That Israeli Air Strike in Syria

by CKR

We now know that Bibi Netanyahu supported Ehud Olmert in the strike, so apparently something happened. Netanyahu says that the action, whatever it was and he’s not saying, was important to Israel’s security. But he has always had a very expansive view of what Israel’s security includes.

The Washington Post today said that Israel and the United States consulted before the air strike. That seems to be the only new news in Glenn Kessler’s article, which repeats previous speculations and claims. However, Kessler admits

The quality of the Israeli intelligence, the extent of North Korean assistance and the seriousness of the Syrian effort are uncertain…

In other words, Kessler’s sources are vague (guarded?), and there may not have been much good intelligence on any side. It’s clear, however, that those sources find a connection between North Korea and Syria to be worth talking about. What we don’t know is whether that judgment is on the basis of intelligence or a hyping of very thin intelligence for political purposes.

The most plausible explanation for the raid I’ve found so far is Chris Nelson’s via Jeffrey Lewis. North Korea is not in a position to be exporting full-up nuclear weapons, judging from their nuclear test last October. They have been willing and able to export Scuds. The Israeli strike hit something that Syria doesn’t want to talk about, and that would include Scuds or other missiles.

One of Jeffrey’s commenters raises a point I’ve been wondering about: if the US and others knew that the North Korean ship was carrying Scuds (or nukes or whatever), why didn’t they intercept it at sea? The Proliferation Security Initiative has boarded ships at sea, although they don’t tell us a lot about it. Its charter (what they are willing to reveal of it) says that it is

aimed at stopping shipments of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), their delivery systems, and related materials worldwide

Scuds could be considered delivery systems or related materials. Further,

Actual interdictions will likely involve only a few PSI participants with geographic and operational access to a particular PSI target of opportunity.

Interdiction may take place

at sea, in the air, or on land.

The PSI’s Statement of Interdiction Principles can’t be found in the dead link from a US State Department page, but Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs comes through.

I continue to be suspicious that this is a PSI operation, and the intelligence sharing between Israel and the United States supports that. I also continue to suspect that something went wrong, from Israel’s (and the US’s?) viewpoint. Although there are some good aspects to PSI, like its ability to act quickly, its secrecy and resulting questions about the legality of its operations serve to undermine the trust that is necessary to international relations. If indeed it is stopping shipments of forbidden materials, we should know about that. Open announcements of its operations and their results would both confirm its adherence to international law and treaties while showing results in counterproliferation.

However, one more air strike by Israel against one of its neighbors continues Israel’s apparent lawlessness in pursuit of its security. Syria has already made this point.

Syrian and North Korean representatives have met in North Korea. This could be because of their cooperation that led to the air strike, or it could be because of the accusations against both. We can expect how the meeting will be spun by the various parties.

The next round of six-party talks on North Korea’s denuclearization, meanwhile, has been announced for next week. South Korea remains eager to continue the talks, and apparently whatever happened in Syria has not caused Christopher Hill or his bosses, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and President George Bush, to insist on ending talks, which one might expect to be the case if that was nuclear stuff from North Korea that Israel bombed in Syria. One might also expect North Korea to be in high dudgeon if it had taken losses from the bombing.

Other repercussions are being felt at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s 51st Annual meeting. It’s been customary over the years for the Arab states to introduce a resolution encouraging the formation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. Clearly the resolution is aimed at Israel. This year, however, a couple of amendments were added that forced a vote. Even though the measure was nonbinding, only two states of the 144 meeting in Vienna voted against it: Israel and the United States. However, 47 states abstained and 44 were absent.

Here’s part of the Israeli delegate’s statement:

…lamentably, some instances of gross and consistent noncompliance, mostly in our region, have not been initially detected by the [International Atomic Energy] Agency and have not as yet been checked by proper enforcement of corrective measures.

But he’s not talking about Israel.

…if left unchecked, these developments will undermine regional and global stability, while also posing a grave existential challenge to Israel. We can hardly remain oblivious to intensive efforts by some in our region to develop WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and their means of delivery, accompanied by sustained denial of the very legitimacy of our sovereign existence and calls for our destruction.

This puts the United States in an interesting position. According to the news report I’ve linked, the resolution called on all nations in the Middle East "not to develop, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons," and urged nuclear weapons states to "refrain from any action" hindering the establishment of a Mideast zone free of nuclear weapons. (The IAEA hasn’t posted the text of the resolution yet.) The United States voted against both of these provisions in voting against the resolution. The explanation, if anyone is pressed for one, will be that the United States was voting the politics of the resolution (Arabs picking on poor little Israel again) rather than the substance, which it thoroughly supports against Iran and Syria. But I doubt that any reporters are going to dig deep enough to prepare such a question for President Bush’s or Secretary Rice’s next news conference.

But other countries will take note of the hypocrisy.

The larger problem in Israel’s air strike and the secrecy surrounding it on the part of Israel and the United States is that it is part of Israel’s nuclear-backed swagger: hit anyone anywhere any time for any reason, and those 200 nukes help to convince them not to strike back. But we’re not supposed to mention those unmentionables, and all too often the media is complicit.