Sunday, June 22, 2008

Syria, the IAEA, Nuclear Weapons, and a Prediction

United Nations nuclear inspectors are planning to go to Damascus soon. The hope is that they'll gather facts and do a thorough investigation into whether or not Syria has - or had - a nuclear weapons program.

Quite recently, the International Atomic Energy Agency, (IAEA) found out that they'd be allowed to bring ground-penetrating radar, to probe under the building that the Syrians built over the site that Israeli jets bombed last year.

There's still reason to believe that the United Nations inspectors will be told where they can look, how they can look, and what they can use to look for evidence.

Besides that, Syrian crews have had nine months to clean up the alleged empty sand, or agricultural station, or unused military facility, that Israeli jets blew up last year. It looks like there's been a controlled explosion there, and new construction.

I think it's fairly safe to predict what will happen.
  • Syria will put strict limits on what the IAEA inspectors can do, and where they can go
  • The IAEA technicians will not find obvious, compelling, in-your-face, evidence of a nuclear reactor in the places they've been allowed to see
  • This will be hailed as proof that Syria never had a nuclear weapons program
  • Israel will be condemned for launching an unprovoked attack
  • America will be condemned for supporting Israel
I could be wrong. But previous experience suggests that this is what will happen after the IAEA's little three-day trip to Syria.
More, at "UN atomic inspectors begin Syria mission"
Associated Press (June 23, 2008)

Related posts in this blog, about "Syria, the IAEA, Israel, Claims and Denials"

No comments:

Unique, innovative candles

Visit us online:
Spiral Light CandleFind a Retailer
Spiral Light Candle Store


Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.