — or in the six weeks since — to offer evidence to the International Atomic Energy Agency, a move that would trigger an inspection of Syria by the nuclear watchdog.
“The reason we have an IAEA and a safeguard system is that, if there is evidence of wrongdoing, it can be presented by a neutral body to the international community so that a collective response can be pursued,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. “It seems to me highly risky and premature for another country to bomb such a facility.”
Hm. Why not bring the Syria case to the IAEA? Let’s think. Can we think of another Middle Eastern country that has a secret nuclear weapons program? One that the IAEA has consistently certified as “peaceful” even when presented with evidence to the contrary, or when refused oversight that would prove whether or not it was meant to produce nuclear weapons? Think, think, think. The name of the country begins with an “I.”
But John R. Bolton, the Bush administration’s former ambassador to the United Nations, said Syria’s secrecy — including its apparent move to clean up the site after the bombing — suggests that Damascus is pursuing a strategy similar to that of Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. Bolton said Iran once attempted to conceal nuclear activity from IAEA inspectors by bulldozing nuclear-related buildings and even digging up nearby topsoil to remove all traces of nuclear material.
“The common practice for people with legitimate civilian nuclear power programs is to be transparent, because they have nothing to hide,” Bolton said.
Really, this is a well-written story, and the way that reporting should be. I’ve had my problems with Robin Wright in the past, but I have no problems with this particular article. Kudos for objectivity and fairness, as well as thoroughness on the subject.