Ho hum, just another act of war

Oh, hey, remember that act of war Israel committed last year against Syria with US assistance?  In a development that should surprise no one, it turns out that the claims about the Syrian site were likely false:

Partial analysis of samples from a Syrian site bombed by Israel do not back up US claims that the target was a secret nuclear facility, diplomats have said.

While the results of tests carried out by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are preliminary, two diplomats have said that the agency does not expect other samples to contradict initial results.

This is immaterial, of course; even if Syria had been manufacturing nuclear weapons, sarin gas, cherry bombs, and really nasty Dobermans at the site, Israel had no legal basis for attacking it.  But like its patron, Israel never lets trivial formalities like international law get in the way.

What's extraordinary to me, though, is how thoroughly the (inherited) right of Israel to attack any country at any time with any justification is recognized in the West, so much so as to be all but transparent.  Just take one moment to think what the response would be from talking heads and the political class over here if Syria attacked the Israeli nuclear reactor in Dimona—which actually is a nuclear reactor, actually does contribute to nuclear weapons proliferation, and actually does represent a threat not only to Syria but the entire Middle East.

The silver lining, such as it is: at least this attack didn't have as deadly an effect as the similar US crime of bombing the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan in 1998, which likely led to tens of thousands of deaths.

Comments

[Nell]

A significant subsequent development:

At a closed door meeting in Vienna today, UN International Atomic Energy Agency director general Mohamed ElBaradei revealed that the reason the group's investigation into whether Syria was pursuing a nuclear program has been delayed is that its main Syrian contact has turned up assassinated.

[John Caruso]

Thanks, hadn't seen that one. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if it really was a nuclear facility, though the evidence at this point seems to say otherwise. But that's why I made a point of saying that it doesn't matter if it was—at least, not unless we're willing to grant to every other country in the world the right to attack the US, or Israel, or any other country that (genuinely) threatens them.

Actually the most important piece of info I got from that article is that ElBaradei plans to retire when his IAEA term is up in November. That's a serious loss, because ElBaradei has consistently been willing to oppose the US's war plans at every turn and do his job with honesty and integrity. If the US could manage to ensure that the successor who's chosen doesn't have that same kind of backbone, it could give a significant boost to US war aims for Iran, or Syria, or other targets in the future.

[Nell]

And thanks to you for catching that; I read the article but must have skimmed over mention of El Baradei's retirement. Bummer. It takes someone experienced and at the end of his/her career to stand up to the U.S. as strongly as he did.