On May 24, 2011, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) filed a report on their recent interactions with the Syrian Arab Republic. The report assessed whether or not Syria had been developing nuclear capabilities. In particular, it examined allegations that Syria had been pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
This story has been sprinkled throughout the press over the past four years. In September 2007, Israel bombed and destroyed a facility in Syria. It was only following this that the IAEA was "provided with information alleging that [this] installation at the Dair Alzour sitea ... had been a nuclear reactor".
The heart of the matter, and the IAEA's report, is over the nature of the facility that was destroyed by Israel. On the one hand, Syria "has maintained, since May 2008, that the destroyed building was a non-nuclear military installation".
On the other hand, the IAEA report has now verified what Israeli and American intelligence agencies suspected in 2007. There are several key components to the IAEA's findings that are worth noting, underlying which is the firm belief that a nuclear reactor was being constructed in Syria. First of all, it quickly became apparent that the destroyed facility "was not configured to produce electricity". From this the IAEA inferred that the reactor was meant to produce weapons grade nuclear material. Syria's government, however, flatly rejects this claim, as they do not even concede that a nuclear facility was being built.
The second piece of evidence brought against Syria is that there are signs the facility "had been built with the assistance of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)". In particular, the IAEA charges that the destroyed facility bore a strong resemblance to the DPRK's Yongbyon reactor. So, in addition to being nuclear delinquents, Syria has now been linked to one of the world's most reviled states. In opposition to this, Syria claims to have "had no nuclear related cooperation with the DPRK."
These findings were arrived at from evidence gathered during a 2008 visit to Syria by IAEA inspectors and from the analysis of satellite images of the Dair Alzour site. So then, as far as the IAEA is concerned this facility was being used to generate nuclear materials for use as weapons.
Another part of the IAEA's argument against Syria is their lack of cooperation with their investigation. More specifically, they claim that Syria has been delinquent in producing the documents necessary to support their claim of innocence. According to the IAEA, their requests for information and access to the sites in question, which were needed in order to substantiate Syrian assertions, have not been forthcoming. The Syrian government's justification for this is that because of "the military and non-nuclear nature of the Dair Alzour site, ... it has no obligation to provide more information". This view is not shared by the IAEA.
Lurking in the background of this issue are tensions between Syria and Israel. Recall that Israel conducted an illegal air strike on Syrian land that resulted in the destruction of a Syrian facility, nuclear or otherwise. Moreover, neighboring Israel is by some measures a rogue nuclear state and, therefore, Syria is wise to consider a deterrent to the possibility of nuclear attack on them. Israel is not a member of the NPT and, according to the Arms Control Association, they are suspected of possessing "between 75 to 200 nuclear warheads."
Much of the Western world acts under the assumptions that Syria is interested in acquiring nuclear weapons. If they are unable to manufacture them domestically, then it is assumed they will try to purchase them through illicit means. The recently released IAEA report on Syria, when considered in combination with the recent sanctions against them, only further casts a negative light on the policies of their government with the West.
Mark Guzylak-Shergold - Mark Guzylak-Shergold writes to clarify his thoughts and with any luck the thoughts of others.
Join the Conversation