Israelis ‘blew apart Syrian nuclear cache’(Israeli SpecOps was on the ground to direct bombing )

IT was just after midnight when the 69th Squadron of Israeli F15Is crossed the Syrian coast-line. On the ground, Syria’s formidable air defences went dead. An audacious raid on a Syrian target 50 miles from the Iraqi border was under way.

At a rendezvous point on the ground, a Shaldag air force commando team was waiting to direct their laser beams at the target for the approaching jets. The team had arrived a day earlier, taking up position near a large underground depot. Soon the bunkers were in flames.

Ten days after the jets reached home, their mission was the focus of intense speculation this weekend amid claims that Israel believed it had destroyed a cache of nuclear materials from North Korea.

The Israeli government was not saying. “The security sources and IDF [Israeli Defence Forces] soldiers are demonstrating unusual courage,” said Ehud Olmert, the prime minister. “We naturally cannot always show the public our cards.”

The Syrians were also keeping mum. “I cannot reveal the details,” said Farouk al-Sharaa, the vice-president. “All I can say is the military and political echelon is looking into a series of responses as we speak. Results are forthcoming.” The official story that the target comprised weapons destined for Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Lebanese Shi’ite group, appeared to be crumbling in the face of widespread scepticism.

Andrew Semmel, a senior US State Department official, said Syria might have obtained nuclear equipment from “secret suppliers”, and added that there were a “number of foreign technicians” in the country.

Asked if they could be North Korean, he replied: “There are North Korean people there. There’s no question about that.” He said a network run by AQ Khan, the disgraced creator of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, could be involved.

But why would nuclear material be in Syria? Known to have chemical weapons, was it seeking to bolster its arsenal with something even more deadly?

Alternatively, could it be hiding equipment for North Korea, enabling Kim Jong-il to pretend to be giving up his nuclear programme in exchange for economic aid? Or was the material bound for Iran, as some authorities in America suggest?

According to Israeli sources, preparations for the attack had been going on since late spring, when Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, presented Olmert with evidence that Syria was seeking to buy a nuclear device from North Korea.

The Israeli spy chief apparently feared such a device could eventually be installed on North-Korean-made Scud-C missiles.

“This was supposed to be a devastating Syrian surprise for Israel,” said an Israeli source. “We’ve known for a long time that Syria has deadly chemical warheads on its Scuds, but Israel can’t live with a nuclear warhead.”

An expert on the Middle East, who has spoken to Israeli participants in the raid, told yesterday’s Washington Post that the timing of the raid on September 6 appeared to be linked to the arrival three days earlier of a ship carrying North Korean material labelled as cement but suspected of concealing nuclear equipment.

The target was identified as a northern Syrian facility that purported to be an agricultural research centre on the Euphrates river. Israel had been monitoring it for some time, concerned that it was being used to extract uranium from phosphates.

According to an Israeli air force source, the Israeli satellite Ofek 7, launched in June, was diverted from Iran to Syria. It sent out high-quality images of a northeastern area every 90 minutes, making it easy for air force specialists to spot the facility.

Early in the summer Ehud Barak, the defence minister, had given the order to double Israeli forces on its Golan Heights border with Syria in anticipation of possible retaliation by Damascus in the event of air strikes.

Sergei Kirpichenko, the Russian ambassador to Syria, warned President Bashar al-Assad last month that Israel was planning an attack, but suggested the target was the Golan Heights.

Israeli military intelligence sources claim Syrian special forces moved towards the Israeli outpost of Mount Hermon on the Golan Heights. Tension rose, but nobody knew why.

At this point, Barak feared events could spiral out of control. The decision was taken to reduce the number of Israeli troops on the Golan Heights and tell Damascus the tension was over. Syria relaxed its guard shortly before the Israeli Defence Forces struck.

Only three Israeli cabinet ministers are said to have been in the know – Olmert, Barak and Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister. America was also consulted. According to Israeli sources, American air force codes were given to the Israeli air force attaché in Washington to ensure Israel’s F15Is would not mistakenly attack their US counterparts.

Once the mission was under way, Israel imposed draconian military censorship and no news of the operation emerged until Syria complained that Israeli aircraft had violated its airspace. Syria claimed its air defences had engaged the planes, forcing them to drop fuel tanks to lighten their loads as they fled.

But intelligence sources suggested it was a highly successful Israeli raid on nuclear material supplied by North Korea.

Washington was rife with speculation last week about the precise nature of the operation. One source said the air strikes were a diversion for a daring Israeli commando raid, in which nuclear materials were intercepted en route to Iran and hauled to Israel. Others claimed they were destroyed in the attack.

There is no doubt, however, that North Korea is accused of nuclear cooperation with Syria, helped by AQ Khan’s network. John Bolton, who was undersecretary for arms control at the State Department, told the United Nations in 2004 the Pakistani nuclear scientist had “several other” customers besides Iran, Libya and North Korea.

Some of his evidence came from the CIA, which had reported to Congress that it viewed “Syrian nuclear intentions with growing concern”.

“I’ve been worried for some time about North Korea and Iran outsourcing their nuclear programmes,” Bolton said last week. Syria, he added, was a member of a “junior axis of evil”, with a well-established ambition to develop weapons of mass destruction.

The links between Syria and North Korea date back to the rule of Kim Il-sung and President Hafez al-Assad in the last century. In recent months, their sons have quietly ordered an increase in military and technical cooperation.

Foreign diplomats who follow North Korean affairs are taking note. There were reports of Syrian passengers on flights from Beijing to Pyongyang and sightings of Middle Eastern businessmen from sources who watch the trains from North Korea to China.

On August 14, Rim Kyong Man, the North Korean foreign trade minister, was in Syria to sign a protocol on “cooperation in trade and science and technology”. No details were released, but it caught Israel’s attention.

Syria possesses between 60 and 120 Scud-C missiles, which it has bought from North Korea over the past 15 years. Diplomats believe North Korean engineers have been working on extending their 300-mile range. It means they can be used in the deserts of northeastern Syria – the area of the Israeli strike.

The triangular relationship between North Korea, Syria and Iran continues to perplex intelligence analysts. Syria served as a conduit for the transport to Iran of an estimated £50m of missile components and technology sent by sea from North Korea. The same route may be in use for nuclear equipment.

But North Korea is at a sensitive stage of negotiations to end its nuclear programme in exchange for security guarantees and aid, leading some diplomats to cast doubt on the likelihood that Kim would cross America’s “red line” forbidding the proliferation of nuclear materials.

Christopher Hill, the State Department official representing America in the talks, said on Friday he could not confirm “intelligence-type things”, but the reports underscored the need “to make sure the North Koreans get out of the nuclear business”.

By its actions, Israel showed it is not interested in waiting for diplomacy to work where nuclear weapons are at stake.

As a bonus, the Israelis proved they could penetrate the Syrian air defence system, which is stronger than the one protecting Iranian nuclear sites.

This weekend President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran sent Ali Akbar Mehrabian, his nephew, to Syria to assess the damage. The new “axis of evil” may have lost one of its spokes.

The “waste of time” was probably an ill-chosen phrase. I didn’t mean to suggest that the soldiers are wasting their time or anything like that. More that I think it’s a waste of resources. Not everything in Iraq. Going after AQ there, taking on the Pasdran, gathering intel against Iran, setting up stocks and depots and bases there for future action in the region is all very important. I don’t know if the nation-building aspect is and I don’t think that the bulk of our combat troops should be out on patrols and convoys day after day doing internal and police type operatins and civil things.

I have to think that there are more effecient ways to go after AQ then spending 500B+ every year, having 800+ killed and 5000+ wounded every year, having a large portion of our people working as beat cops, going on patrols, running the same IED and EFP laden convoy routes day after day, doing civil affairs programs, etc... How much does AQ spend? Iran? Iran is probably spending much less than 500B and is probably getting more for their money than we are for ours. Could some of that 500B be better spent going after AQ elsewhere. Could some of those 160K have more impact going after AQ elsewhere?

Do we really need 160K in Iraq to go after AQ? If sunnis and shiites in Baghdad want to kill each other, that isn’t necessarily bad news for the US. The Iran-Iraq war worked out pretty well for us after all.

Not that what they’re doing isn’t worthy but at the end of the day, I don’t really know if it is the best way to go after AQ and I don’t think it is

Are UBL and Zawahiri less likely to order further attacks because of schools in Iraq or because some new water treatment plant was built and the Ramadi city council had a safe meeting? Are their Golden Chain donors in the Guld less likely to use the hawalah and other Islamic systems to funnel millions because of pur patrols in Baqoubah?

Does anything done in Iraq affect the millions being trained in Madrassas in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Gulf?

Rumsfeld wrote a memo a ways back asking these questions and more

My point was that in the big scheme of things, going after high value targets like nuclear sites, missile sites, military infrastructure, top leaders, the Gulf financiers, etc... will do more to keep us safe from terrorism and future AQ attacks and to out a dent in the Jihad than building schools and nation building in Iraq will. Even if Iraq were to turn into Switzerland tomorrow, I don’t think that would have any big impact on AQ and the global Jihad and Iranian terrorism and the like.

Bush has pushed Iraq and made it seem as if victory in Iraq will be victory over AQ and the end of terrorism in large measure when I don’t think it will really have that much of an effect. I think he’s overemphasized Iraq to the detriment of other theaters and areas of concern and because of the unpopularity of Iraq and the problems there, it’s made it tougher to focus on those other areas and give them the attention they need.

I think we should doing more of that. Now maybe we are and you mentioned all the SOF activity and perhaps it’s not mentioned. But it would be nice every now and then to hear about something. It would also build support for the administration if the public was made aware of successes and visibile results of daring, movie-like ops as opposed to what’s happening in Iraq that unfolds slowly and takes years to work itself out.

The public like seeing stuff like Zarqawi’s house being blown up, Uday and Qusay being taken out by TOW missiles and tank fire. Publicizing a few of some of these successful ops would go a long way towards building public support and getting people more engaged in the war on terror.

The above are all points and I in no way meant impugn anyone’s integrity or anything and if you’ve read pieces by various ex-military or security analysts or anyone in the field or whatever many of them have voiced similar concerns.

Is the WOT best served by what we’re doing in Iraq or would it be better served by something that had less of a focus on nation-building and democracy in Iraq and more of a focus on going after AQ leaders wherever they are, the Golden Chain financiers, AQ training bases and camps, SOF raids and air and naval strikes using planes and missiles, Pasdaran assets and bases and missile sites, Iranian nuclear sites, etc...? Or some combination of both? I think we still have to figure out the right ratio.

Why is anyone associated with the Golden Chain still alive? Why are there AQ bases and camps in Pakistan when we know where they are and could take themn out tomorrow? I guess I’d just like to see more action taken apart from Iraq. Again, maybe it is and it’s being kept quiet.

But it seems like in many respects we’ve become so focused on Iraq that we’ve let up in other areas.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.