Just when you think you have time to worry about what Michael Phelps is smoking, there's always somebody out there coming up with something more pressing, something you hadn't even thought about lately.
Like Syria and Weapons of Mass Destruction. So you thought the Israelis had taken care of that with the strike on the nuke facility? Well, think again, according to Jane's, which sent me a release today about the following:
IHS Jane’s examines satellite imagery
London (18th February 2009) – Jane’s Intelligence Review used satellite images from commercial sources gathered between 2005 and 2008 to examine activity at the chemical weapons facility identified as Al Safir in northwest Syria. Imagery from DigitalGlobe’s WorldView-1 satellite and GeoEye’s IKONOS satellite shows that the site contains not only a number of the defining features of a chemical weapons facility, but also that significant levels of construction have taken place at the facility’s production plant and adjacent missile base. This does not suggest that Syria is arming itself for an offensive, but it could have regional security implications given Syria’s tension with its neighbour, Israel.
One of the clearest indicators that Al Safir is a military facility as opposed to a civilian industrial complex is the level of defences protecting the site. The facility is accessed only through a military checkpoint and each element within the facility has an additional security point.
Christian Le Mière, editor of Jane’s Intelligence Review, explained: “Construction at the Al Safir facility appears to be the most significant chemical weapons production, storage and weaponisation site in Syria. Its presence indicates Syria’s desire to develop unconventional weapons either to act as a deterrent to conflict with Israel or as a force enhancer should any conflict ensue. The satellite imagery that IHS Jane’s has examined suggests that Damascus has sought to expand and develop Al Safir and its chemical weapons arsenal.”
LeMière concluded: “Further expansion of Al Safir is likely to antagonise Israel and highlight mutual mistrust, even as peace talks between the two neighbours progress intermittently. Although an Israeli air strike on the facility may not yet be likely, such developments only serve to underline and exacerbate regional tensions.”
###
Actually, I'd tell you more but you have to subscribe to Jane's to get more. And I've got enough to worry about… They even offered me a contact number in case I wanted to see the satellite image. But I just don't have time to spend half a day shaking off surveillance, doubling back on my tracks, to meet a guy in Lisbon with a magazine in his left hand who will say, "Do you like good curry?," to which I have to remember the right thing to say or he'll garrote me.
Even if I went to the trouble, bud still wouldn't believe me that the WMD exists…
Related Posts
By the way, speaking of international intrigue, here’s something I had not heard about that I ran across in looking up a link for that post: The Sunday Times reported that IDF commandos on the ground had actually obtained nuclear material from that Syrian site before the 2007 airstrike. So they weren’t just acting on a hunch, apparently…
So when we get reports of potential nuclear proliferation, what do we do? We send Joe Wilson, who comes back and reports one thing about yellowcake, then later tells the world he actually reported something else, and we have a big spitting match over his wife, and Scooter Libby goes to jail.
Whereas the Israelis just go in and GET some of the stuff…
Or at least, that’s what they did if you believe a British source. Which, come to think of it, is where we started on that yellowcake thing…
Well Brad, did we or did we not find significant quantities of WMD in Iraq? Maybe I missed something but I’m not the only one who believes none were found.
So what do you propose we do about it if WMD are found? Sometimes it’s best to do nothing. In this case the best way to maintain our security is to do nothing.
Actually, I think the best plan is to do what we did, in the case of the Syria nuke plant. Go read the Times piece referenced above. The Israelis wanted to bomb; Washington refused to bless the action. So Israel sent some people in to GET some of the stuff, brought it back and said LOOK, Washington, this stuff’s from North Korea… And so Washington said OK, go ahead, and the Israelis blew it up.
What to do about this latest thing I don’t know yet, but I’m sure the Mossad and/or the Sayeret Matkal are working on it, and Washington’s probably waiting to see what they turn up. It’ll be interesting to see whether Obama gives the go-ahead should it come to that.
I don’t even know what KIND of chemical weapons we’re talking about here, since I’m not a Jane’s subscriber.
As for Iraq… I look forward to the day when we can put the politics behind us and find an answer to the question of what actually happened to the WMD that we knew were there, and which Saddam had used previously. Of course, one of the theories is that it ended up in Syria, but I have no idea.
Remember I mentioned on a previous post watching the HBO series “Generation Kill,” based on a book I read awhile back about a group of Marines in the Iraq invasion? Those guys spent day after day suffering in those MOP suits, to be prepared for the chemical attacks that everyone expected. Bet they’d like to know where the WMD went…
It wouldn’t surprise me if Syria had these weapons capabilities or something close to it. The whole region is a powder keg; let’s not forget that Israel also has weapons of mass destruction…the Syrians, Palestinians, and Iranians certainly are not forgetting that and everything they do is influenced by that fact.
I’m not worried about what Israel’s going to do with its nukes (any more than I am about what, say, the French will do with theirs). I AM worried about what Iran/Syria/Hizbollah/Hamas would do with them.
One side talks about obliterating a race of people. The other side is into survival.
Would I prefer that Israel not have nukes? I think I would. Nuclear proliferation is dangerous even if you trust the people holding the nukes. Too many countries have them, you have too many changes for things to go wrong. The risk increases exponentially.
I’m reminded of a conversation I had with Al Gore back in the early 80s, when he was in Congress. He was explaining to me why MIRVs were dangerous (Al always loved to explain technical stuff). As he explained with a diagram on a legal pad, each missile with extra warheads increased the threat exponentially (or is the term geometrically, or logarithmically? I forget).
The same is true of nuclear proliferation, to a certain extent. Each new player with nukes increases the chances of a nuclear confrontation NOT by one, but by however many potential flashpoints and misunderstandings it might have with its neighbors — and if any one of THEM has nukes, well it just gets too complicated to follow. It’s like the metaphor used to explain critical mass — too many mousetraps with ping-pong balls on them in the room, just waiting to set off all the others. (Here’s a demonstration of that on video, by the way.)
So, while I reject the moral equivalence implied by saying, “The Israelis have them too,” or “We have them, too,” I also think it’s important to point out that proliferation is dangerous per se, whoever has them.
Of course, it’s too late to worry about the Israelis having nukes, if one is so inclined. So now I’m worried about their adversaries having them.
This horse is dead and starting to stink like hell. Time to throw lime on it and let it finish decaying like all other dead things without the smell of politics and ideology eminating from the carcass.
BOTH sides, I repeat, BOTH sides were convinced Saddam Hussein had WMDs and was ready to use them at any given moment. He had proven his willingness to do so on more than one occasion as evidenced by photographic and first hand witnesses by his own people. The son of a bitch purposely let the world believe he possessed WMDs. He didn’t let his closest advisors or friends in on the fact that he was lying. He admitted this during interrogations and questioning after his sorry ass was dragged from a hidey hole. What is it that people still don’t understand or comprehend about facts?
There are recorded comments and speeches by PROMINENT DEMOCRATS who were on the firing lines supporting these beliefs and in the case of Bill Clinton, he stated with absolute certainty that he knew Saddam Hussein had WMDs before and after he left office. If anyone other than Bush had access to intelligence about Hussein’s WMDs, it was Bill Clinton.
Joe Wilson is a two-faced liar of the worst kind. Which story are we to believe? His written report or his story for money to the press? There is always some latter day opportunist coming forward with his or her tale of “an early warning” scenario. Another book writing advisor paid for his early retirement by publishing his memoirs as well. Wilson’s wife was well known around DC as an employee of the CIA and if her missions were “covert”, we need protection from ourselves, not our enemies.
Of course, the usual replies will come back about how Bush “lied” and used favorable information to sell the invasion of Iraq. When in hell has a politician NOT used favorable information to sell something?
We went in. We did not find the WMDs expected. We did not use adequate forces to secure the country. We turned the country over to an incompetent jerk who knew nothing about the country, culture, or need for structure after toppling a dictator who had been in power for 30 years. We made a lot of mistakes.
No one wants us out of Iraq any more than I do. I have a potential dog in this fight and would prefer my son not have to go. But, if he does, it was his choice because he volunteered a long time ago and has had the choice to resign on a couple of occasions.
There were components not assembled or processed into WMDs found in mass quantities. There were mobile facilities that could be used to process the components into chemical WMDs.
When is enough, enough? He fooled the entire damn world for years because he demonstrated during his reign of terror that he was capable of doing anything, anywhere, to anyone.
Our time in Iraq is drawing to an end. Let us leave without our tails tucked between our legs like we did in Vietnam. We have an opportunity right now to foster and support a democracy in the Middle East. How did you feel the first time you cast your vote? Imagine how it felt for the average Iraqi when he or she cast a vote for their leaders for the first time in their history.
When you realize a mistake was made, you don’t run from it, you try to correct it and come up with a good solution. Instead of doing that, BOTH sides have engaged in a constant contest of pissing on each other’s feet. All we may have to show for our efforts are stinky, yellow feet if not careful. And who the hell wants someone with stinky, yellow feet as an invited guest or advisor?
I apologize for the disjointed rant but enough is enough. Instead of the constant harping, maybe if we as a country were to encourage the Iraqi people with some unity for what is actually the best for them and let them know they have our support, maybe, just maybe we might get out sooner than expected.
Three weeks ago, an entire camp of Al Qaeda were killed by bubonic plague, but no one anywhere near them has come down with it. You don’t suppose they had some of Iraq’s stuff.
After all, we did find evidence of an active bioweapons program, and captured tons of chemical weapons( chlorine gas, mustard gas, phosgene and other nerve poisons), which were brought to the US and incinerated.
Brad, you speak of sides, as if there were just two; but there are many many sides in the mideast morass. And as for being into survival, it is not just the Israelis but the Palestinian people in general too, who are “into survival.”
As for Iraq… I look forward to the day when we can put the politics behind us and find an answer to the question of what actually happened to the WMD that we knew were there …
-Brad
Until you wacko right wingers, and yes I’m including Brad in that group, come to grips with the FACT that Saddam DID NOT HAVE WMD the we will never put politics behind us. He had them in the 80s when Reagan furnished him with the stuff but after the first Gulf war they were either destroyed or simply became too old to be of much use. The inspectors never found the stuff so by what criteria can you say “we knew they were there”. That’s right wing spin to support a war that never should have been fought.
When you have two enemies as powerful as the US and Israel, both with WMDs themselves, why wouldn’t you seek to get some yourself?
Especially if one of those countries (the US) has a history of meddling in your part of the world that includes overthrowing a democratically elected government in Iran.
I can’t imagine what Middle Easterners feel when they see the U.S. bomb targets in countries, killing innocents in the process. I can’t imagine what Middle Easterners feel when they hear U.S. leaders throw around reckless comments about bombing Mecca and Medina.
I believe that in a free country like ours you should have the right to defend your life and property (2nd amendment). Similarly I believe that for a country to be free, it has the right to defend its borders and its people.
Brad likes to talk about being in a position to have credibility on an issue. Well, the fact that America helped Israel get nuclear program takes away any credibility on the nuclear issue.
Look at the seeds we’ve sown over the years by selling so many weapons to that region. How can we have any credibility at all for peace and democracy over there?
Reagan propped up Iraq only enough to keep Iran from running over them and moving into the Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields.
The Pentagon budgets 2003-2008 include funds to transport and destroy 650,000 tons of WMD captured in Iraq.
Forget Phelps:Tiger Woods’ baby is UGLY!
Oh, yeah, the poor terrorists. Poor Hamas. Poor Ahmadinejad. The poor, dear things, just trying to mind their own business, not bothering a soul, but they need to develop nukes to protect themselves from the mean old U.S. and Israel, which just won’t leave them alone.
After all, the schools in the U.S. and Israel do nothing but teach kids to hate Arabs and want to kill them and wipe them from the face of the Earth, and holding rallies where everyone chants, “Death to Iran!” and “Syria is the Great Satan” … oh, wait, no — it’s the other way around, isn’t it?
Phillip, you’re right that there aren’t just two sides to anything. I preach against such a bifurcated, dualistic view of the world all the time, especially in domestic politics.
However, there ARE some people who preach a black-and-white view of the world, and those who hear that preaching act upon it. When the issue is whether Jews will be wiped from the face of the Earth, one is faced with either agreeing with that or not. One either goes along with that (either by aiding or ignoring it), or opposes it. If you choose to oppose it, then one can debate all day about the best way to oppose it (for instance, was the IDF going back into Gaza a good way or a bad way to oppose it?), and there many different views can come in — there are indeed more than two sides. But before you get to that point of debating the “how,” you have to decide whether you acquiesce with those who regard Jew-killing as a positive good, or oppose that goal…
I don’t think anyone will argue the point that Hussein didn’t have the WMDs he led the world to believe he had. The point is that he DID convince the entire world he had them and the entire world KNEW he had no hesitation to use them if given the opportunity.
He did by his own admission, have plans to reactivate his WMD program and seek nuclear weapon capabilities. This is not right wing rhetoric or fantasy.
The left wing denial is just as troubling. During the 90s, all we heard from the Democrats was how Hussein was resisting and in non-compliance with UN sanctions and inspections. Speech after speech delivered by Gore, Edwards, Clinton, and a long list of others.
If you want to look at who is responsible for “setting the table” for the “we knew they were there” expectations, look no further than your own party, the Democrats.
============================================
In his own words:
“People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.”
Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN’s “Larry King Live”
July 22, 2003
============================================
Now, is Clinton a right wing nut?
After all, the schools in the U.S. and Israel do nothing but teach kids to hate Arabs and want to kill them …
Nah,we don’t teach ’em nothin’.We wait for em to drop out of school and send em off to do some killin’.
Bart, you summed up the reality of the context when Democrats, led by Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi, authorized war with Iraq in 1998, and again for President Bush.
Hillary Clinton told the media in 2003 that she KNEW Iraq had WMD, not because of briefings by Bush, but because of what her husband and his advisors, like Leon Panetta, told her.
Oh, yeah, the poor terrorists. Poor Hamas. Poor Ahmadinejad. The poor, dear things, just trying to mind their own business, not bothering a soul, but they need to develop nukes to protect themselves from the mean old U.S. and Israel, which just won’t leave them alone.
After all, the schools in the U.S. and Israel do nothing but teach kids to hate Arabs and want to kill them and wipe them from the face of the Earth, and holding rallies where everyone chants, “Death to Iran!” and “Syria is the Great Satan” … oh, wait, no — it’s the other way around, isn’t it?
So an Iranian leader supports a Palestinian regime instead of an Israeli one. Big deal — we take the opposite position.
So Iranian leaders call US “the great Satan.” American leaders call Iran part of an “Axis of Evil.” Big deal.
Do you really believe most Iranians are out there screaming “death to America?” And do you not believe there are some equally ignorant Americans in this country who think we should just “nuke ’em all?”
Your failure to even attempt to see why the opposite side thinks the way they do is what’s wrong with the political culture in this country.
And let me clarify that my comments were not made to defend Iran; certainly their hands are not clean. Likewise, I am not saying that they are our equal when it comes to having a free and open-minded society.
But not “everyone” over there is chanting “Death to America” — not even close.
Also, can you provide a link to Iran’s school curriculum?
Today, we learn that Iran does have enough enriched uranium to build at least one atomic bomb.
Three weeks ago, Obama’s security advisor announced that Iran was 2 years away from having enough uranium for a bomb, and 3 years away from having a missile to deliver the bomb.
Two weeks ago, Iran launched that missile, and placed a satellite into orbit.
Query. Was it a communications satellite? Was is a weather satellite? Surely it was for peaceful purposes just like the enriched uranium will be used for no other purpose except in the production of power for the people of Iran.
I guess this will level the playing field for all who continue to make the argument that because we have one, they are entitled to have one too.
Gee, I wonder if their satellite is capable of monitoring our cell phone calls?
Sources Lee, sources.
If you don’t know the front page news, bud, stay out of the discussion. You have a responsibility to keep up. Maybe you shouldn’t vote, either.
Jul 9, 2008 … The United States and Israel condemn Iran after it test-fires a long-range missile capable of reaching Tel Aviv.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7498214.stm
Sources bud? If you are not aware of the long-range missle test, launching of a satellite, and the announcement by Iran about having enough enriched uranium, there is no longer a question about your credibility. It does not exist.
Even the perverbial “blind pig” found these acorns.
Amen, Birch. For a neocon like Brad or some of his fellow foreign-policy extremists on the blog here, to even be willing to try to understand the mindset of an adversary, or to even acknowledge that the average Palestinian person is just trying to survive too and does not necessarily share his government’s fantasy to annihilate Israel, is to somehow “acquiesce with those who consider Jew-killing as a positive goal.” Sigh…
Though Brad claims to “preach against a bifurcated, dualistic view of the world” that comment pretty much reflected one, seems to me.
Ahmedinejad is but one wing of Iranian politics. Hamas is but one wing of Palestinian politics. If we keep marching to the tune these folks continually set, we have no chance to advance the cause of peace in the Mideast.
Sorry about the spelling “gaffe”..Should be proverbial, not perverbial. See now, even us conservative nuts can admit a mistake when we make one.
Now that Phillip, whom I respect, has dismissed me as an “extremist” (sigh, whaddaygonnado?), let’s turn to the lighter side.
I just got to this e-mail:
Hi
I love the blog piece and the way you make me sound way more exciting than I really am. I have never met anyone in Lisbon yet and I have never garroted anyone but there is always a first time! Oh and by the way I am a girl not a guy! I have attached the full article and I hope I have not clogged your inbox too much but thought it would save us both the trip to Lisbon!
Best regards and any time you are in Lisbon ……………
Mandy
Mandy Castle
Public Relations Manager
Jane’s Information Group
To which I could only reply:
Thanks, Mandy. Your note gave me a smile at the end of a long week.
Should have known you were a lady. We international men of mystery tend to attract them.
Please keep the briefings coming.
Or maybe I should have said: “Stay away from me, Mandy. You seem like a sweet kid, and I’m nothing but trouble…”
Dang it. Why didn’t I think of that?
…only on foreign policy, Brad…it’s your blind spot, in my opinion. If I didn’t agree with you so often on domestic policy and state/local issues, I probably wouldn’t find your geopolitical views so perplexing. “Extremist” was a little strong, I grant you. My bad.
Phillip is pretty much correct, I think. Brad is great on domestic issues, and particularly on what is going on in our state. And he does have much knowledge of foreign affairs, but it is gleaned from his background as as military “brat” (I attach a positive meaning to the term), and is therefore one-sided. One has to get down out of the fort, off the ship, very definitely out of the 4 and 5-star hotels and meet the people on the ground, in order to see the real life in other countries.
Chemical weapon is use full to implement the satellite so we need chemical weapon
Christena
HD Access for just $10 a month to your FAVORITE Channels!