Daily Kos

Israel Bombed Syria On Sept. 6

Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 06:01:00 PM PDT

A secret mission reportedly used eight fighter planes to destroy a nuclear cache:

"Israel has enforced a news blackout on what may be its air force's most audacious raid since its jets destroyed Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor in 1981."Source: Guardian

That secrecy unraveled in the last 24 hours and John Bolton was quoted in Haaretz as stating that:

"I think this is a clear message not only to Syria, I think it's a clear message to Iran as well, that its continued efforts to acquire nuclear weapons are not going to go unanswered."

Bolton would love to see more war in the Middle East. Most of the rest of us don't. More over the flip....

From the Sunday Times article that broke the story:

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.

The article speculates that the material was provided by North Korea, either for use by Syria in developing nuclear weapons or for hiding so North Korea could rebuild its nuclear program in the future.

Further speculation in the Guardian was that this raid and the seemingly coordinated leaks by Israeli and American sources is a precursor to a similar raid on Iran in the future. The neocons, led by John Bolton, are in full cry about the axis of evil working together. From this article:

It is an angle that has been pushed hardest by the neoconservative hawk and former US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton. But others have entered the fray, among them the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, who, without mentioning Syria by name, suggested to Fox television that the raid was linked to stopping unconventional weapons proliferation.

Most explicit of all was Andrew Semmel, acting deputy assistant Secretary of State for nuclear non-proliferation policy, who, speaking in Rome yesterday, insisted that 'North Koreans were in Syria' and that Damascus may have had contacts with 'secret suppliers' to obtain nuclear equipment.

And where did this intelligence come from? It seems Tel Aviv:

The opaqueness surrounding the nature of what may have been hit in Operation Orchard has been compounded by claims that US knowledge over the alleged 'agricultural site' has come not from its own intelligence and satellite imaging, but from material supplied to Washington from Tel Aviv over the last six months, material that has been restricted to just a few senior officials under the instructions of national security adviser Stephen Hadley, leaving many in the intelligence community uncertain of its veracity.

Hmmmm....

Can the Middle East ever find that elusive condition called peace? Is the violence in the Middle East spread further while the neocons are running our foreign policy? Can the US still be considered an honest broker in any Israel/Palestinian peace negotiations? Would a Democratic president have any different stance vis-a-vis Israel than the current administration?

Only time will tell.

Tags: israel, syria (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 92 comments

  •  Alms for a former TU (31+ / 0-)

    The thing that really gets me is the secret intelligence from Tel Aviv part. It just a little too like oher "intelligence" that we were fed leading up to the Iraq Quagmire.

    "In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." MLK, changed to this during the 2008 FISA fight

    by bewert on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 05:56:50 PM PDT

    •  I also like the "news blackout" part. n/t (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Rusty Pipes, ZappoDave

      "I suppose your guess is more or less as bad as mine." - The Replacements

      by turnover on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 05:59:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually. . . (9+ / 0-)

      as I recall, what little we heard in the lead up to the war that was attributed to Israeli intelligence was that Iraq posed no threat to anyone.

      Israeli intelligence is not known for the kind of shading that took place in the US.  I recall reading that they actually maintain a separate "Department of What If We're Wrong" which is charged with developing contrarian scenarios.

      So I suspect their internal intelligence is pretty accurate.  Of course they might put out false information that doesn't reflect their internal intelligence -- but the question is, what else would they want to hit in Syria that they would call nuclear material?

      I also note the lack of denial that nuclear materials were involved.

      John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

      by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 06:03:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

        D

        department of What If We're Wrong" which is charged with developing contrarian scenarios.

        If that ever caught on here it would be one busy department. Infact they could close all the other departments down.

      •  You sure about that? (8+ / 0-)

        Janes:

        Israel’s military intelligence service, Aman, suspects that Iraq is the state that sponsored the suicide attacks on the New York Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington.

        USA Today:

        Israeli intelligence overplayed the threat posed by Iraq and reinforced the U.S. and British assessment that Saddam Hussein had large amounts of weapons of mass destruction, a retired Israeli general said Thursday.

        AP/WaPo:

        A former Israeli intelligence officer charged Thursday that Israeli agencies produced a flawed picture of Iraqi weapons capabilities and substantially contributed to mistakes made in U.S. and British pre-war assessments on Iraq.

        The comments of reserve Brig. Gen. Shlomo Brom represented an unusual criticism of the Israeli intelligence community, long regarded as one of the world's best. Prior to his retirement in 1998, Brom served in Israeli military intelligence for 25 years, and acted as the deputy chief of planning for the Israeli army.

        "In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." MLK, changed to this during the 2008 FISA fight

        by bewert on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 06:20:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It may be this statement. . . (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Jay Elias, zemblan

          And recently, Moshe Ya'alon, Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff, told Ha'aretz: "In the long term, the threat of Iraq or Hezbollah doesn't make me lose sleep."

          quoted here from common dreams that I'm remembering -- although my original source is a dimly remembered radio interview with (I think) Sy Hersh way back around the time the war started.

          I presume this guy would be guided in his analysis by intelligence, although perhaps he was relying more on military intelligence than the civilian intelligence agency(ies), if indeed there is a distinction in Israel.

          John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

          by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 06:42:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So? (3+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Euroliberal, Rusty Pipes, Noah in NY

            Do I have you on record as saying that although Hezbollah is not exactly what one would call on the short list of 'friends of Israel' they are not a strategic threat?

            And everytime they are mentioned people shouldn't jump up and down and scream "We must attack, NOW!"

            ??????

            •  Assuming. . . (0+ / 0-)

              that they don't get their hands on extraordinary weapons, in capability or quantity, and that they're not able to field an actual army numbering in the tens of thousands, I certainly agree that Hezbollah poses no strategic threat to the existence of Israel.  I doubt there's a great deal of dispute over that.

              That doesn't mean that they can't kill quite of few people if they work at it.  In that sense they pose a strategic threat to any democratically elected government of Israel which will be voted out of office (and quickly, as things happen in a parliamentary system) if they take a lot of civilian casualties.

              In that regard, Hezbollah is to Israel like Al Queda is to the United States (if Al Queda had a big presence in Mexico).  No existential threat, certainly, but any government that expects to hold electoral power has to be seen as pursuing them.

              John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

              by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 06:53:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm glad you realize one aspect (2+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Euroliberal, Noah in NY

                That much of what Israel does to Hizballah is more internal politics than any actual threat Hizballah has to Israeli citizens.

                And yes, as Colin Powell said, Al Qaeda can not destroy our nation. Can't even come close.

                At least Hizballah can be moved. It is a mainstream political party that if it screws up, has to pay the political consequences. (Which Israel knows so well, which is why it tried to lay the blame on the massive attacks last year solely on Hizballah.)

                Isn't it time to stop the bullshit rhetoric on Hizballah and move them to peace?

                Or does no one in the US or Israel have the balls? Are we not man enough?

                •  Hezbollah. . . (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  brittain33, zemblan

                  are a political party in Lebanon, but that's a relatively recent development and only incidental to their original and main raison d'etre -- as a Iranian proxy in the movement to spread Islamic rule.

                  As such, they do indeed pose a substantial threat to individual Israeli citizens -- not to the existence of the state.  In addition, their leaders have stated that Hezbollah's intention is to strike not only Israelis but Jews wherever they're found -- and indeed, they've been implicated in attacks far from Lebanon.

                  As the political wing of a foreign sponsored military movement, if Hezbollah can be "moved" it will be extremely difficult.  They are certainly not "mainstream" (mainstream parties don't generally promote a platform of tearing down the governmental structure of the country and implementing religious rule).

                  There is plenty of bullshit rhetoric surrounding Hezbollah, but it's not restricted to one side or the other.

                  John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

                  by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 07:54:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You confuse early Hizballah with present (3+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    bewert, Rusty Pipes, Noah in NY

                    They have no intention of tearing down the the government. They semi-support Aoun (Christian) as President. They have fully backed the current the Christian President Lahud, and would have no problem with Christian LAF commander Sulayman as President.

                    They fully understand they are but a segment of society.

                    Does Iran support them? Yes. One must ask why. And how much. Why would a farmer in southern Lebanon give a damn about Iran? Could it be that the Hariri government hadn't spent a penny on them in decades? While at the same time enriching his coffers?

                    What has anyone done to the poor in the Lebanon to push them the other way other than threats?

                    I just watched a WWII show showing a German population that had been bombed to shit. They were adamant in their support for the war despite the bombings. Have we not learned? Do we still think we can bomb people into changing their minds? That takes nukes. And completely destroying a nation.

                    Prior to 1982, the Shi'ites as an entity had no anger towards Israel. This is not a long term conflict. The two events of the Israeli occupation and the Iranian overthrough of US puppet regime led to the uprising of Hizballah. It can change.

                    Now what do you do? Keep bombing them until they cry uncle? Better bring out the nukes. Cuz since the first attacks on Hizballah, they have only grown.

                    Or help into a democratic fold?

                    Guess which way is less painful and most likely to succeed. Don't look at Hizballah in the '80s (they don't, why should we?) or even Hizballah of today. What can we make of it. How can we make them part of society?

                    •  Actually. . . (2+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      brittain33, zemblan

                      I think you're confusing the real Hezbollah with a fantasy version on one hand, and the broader Shiite population of Lebanon who vote for Hezbollah on the other.

                      "Early" Hezbollah?  Has Hezbollah renounced their platform of Islamic rule?  When did they change from the "early" to the "middle" period?

                      I'm not in favor of bombing anybody (or, at least, anybody who's not bombing you at the moment), and certainly I'd like to see reconciliation in Lebanon -- the country that has suffered the most and in many ways has the most potential in the region.  But that doesn't change the fact that Hezbollah is primarily a militant Iranian proxy dedicated to Islamic rule, the destruction of Israel, and the death of non-Israeli Jews.

                      I'd be happy to see Nasrallah, for instance, sit down and negotiate with Israel.  From your description of Hezbollah (a mainstream segment of Lebanese society interested only in the wellbeing of the southern Lebanese Shiite population) he'd jump at the chance.  But I don't think so.

                      John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

                      by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 08:29:09 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  They have long renounced.. (0+ / 0-)

                        Every speech Nasrallah gives, it is about nationalism. The famous March 8th speech had Hizballah come out with Lebanese flags, not the flags of Hizballah.

                        In fact, the Angry Arab calls Nasrallah naive for not realizing just how many foreign governments are aligned against him and pressuring Siniora.

                        Militarily, they could have controlled the government. They haven't.

                        Yet at the same time, they have to be concerned of many factors:

                        1. US will not talk to the largest political block in Lebanon. Nor will it allow anyone else.
                        1. Israel conducts near daily overflights of Hizballah terroritory.
                        1. France continues to have closer ties to the Christian (and when Rafiq Hariri was in power, due to bribes to Chirac) and Sunnis.
                        1. The Saudis have strong media ownership and want a Sunni controlled government.
                        1. Despite being the largest segment of the population, the Shi'ite have the weakest voice in government. (Christian president, Sunni PM, Shi'ite speaker).

                        When looking at Hizballah, we conviently ignore all these foreign influences affecting Lebanon, and only deal with those our media tells us. And when Hizballah lashes out, we treat them as paranoid.

                        During this latest crisis, Hizballah has not demanded Shi'ite rule. They have simply demanded equal rule. You can not find anything in the last decade that shows that Hizballah wants to have a Shi'ite run country, except by people that want to scare the populace.

                        Hizballah could easily take control of the country, if that was their goal. Fatah Al Islam, which consisted of a about 100 or so devout Sunnis (with some Saudi help) withstood the government for 3 months. Hizballah is much stronger than that.

              •  You hit the nail on the head (0+ / 0-)

                If Hezbollah  continues to give Israeli governments problems the Israeli people just might elect a government that will make a sensible peace deal with the Palestinians, ending all chances of the rich right-wing hawks ever ruling the entire region. That would mean the end of Israeli Imperialism. Wouldn't that be a bitch?

                Dkos = democracy. The only problem is that both give voice to idiot and genius alike. Read an anti-Hillary diary lately?

                by JamesBrown4ever on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 10:07:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Past events... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...have shown that the opposite has happened. We had Israeli governments try to make peace in the 1990s, and violence pushed the electorate to put Ariel Sharon in as PM to replace them. It would be convenient for Hezbollah to be a force for peace through violence, so people who would like peace could support Hezbollah's private army with a clear conscience, but it is anything but.

          •  Hezbollah was the excuse for destroying Lebanon (5+ / 0-)

            Ya'alon may not lose sleep over it, but that doesn't mean Israel doesn't try to influence our foreign policy people.

            My concern is the the neocons in charge are a bit too close to their Iraeli counterparts. And that causes problems in relations with many other countries.

            "In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." MLK, changed to this during the 2008 FISA fight

            by bewert on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 06:50:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Feh. (6+ / 0-)

              The attack on Lebanon was a terrible thing, but I doubt anyone in Israel was determined to "destroy" Lebanon per se.

              The war was simply Olmert's only choice after the penis expander he bought on the Internet didn't do the trick of providing him with any of the "I'm a crazy motherfucker" street cred that Sharon had.  Like Bush, he undoubtedly thought that all he had to do was give the order and he'd be able to strut around acting like the baddest warrior on the block.  He wanted to kick some ass and, in the end, the wrong ass got kicked.  The difference between Israel and the US is that Olmert is at 3% approval, and Bush at 30%.

              John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

              by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 07:00:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  I remember reading an Israeli strategic analysis (0+ / 0-)

        ... in the fall of 2003 saying that if the US forces didn't drop what they were doing and use every man they had to seal the borders, the inflow of insurgents would make the war unwinnable by the end of that year.

        Which was right.

        In memory of Tom Disch.

        by zemblan on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 05:44:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Republicans (heart) proxy wars. (0+ / 0-)

    When Israel bombs Syria (and, soon, Iran I would imagine) no one can level the chickenhawk charge their way.

    "I suppose your guess is more or less as bad as mine." - The Replacements

    by turnover on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 05:58:13 PM PDT

  •  Since JOHN BOLTON!!!! said it.... (9+ / 0-)

    ....I doubt very much that the target was nuclear and that it was "supplied by North Korea". I believe there was an incursion into sovereign territory.

    But we don't respect the sovereignty of any country and, apparently, neither do the countries that receive billions in military aid from us.

    Please don't tell me you feel sorry for Ben. Ben is a well cared for dalmatian and has not been harmed by my political views.

    by Bensdad on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 06:08:38 PM PDT

  •  Answer to at least one question (6+ / 0-)

    Would a Democratic president have any different stance vis-a-vis Israel than the current administration?

    A Democratic president would have two choices. Be with the program, or be left in the dark. She (or just possibly he) will have the same choice with regard to US activity. "Do you want to KNOW that we're torturing people, or would you like us to tell you we've stopped?"

  •  Damn (0+ / 0-)

    almost makes one not want to read the news anymore.   Now explain to me again how reliable this intelligence was.  Did Israel have a wink and a nod approval from the Bush admin on this?

    Are there any reliable intelligence sources not associated with the neo-con cabal who can speak to the veracity of the "agricultural site" and what it contained?

  •  Good analyis (12+ / 0-)

    ..on the story from Gideon Litchfield, the Economist's Jerusalem correspondent.

    [..] Second question: is it true? Uzi Mahnaimi, the Sunday Times’s man in Tel Aviv, is a former Mossad man known for having excellent security sources. But as I’ve discussed before, journalists in that position are also susceptible to being fed misinformation and printing it, knowingly or otherwise.

    The operational details he reveals are probably accurate. The nukes claim, which seems to have been fed both to Uzi and to his Washington colleague, is more questionable. Newsweektoday reports that, yes, Israel showed satellite photographs of northern Syria to officials in Washington, suggesting that they revealed a nuclear project; but that other anonymous US officials "say they’ve seen no credible evidence yet of nuclear ties between North Korea and Syria".

    So the alternative view going around is that this news cycle is all part of a big conspiracy by Washington hardliners - with ex-UN ambassador John Bolton at the fore - and Israel to push the Iran-Syria-North Korea connection, with the media gullibly playing along.  

    [..] I’m suspending judgement. Launching an air strike at Syria, especially if there were indeed ground commandos, was risky. It’s hard to imagine Israel would have done it just to lend credibility to a neocon claim about nukes or prevent US-Syria dialogue (if anything, Washington is even more sceptical of Syria’s intentions than Jerusalem is). An alternative hypothesis is that Israel really believed that Syria might have the hot stuff, but only because the neocons led Israel by the nose. But I still can’t figure out why keep the Israeli media muzzled, unless it’s just that they’re less likely than the US press to buy into the spin. At any rate, stay sceptical. Not everything is clear yet.

  •  One has to remember that there are a lot of (6+ / 0-)

    official dis-information efforts afoot at any given time. A couple of red-flags for the analytical reader:
     * Quoting infamous neo-con John Bolton on anything...
     * References to SCUD missles, which did not prove that accurate in previous conflicts ...
     * Allegations that are unconfirmed that the North Koreans are involved, despite N.K's several year effort to engage in negotiations with the US on nuclear arms in exchange for promises to not be attacked ....
      * Offhand references to Hezbollah and Shiites, more as labels intended to inspire fear, than using any effort to provide some real analysis of the meaning of events, as one might get from veteran reporter "Mr. Robert" Fisk
      * The blind faith in Air Force bombing as a military solution, despite the evidence from, say Vietnam, that this is not a cure-all military solution  ...
      * The curious lack of reference to Syria's efforts to co-0perate in the GWOT (Global War on Terror), when in previous coverage, involving Guantanomo Bay prisoners, etc., Syria was cited as an ally in GWOT. If the US troops are on the ground in Syria (codes were exchanged to avoid "friendly fire on US troops), and assisting Israeli special ops units (the same ones that didn't fare too well in Lebanon last year?), doesn't that pose a problem with continued cooperation by Syria in the GWOT?
       Lots of unanswered questions from this article.... Plant, or no plant? Hard to tell .... but certainly not a serious effort at getting at the news.....

    •  This episode really opens up a can of worms (4+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Rusty Pipes, Jagger, jfdunphy, sravaka

      I get the feeling things are going to get messy during the period W has left in office.

      "In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." MLK, changed to this during the 2008 FISA fight

      by bewert on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 06:30:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  N. Korea (0+ / 0-)

      • Allegations that are unconfirmed that the North Koreans are involved, despite N.K's several year effort to engage in negotiations with the US on nuclear arms in exchange for promises to not be attacked ....

      That's a somewhat strange characterization of North Korea's attitude toward the U.S. and its nuclear policy. I can not conceive of taking Kim Jong-Il's statements about "we only want to not be attacked" any more seriously than his claims to have written 100 operas or scored 18 holes in one. North Korea uses its nuclear program to get currency and aid any way it can, either extorting it from the U.S. and other countries or by selling technology abroad.

      •  Your response seems to assume that the US is (0+ / 0-)

        does not resort to blackmail, extortion, or other tools of statecraft and brinksmanship ... All of which is explained in detail in such books as Confessions of an Economic Hit Man .... which, IMO, would be a major omission. The point still remains: the object of N.Korean foreign policy has been to try to extract a promise from the US to not get bombed into oblivion. Something even Lybia, which shot down civilian aircraft, was able to achieve. Nearness to China helps. And Clinton helped arrange a nuclear deal for "peaceful uses," some of which would help feed N. Korea, which, according to estimates, has endured the death by starvation of about 2 million N.K. citizens--or roughly the scale of the Irish Famine.

        •  No, North Korea knows full well (0+ / 0-)

          that we'll never attack them because they have enough conventional artillery pointed at Seoul to turn the whole city into rubble.

          They also know that they have zipall for an economy and can't even feed their populace without massive foreign aid/bribes.  The nuclear program is aimed at receiving such bribes.  I was in favor of the Clinton deal, it's cheaper to pay them than to force them to stop, and Bush flubbed the response when it turned out they were cheating on it.  That doesn't change how despicable the Kim Jong-Il regime is.

  •  Regardless of who drops them (6+ / 0-)

    all bombs are dirty bombs

     title=

    Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity. Horace Mann (and btw, the bike in kayakbiker is a bicycle)

    by Kayakbiker on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 06:42:53 PM PDT

  •  Phantom jets destroy phantom WMD's (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Euroliberal, Jagger, Bill White

    It would seem that if Israeli's had troops on the ground with target designators, they'd have film at 11.  

    Don't you think this would be good propaganda?  Why would they keep it secret?

    Oh, maybe so it can leak out on the net.  And let's see, N. Korea has a weapon or nuclear material, where should we store it.  Oh, yeah, the eastern desert in Syria...nobody'd be looking there.

    I kind of think that Kenya or Uruguay would have been a safer choice doncha think?

    This whole thing sounds too psyops for my taste.

    I long for the good old days where church was the place where we sang hymns and slept. (After Paula Poundstone)

    by captainlaser on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 06:43:25 PM PDT

    •  Uh, if the Kenyans or Uruguayans invited them (0+ / 0-)

      Sorry, but i think i'm not buying your version of events. Yeah, psyops happens. But remember: there's a whole, big real world out there where this sort of thing really does happen. And, often, you'll never hear about it.

      "They're telling us something we don't understand"
      General Charles de Gaulle, Mai '68

      by subtropolis on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 06:55:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well...shyte... (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    jkb246, bewert

    this is gonna be an interesting week...

    Mariachi Mama Candidate Bickering Moratorium! Signatory to the Carnacki Petition

    by kredwyn on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 06:44:54 PM PDT

  •  There is a message that is being sent (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Rusty Pipes, Jagger, KenBee

    only the target audience is probably not in Tehran.

    Now, if the IDF dropped in some helicopters and extracted some dead North Koreans and some shattered high tech nuclear bomb making equipment, then there would be more of "there" here

    If Barack Obama drew a line in the sand and Harry Reid stepped across it, then what?

    by Bill White on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 06:50:23 PM PDT

    •  The article starts with (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Rusty Pipes, Noah in NY

      the radar going dark. Why was that?
        The Russians and Indians have upgraded the SAM3 to have optical and tv guidance as well as ground radar. If the radar is turned on it can get hit, so it may have been awarenss of the ELINT plane, but the article doesn't say. That's crappy writing or editing.
           This was how some US planes were shot down in Bosnia/Serbia. I think one was a Phantom and one was an F-15, and there was an F117. There are claims  2-3 B2's were downed. That last link is all ct all the time btw.
            The SAM was originally 60's era tech, as is the F-15, both upgraded since.
        The Times Online article also doesn't say what AA systems were involved, other articles quote the Syrians as saying thir AA batteries drove the planes off. Other reports quote some as saying there's a big smoking hole in the desert.

      Time had a good bit about Syrian radar defenses as well as discussion of possible raids on Iran.

           

      Even if it were not related to a bombing route, the purpose of Israel's unusual air mission last week may yet be related to Iran. In August, Syria reportedly received from Russia the first batch of 50 Pantsyr S1E short-range air defense systems, part of an alleged sale worth almost $1 billion. The deal is said to have been financed by Iran, which reportedly will receive from Syria some of the Pantsyr units and deploy them to protect its nuclear facilities. The recently developed Pantsyr, which its Russian manufacturers claim is immune to jamming, includes surface-to-air missiles and 30mm Gatling guns, providing complete defensive coverage for a range of 11 to 12 miles and 6 miles in altitude. Pantsyr batteries could pose a serious challenge to either an Israeli or a U.S. air strike on Iran. So were the Israeli aircraft playing a perilous game of chicken to assess the capabilities of the Pantsyr system in response to their countermeasures? Some in Syria believe so.
      "There seems to be a consensus here that the Israelis were testing Syrian air defense systems," Andrew Tabler, Damascus-based editor of Syria Today, told TIME.

         That system has an upgrade that will allow it to track and target aircraft and cruise missiles 15' above the ground! That gives some idea of the intensity of this activity.
           These new systems are also part of a shipment going to Iran soon. Another reason all by itself for such a raid, and will provide the US with valuable intell on these latest Russian made systems.
          The Syrians have only had them for a month. Nowhere does it say that they were deployed in this area, but if they were the target could have been
      *a staging area for the Pantsyr systems themselves
      *a scud site
      *Bolton's nuclear site (meh)
      *a training facility where the radar was being assembled and trained on.
        We don't know nuthin'.
      ABC also had a good article discussing the possibilities of why this raid.

      Obama...Hope McCain...Nope

      by KenBee on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 11:47:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  As usual, Israel acts, the uninformed guess. n/t (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    brittain33, Jay Elias, Eric S, zemblan
    •  The IDF has always gloated over such ops before (0+ / 0-)

      Why the secrecy now? That's my big question.

      Jay, any input on this question?

      "In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." MLK, changed to this during the 2008 FISA fight

      by bewert on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 06:56:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, I don't think the IDF has done so... (4+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        brittain33, mickT, Eric S, zemblan

        ...usually, the official position is to maintain ambiguity.  

        That being said, part of the reason I'm so silent on this is because I don't have any particular insight.  To me, the only thing clear is that no one seems to be acting in a way that seems explicable to me.  Both Syria and Israel have made nothing but very strange official statements and those don't add up to the actual actions taken.

        Right now, there are two Israeli brigade combat teams in the Golan, which Israel says repeatedly they don't anticipate ever being involved in any action.  But they are still there; indeed, some personnel have left and been replaced there.  Syria's actions are best explained as a variety of means to try to stop the UN investigation into the Hariri killing, but their attempts to quiet this crisis nearly as soon as they brought it up don't add up either.

        So, I'm confused and perplexed by this story.  It isn't the secrecy that confuses me, it is the contradictions.

        The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

        by Jay Elias on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 07:03:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Me, too. Thanks for the input n/t (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Jay Elias

          "In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." MLK, changed to this during the 2008 FISA fight

          by bewert on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 07:08:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  What I think? (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          mickT, Jay Elias

          but their attempts to quiet this crisis nearly as soon as they brought it up don't add up either.

          I think there was something illicit there, but knowledge of it was withheld from most Syrian officials, the site being described as something harmless.  When the strike to place it was the out-of-the-loop Syrians who went public with it, only to get muzzled when people who did know what was at the site found out.

          How's that for uninformed speculation?

          John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

          by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 07:09:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well Syria's russian made defenses were found to (0+ / 0-)

          be useless. Iran has the same. Neither want to talk about that aspect I'm sure. So, of course, today Iran says it has 600 missiles pointed at Israel et al.

          A day without sunshine is like, you know, night.

          by Doodad on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 09:42:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Syria, N Korea, and Iran are all quite aware (0+ / 0-)

        I'm thinking that the GOP doesn't really want to beat the war drums too loudly just now (their credibility on fighting wars in the toilet). I'm sure they asked the Israelis to remain low key about this for the time being.

        And i disagree with your opinion about the Israelis "gloating" about this sort of thing. They're actually quite business-like about commando operations. Get in, hit the target, and get out. Remember that this particular business is possibly unfinished. I'm sure they know that there may be further acts. It seems to me that it's very much in character for them to remain a little quiet for the time being. The principals all know what the stakes are and have a pretty good idea of the cards their opponents hold.

        "They're telling us something we don't understand"
        General Charles de Gaulle, Mai '68

        by subtropolis on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 07:04:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Confusing (8+ / 0-)

    For a supposedly secret mission, there are all sorts of details being leaked: names of operations, flight routes, numbers of planes used, weapons used, targets, ground commandos, etc.  There is a very clearly a serious attempt to confuse the issue with a whole bunch of phony stories.  

    However, if Israel had hit a nuclear target, that is about the ONLY story Israel would not have to lie about.  I suspect a very large number of people in the world would support Israel taking out a nuclear target, certainly more so than any other target that Israel might hit.

    Out of laziness, I'm going to repost what I wrote two days ago.   None of the supposed "leaks" have changed my opinion on the extreme unlikeliness of the nuclear story:

    So far, the only story that makes sense to me is that Israel was attacking a Syrian missile base.  The other stories don't make any sense at all.

    As some have pointed out, the nuclear story doesn't make sense.  Nukes take decades to develop, especially for an extremely poor country like Syria.  And even if Syria acquired them, they wouldn't change the balance of power.  Israel would still be dominant in terms of conventional warfare, but Israel would still not want to actually invade Syria (because then they would be stuck with dealing with the aftermath).

    On the other hand, if Syria were to try to develop nuclear weapons, they would immediately attract opprobrium of the world.  With Israel on one side and the US on the other, there is a high likelihood the nuclear program would encourage an invasion, rather than deter it.  So I don't buy that story at all (also, there is ZERO evidence for it).

    As for the Hezbollah missile story, that doesn't make any sense.  The location is completely wrong.  Hezbollah missiles would be flown into Damascus and then trucked the short distance to Lebanon. Also, Israel claims Hezbollah already has more missiles than it had last year, so what would be the point of attacking this single, hard-to-reach site?

    But what about Israel attacking a Syrian missile site?  That makes much more sense.  Remember how the balance of power works.  The Israeli air force is completely dominant over the Syrian, and could basically bomb Syria at will.  Syria tries to counter this by acquiring ballistic missiles, which give it an ability to target Israeli territory, just like Israel has the ability to target Syrian territory.

    But missiles are themselves vulnerable to Israeli air power.  This is especially true when the missiles are concentrated near the Israeli border.  So what does Syria seek to do?  They seek longer-ranged missiles.  This allows them both to threaten any target in Israel, and allows them to put the missiles deeper in Syrian territory, making it difficult for Israel to knock them out.

    The Israeli attack was most likely meant as a demonstration that the Syrian strategy cannot work.  Look at the flight route: Israel circled in over the Mediterranean, it entered Syria from the northwest, crossed to the southeast, attack its target, swung back north, and escaped across the northern side of the country.  This was a demonstration that armed Israeli planes can hit go anywhere in Syria and hit any point from any side.  This is likely meant as a demonstration that Syria still likes that ability to change the balance of power, even with more or longer-ranged missiles.

    Neither side is speaking clearly, so there are no guarantees, but I still believe that this is the most likely explanation of events.

    •  I wonder though (0+ / 0-)

      if using missiles might have been a better demonstration?

      Then again, the Israelis may be less replete with cruise missiles than I think.

      J.S. McCain III: "Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in our grim, dark future there is only war."

      by Shaviv on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 07:10:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  smokeymonkey had a diary Friday about this (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    bewert, sofia, Jay Elias, KenBee

    with additional information...

    smokeymonkey's diary

    It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment. Ansel Adams -6.5 -6.75

    by Statusquomustgo on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 06:58:41 PM PDT

  •  What's up with this part? (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Eric S

    On the ground, Syria’s formidable air defences went dead.

    That's what caught my eye.  Impressive if true.  Makes me wonder how they went about doing that.  Computer hack?  Commando sabotage?  An infiltrated mole at the switch?

    •  Heh (6+ / 0-)

      I saw that too, and its details like that that make these stories so laughable.  The Syria air defenses are a joke.  They are buying some new Russian systems, but there is no evidence those are active, and even then they wouldn't raise the Syria air defenses to the level of acceptable.

      A lot of these stories seem replete with details that someone just made up off the top of their head.  It's almost like a bunch of people were ordered to spread as much disinformation as possible.

    •  formidable? (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Rusty Pipes, Noah in NY, Capn Guts

      I couldn't get past that word.

      Does anyone even know what decade the Syrian air defenses were put in? (Hint: tubes were the in thing in electronics.) (For those of you who don't know what tubes are, they are these big lightbulb looking things that acted like a transistor. And a transistor is small thing that existed before chip technology.)

      There are 'talks' of upgrades, but nothing on the ground.

      Remember when the kid flew the cessna into red square? That was a far more difficult task over a longer range than this.

      Low-level strikes aren't exactly something air defenses can detect when they don't know it is coming. Like a Cessna getting close to the White House......

      This was written by a bullshit artist, not someone who knows about air defense systems. Or if they did know, then they REALLY are a bullshit artist.

      Or how about this angle. The equipment they have now is the same shit they had in 1982. How did it fare against the Israeli Air Force then? (Hint: It sucked. Syria lost close to 100 aircraft and Israel I think lost maybe 1-2 aircraft. Israel has upgraded. Syria hasn't. Formidable?  HAHAHAHAHAH)

      •  Time says they have new stuff (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Noah in NY, Capn Guts

        Time says:

        In August, Syria reportedly received from Russia the first batch of 50 Pantsyr S1E short-range air defense systems, part of an alleged sale worth almost $1 billion. The deal is said to have been financed by Iran, which reportedly will receive from Syria some of the Pantsyr units and deploy them to protect its nuclear facilities.

          This sytem targets aircraft to fifteen feet off the deck.
        Pantsir SA-22 Greyhound

        Syria - 36 on order; signed 2006 as part of arms package worth about US$ 1 billion; deliveries began in August of 2007; British Jane's Defence Weekly reported in May 2007 that at least ten of those Pantsirs would be handed over to Iran by the end of 2008.

        You might agree that this raid may have been to destroy these new units as I just posted up  here.

            This other system would not be fun to go against, reported to be designed to take down stealth aircraft out to 250 miles and targets as fast as 3 miles per scond(!)...Iran is in the fast track for the RussianS-400 systems.

        The S-400 is also targeting the export market, with China reportedly already having spent $500 million on it. Russia has also offered the system to the United Arab Emirates and Greece.[6] Perhaps the biggest impact for in particular the United States is nations like Iran expressing interest in the system.[7] Vice Chairman of Russia's State Duma Vladimir Zhirinovsky has urged the fast delivery of the S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems to Iran.

        Obama...Hope McCain...Nope

        by KenBee on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 12:17:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Neat stuff. Nasty, but neat. (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Noah in NY, KenBee
          Russia has some interesting tech indeed.  They are big on the speed thing.  That Pantsir fires an SA-19 missile that goes 2000 mph.  And have you looked at the warhead on it?  Its best weakness in this case would seem to be the lack of an independent seeker on the missile.  
          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          Russia's best counter-countermeasure seems to be speed.  Get the missile to the target faster than it can be shot down or avoided.

          They also export the Moskit anti-ship missile and Igla shoulder launched SAM.

    •  No (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Rusty Pipes, Noah in NY

      it's the formidable part that's wrong. If one were to leave it out of the statement, things would be closer to the truth.

      Cheney used the mushroom cloud comment to justify his bullshit. It's the mushroom part that made the difference.

      "It takes two to lie. One to lie, one to hear it." Homer Simpson

      by Euroliberal on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 01:28:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Israel's WMD (0+ / 0-)

    So how come the apartheid government of Israel, which regularly spies on the United States, isn't being threatened with attack by the USA?  How is it that of all of the Middle Eastern countries, theonly one permitted to have WMDs is Israel?

    •  The usual answer is... (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      zemblan

      ...right-wing Likudnik apartheid Jews bought every member of Congress with suitcases of cash, and paid George Bush and Dick Cheney to invade Iraq because of the glorious WMD benefits to Israel. U.S. corrupt sheeple politicians are too stupid and corrupt to recognize that our true allies in the region are Hezbollah and Hamas, because Richard Perle and Martin Peretz hypnotized them with zombie Nazi AIPAC Likudnik aparthed Jew magic. We are WAWA.

      HTH. I think I hit all the squares on the bingo card.

    •  Japan, France, South Korea, Taiwan and India (0+ / 0-)

      All are allies and all, along with Israel, are "the most active allies engaged in espionage against America".  According to a report in 2000.  Yet you never hear about any of these other nation, only Israel.

      Seems to me that the reason is because the anti-Israel crowd could really care less about spying and more interested in bashing Israel.

      And you know what?  The CIA spies on the United States allies.

      The CIA's economic spies are currently active in Japan, Western Europe, and key developing nations like Mexico, Brazil, India, and the countries in the Middle East. The recent spy scandal in France exposed four U.S. diplomats and a NOC--an American woman supposedly working as a public relations executive for the Dallas Market Center, owned by international real estate mogul Trammell Crow. She was accused of trying to recruit and bribe French corporate and government officials to pass technology secrets to the CIA.

      "Israel is the Jew among nations." - Golda Meir

      by hadees on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 07:49:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Permalink | 92 comments