An Israeli air attack on an alleged Syrian nuclear site may have been a dry run for an attack on Iran, writes Tony Kinsella.
Early in the morning of September 6th last, at least four Israeli warplanes roared along the Syrian-Turkish frontier to near the Syrian town of Deir-Ez-Zor on the Upper Euphrates, less than 100km from the Iraqi border, in Syria's Kurdish region. The aircraft all returned safely.
The New York Times broke the story on September 12th, citing unnamed US officials as confirming that an Israeli raid on Syria had taken place, and hinting that the target had been nuclear elements from North Korea.
The Syrian ambassador to the US, Imad Moustapha, told Newsweek magazine on September 14th that Israeli aircraft had jettisoned weapons near Deir-Ez-Zor, and external fuel tanks over neighbouring Turkey. Turkish sources later confirmed the fuel tank report.
The Sunday Times of London ran the story on September 16th: "Israelis blew apart Syrian nuclear cache - secret raid on Korean shipment". This story had long-range Israeli F-151s working with a Shaldag commando unit on the target ". . . that purported to be an agricultural research centre on the Euphrates river".
Charles Krauthammer joined the fray in the Washington Post on September 21st, emphasising earlier reports of a North Korean freighter that had unloaded in the Syrian port of Tartus three days earlier, and claiming the Israelis had tracked its cargo to Deir-Ez-Zor. Fellow Post columnist, Jim Hoagland, added a significant element by claiming on October 7th that: "the Israelis have provided the United States with photographs, physical material and soil samples from the site".
In Israel there was an official blackout. The Israeli military prohibited any mention of the raid, including reporting of "alleged" actions or foreign coverage. Any reference to the censorship instructions was also banned.
The ban was partially lifted following a bizarre story in the Yedioth Ahronoth. Its September 26th edition carried a report by award-winning columnist Ron Yen-Bishai who had visited not only Syria but the town of Deir-Ez-Zor. Yen-Bishai, despite being photographed in front of the town's agricultural research centre, did not actually see any bomb damage.
Opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu then claimed on Israeli television that he had "been involved from the beginning" in planning the air strike.
The Syrian response has also been muted and confusing. Syria and Turkey protested to the UN. Syria circulated a draft resolution condemning the raid, but did not press for it to be debated. In an interview with the BBC the Syrian president Bashar Assad went a step further, claiming that Israel had bombed a disused military building.
On October 9th Damascus invited foreign journalists to visit the supposed target, the Arab Centre for Studies of Arid Zones in Deir-Ez-Zor. The visitors described the centre as drab but undamaged.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director Mohamed ElBaradei told Le Monde the IAEA was studying various images and had asked for further information but they had "zero information" confirming the US media stories.
The Israelis almost certainly bombed something they believed might, in four to five years, produce nuclear materials. Why did they not wait to first build a case? Why has Damascus not managed to get its story straight?
Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert told Ha'aretz as far back as 1999 that Syria "has surface-to-surface missiles that are neatly organised and can cover the whole country with nerve gas". Most observers agree Syria lacks the funds to even begin a nuclear programme. Syria has long enlisted North Korean help in updating its Soviet-era Scud missiles. Could the raid have sought to suddenly interdict this co-operation?
Syria's surviving airforce is small and largely obsolete. Although its air defence systems are slightly better, Israeli aircraft regularly penetrate Syrian air space. Israel has nothing to prove here.
The US and Israel co-operated in the development of long-range F-151 and F-161 strike aircraft in response to a potential Iranian threat. Could the September 6th sortie have been an enhanced training mission?
The very essence of Israeli defence is to celebrate its audacious exploits and demonstrate its technical superiority. Why then the censored silence on this Syrian sortie?
If Olmert's embattled government was seeking to embellish its tarnished military credentials to sweeten the pill of concessions at the forthcoming Annapolis peace talks, then the (possibly) shredded orchards and barns of Deir-Ez-Zor could be good news. If not, they could be very bad news indeed.