In the first dark hours of September 6, Israeli war planes scream in over the desert of Eastern Syria. On their way out they leave some presents -- fuel tanks -- right over the border in Turkey. It is not the first time since the hostilities of last summer that Israeli pilots have flown over Syrian territory, but this time is different. This time the fly-over went public, exploding in a complex stream of misinformation, puzzling silence, and, of course, conspiracy theories. But what was it that went bump in the Syrian night?
In the post below you can find a poorly written and partially complete time line of the events surrounding what we will call "the Bump". This time line focuses on newspaper sources and extraneous happenings that may relate to the Spin around the Bump. You can read this, and many other accounts and analyses, and draw your own conclusions. Or read on and let me Etch-a-Sketch my conclusions for you. You can be the Watson to my Holmes, or if it suits you better, the Hutch to my Starsky.
Background information:
Syria and Israel having been dancing around peace talks for months. Relations have been bumpy, but generally better since the end of the Second Lebanon War last summer. However Israel is very worried about Iran, an ally of Syria. Israel has stated it cannot allow a nuclear Iran, and would likely take military action to prevent this from happening. Syria recently purchased 50 units of the Pantsyr air defense system from Russia, 10 of which will eventually go to Iran. Turkey is on good terms with both Israel and Syria, but is nervous about the region resulting from recent internal instability and movements of the Kurds in Iraq towards independence. Russia is trying to make inroads in the Middle East, and former Soviet allies like Syria are prime targets. The US bogged down militarily in Iraq, but still tries to throw its weight around against any country not in line with it's anti-Islamist, pro-cheap oil, pro-Israel policies.
Now let us consider some of the oddities which draw attention to the Bump:
-There has yet to be a public statement by Israel or the US on this incident
-Israeli actions pre- (telling Damascus of draw-down of troops from Golan) and post- (calling for peace talks) Bump seem to be peaceful
-Starting on Sept. 11, a variety of American sources are quoted saying very different things (including first mention of nuclear cooperation with N. Korea)
-Despite nuclear gossip, US goes ahead with 6-party talks in Beijing -- talks which are then delayed by N. Korea
-Someone named Ronen Solomon discovered the mystery of the N. Korean ship the Al-Hamad, which was carrying "cement" and landed at Tartous in Syria 3 days before the Bump. The ship changed flags several times, and it's online records were doctored after the report came out. But who is Ronen Solomon?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is certainly a very interesting series of events. By looking deeper we may gain insight into the foreign and domestic policies of the countries involved. However there is a lot of what Dick Cheney would call fucking bull**** swirling around this incident, and it is through that fucking bull**** that we will wade. Ladies and gentlemen, strap on your galoshes.
What we know + What we can fairly deduce:
a. Neither Israel nor Syria acted like this was a hostile attack.
-Israel made moves towards peace, both before and after. They never offered any sort of official proof that Syria was doing something wrong. They never responded to Syria's mobilization of its reserves a few days after the Bump.
-Syria did, at one point, call it a "deliberate and hostile attack". But their outrage, if indeed genuine, was otherwise muted. Their official story remained that Israeli planes entered Syrian airspace, were targeted by their air defense systems, and fled, dropping the munitions and fuel tanks on the way out. Their official statements remained committed to peace and stability. Their biggest priority continued to be their international outreach campaign.
- Three possible conclusions:
1) That there was no real attack, that everything was blown way out of proportion, or
2) That there was a strike in Syria, but it was not hostile to the Syrian government, or
3) That there was a hostile attack, but both Syria and Israel had reasons to not talk about it or treat it that way
b. Neither US nor Israeli officials made public comments, and their private comments were all over the map
1) This makes it very unlikely that there was a successful strike against Syria, or anyone inside of Syria (unless there was a deal with Syria to keep it quiet)
2) The fact that newspaper sources were so disparate in their analyses means that: a) high-level sources to the top newspapers in the world did not know what was going on -- even a week afterwards, or b) those high-level sources were making things up to fit a political agenda.
It was probably some combination, but when NYT and Reuters stories are naming 3 or 4 different sources with 3 or 4 different stories, then it starts to smell a little fishy. Then throw the mysterious Ronen Solomon into the mix. Who does mass confusion help? Who is helped by nuclear rumors about the Syrians and North Koreans?
c. It is highly unlikely that the Israelis attacked a site of nuclear cooperation between Syria and North Korea
-First of all, it makes little sense that the Syrians would try to develop nuclear capabilities secretly. They have little to gain, and a lot to lose. Assad seems to legitimately desire peace with Israel and modernization for his country. While nuclear weapons are leverage against attack, developing them secretly is like walking around Israel with a swastika T-shirt: You're gonna get noticed, and you're gonna get your ass beat.
-Secondly, it makes little sense for North Korea to risk the six-party talks by sending nuclear material to Syria, especially with the ship landing while they were meeting with the US in Geneva. They have, admittedly, pulled some crazy shit in the past, but this just doesn't make sense. If they do have equipment or material they need to get rid of, it makes more sense to declare that stuff and use it as bargaining chips in the negotiations (as they have been doing for more than fifteen years).
-Lastly, it doesn't make sense that Israel and the US would know about this nuclear cooperation, never make a single public accusation, and then continue to act as if this cooperation did not effect their relations in any significant way. Even if the strike on this facility failed, you would think it would have some impact on relations between the two pairs of countries. And you wouldn't think the US would allow the nuclear accusation to get lost in the haystack of the rest of the theories.
- This theory also has a problem of guilt by association. Namely, John Bolton, Stephen Hadley, and Ronen Solomon. Bolton is publicly and vigorously against negotiating with North Korea, and he would not be beyond making wild accusations to scuttle the six-party talks. Hadley was associated with the same people who cooked the books on the Iraq nuclear intelligence, so he certainly is capable, and the neocons have always been suspicious of Syria. Solomon is simply an enigma. The timing and significance of his report are very suspect, as is the "I swear it said something different yesterday" excuse. I may not be his mother, but I am heretofore bestowing the nickname of "Yellowcake" on Mr. Solomon. Let's just hope he doesn't get mentioned in the State of the Union.
What does this leave us with? If there was indeed a deliberate bombing by Israel, it was probably with done with the knowledge, if not the support, of the Syrian government. This was a remote, unpopulated desert area on the border with Iraq -- perhaps it was some sort of Muslim Brotherhood-related terrorist group that Syria also wanted gone. I know it sounds crazy, but realpolitik has made similar "here today-gone tomorrow" Frankenstein alliances in the past. This would explain why no one made a big deal out of it -- except for the US and Israeli warmongers who jumped at the chance to make a huge deal out of it by dropping the N-bomb.
The other possibility, much less crazy, is that Israel was testing the Syrian Pantsyr air defense systems as practice for a possible strike on Iran. They may have bombed something, but it was of no real military importance. Everyone was then quiet because there was nothing much to say.
Perhaps in the coming days we will find out the real story. But don't count on it, my dear Watson.
No comments:
Post a Comment