Even More Syria Images

Leave a reply

!/images/35.jpg!

Because this isn’t confusing enough already.

The _NYT_ has “published”:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/27/world/middleeast/27syria.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin a 2003 image of the suspected Syrian reactor site which shows that the square building was under construction even back then. This begs a host of obvious questions.

And congrats to Mr. ACW for the _NYT_ quote.

Lastly, here’s one of my favorite scenes from The Wire, which also happens to include one of the best Pogues songs ever:

More Syria Images

Leave a reply

I realize that anyone who cares already knows, but ISIS has images showing that Syria has “removed the building”:http://www.isis-online.org/publications/SyriaUpdate25October2007.pdf suspected of holding the nuclear reactor-to-be. In addition, the Syrians have “buried the building’s foundation.”:http://www.isis-online.org/publications/SuspectSiteUpdate26October2007.pdf

On another note, the _NYT_ had some information “the other day”:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/washington/25weapons.html?ref=todayspaper about the Google Earth images that I “blogged about:”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1535/syria-alleged-reactor-images

bq. The SPOT Image Corporation, a commercial satellite company in Chantilly, Va., said Wednesday that its spacecraft took this picture of the site in August 2006 — a year before the newly released images.

Speaking of Square Reactor Buildings…

2 Replies

…I’d like to know how the ISIS images that I blogged “here”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1535/syria-alleged-reactor-images square with the photos described in this “ABC News story”:http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3752687 from a few days ago.

According to that story:

bq. The official described the pictures as showing a big *cylindrical structure,* with very thick walls all well-reinforced. The photos show rebar hanging out of the cement used to reinforce the structure, which was still under construction.

I can think of a few things, but this apparent discrepancy strikes me as a bit odd.

Syria [Alleged] Reactor Images

1 Reply

p{float: right; margin-left: 10px}. !/images/34.jpg!

“ISIS”:http://www.isis-online.org/publications/SuspectSite_24October2007.pdf has them.

According to the “_WP_,”:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/23/AR2007102302577.html

bq. U.S. and international experts and officials familiar with the site… said there was a strong and credible possibility that they depict the remote compound that was attacked.

I think the ISIS report is appropriately qualified. What we know is that the Syrians had a building similar to the one housing the Yongbyon reactor.

I was also pleased to note that ISIS pointed out something that should be pretty damn obvious, but is frequently overlooked:

bq. If Syria wanted to build nuclear weapons, it would need a specialized facility to chemically separate the plutonium from the irradiated fuel discharged from the reactor. It is unknown whether Syria has such a facility under construction or planned.

The report also notes that “On October 23, 2007, Google Earth posted imagery that covers a wide swath of eastern Syria and includes” the reactor site, though the images seem to be considerably older than the ones ISIS posted.

The relevant Google Earth placemark can be downloaded “here.”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/file_download/2
[Original link to the file is “here.”:http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showflat.php?Number=1036360 ]

*Update:* is “here.”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1539/more-syria-images

Bernard Baruch Bench

Leave a reply

!/images/33.jpg!

When I was walking through the redwoods this summer, I ran across the bench pictured above.

It’s hard to see in the photo (tricky light, cheap camera, and I am just learning iPhoto), but the plaque praises Bernard Baruch (of “Baruch plan”:http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_06/LookingbackBaruch.asp fame), stating that “his stature is that of the redwoods.”

You can download a larger version “here.”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/file_download/1 You still might have to enlarge it.

Indian Embassy Statement on the Nuclear Deal

Leave a reply

You’ve likely seen it, but “here is”:http://www.indianembassy.org/newsite/press_release/2007/Oct/12.asp the Indian embassy’s statement about the 123 agreement:

bq. The Prime Minister also explained to President Bush that certain difficulties have arisen with respect to the operationalisation of the India – US civil nuclear cooperation agreement.

The Press Trust of India reported a bit more detail on 16 October. Apparently US Ambassador to India David Mulford got some more information from External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee during a meeting the previous evening:

During the 45-minute meeting, *Mukherjee is understood to have conveyed to Mulford the political compulsions the UPA [United Progressive Alliance] government have in not going ahead with the deal for now, but expressed the determination to push it through at later stage.*

The US envoy articulated his country’s main concern about the future of the deal in the wake of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s remark at the Hindustan Times Leadership summit here that non-implementation of the agreement was not the end of life.

Not sure how much determination the Indians are conveying, but there it is.

Saudi FM on Nukes

Leave a reply

Speaking of countries in the Middle East without nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal was on the Charlie Rose show recently and discussed the likelihood that Riyadh would go nuclear.

In response to Rose’s assertion/question: “So if Iran has nuclear weapons, then Saudi Arabia will have nuclear weapons,” Saud al-Faisal replied

bq. No, Saudi Arabia has decided, out of a national — its own national policy consideration not to go through that route. But this does not say — mean that no other countries in the Middle East will do so.

This is, of course, what the Saudis would likely say whether or not they were thinking about nukes, but still…

Dana P Talks About Israel’s Nukes

Leave a reply

Or, you know, doesn’t.

During a “recent press briefing,”:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071009-4.html Helen Thomas asked about nuclear weapons in the Middle East. WH Press Secretary Dana Perino tiptoed around the elephant in the room:

Q (Off mike) — the White House has a driving interest in keeping nuclear arms out of Iran, I’d like to ask you, *does any country in the Middle East have nuclear arms?*

MS. PERINO: Well, *I would leave it to those countries to announce whether they do or not. I think that there’s public information about that, Helen.*

Q No, no, no. I want to know if White House knows if there — what do you mean they’re going to announce it?

MS. PERINO: I’m not prepared to say anything beyond what has been publicly stated.

Q So you don’t know whether any other country in the Middle East has nuclear arms?

MS. PERINO: Helen, *I will let those countries speak for themselves.*

Q Or you refuse to say?

MS. PERINO: *I’ll just refuse to say it.*

P5 +2 Statement on Iran

Leave a reply

It’s a little old, but I thought I’d post the recent “statement”:http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=12614 from the P5+2 about Iran.

Nothing all that remarkable, but here it is:

1. The proliferation risks of the Iranian nuclear program remain a source of serious concern to the International Community, as expressed very clearly in UNSC Resolutions 1696, 1737 and 1747.

2. We are committed to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and underline the need for all States Party to that Treaty to comply fully with all their obligations. We seek a negotiated solution that would address the international community’s concerns over Iran’s nuclear program. We reiterate our commitment to see the proliferation implication of Iran’s nuclear program resolved, and have therefore met today to reaffirm our commitment to our dual track approach.

3. We remain ready to engage with Iran in negotiations on a comprehensive long-term agreement to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue. Creating the conditions for such negotiations requires that Iran fully and verifiably suspend its enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, as required by UNSC Resolutions 1737 and 1747. The Security Council has offered Iran the possibility of “suspension for suspension” – suspension of the implementation of measures if and for so long as Iran suspends all of its enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, as verified by the IAEA. We call upon Iran to accept that offer and allow for negotiations in good faith.

4. We urge Iran to engage in a dialogue to create the conditions for negotiations based on our June 2006 proposals for a long-term comprehensive agreement, based on mutual respect, that would reestablish international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program and open the way to wider cooperation between Iran and all our countries. *We have asked Dr. Javier Solana, the European Union’s High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, to meet with Dr. Ali Larijani, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, to lay the foundation for future negotiations.*

5. We welcome the agreement between Iran and the IAEA to resolve all questions concerning Iran’s past nuclear activities. *We call upon Iran, however, to produce tangible results rapidly and effectively by clarifying all outstanding issues and concerns on Iran’s nuclear program, including topics which could have a military nuclear dimension,* as set out by the relevant IAEA Resolutions and UNSC Resolutions 1737 and 1747 and by providing all access required by its Safeguards Agreement and Subsidiary Arrangement and by implementing the Additional Protocol.

6. Full transparency and cooperation by Iran with the IAEA is essential in order to address outstanding concerns. We reiterate our full support for the IAEA and its staff in the execution of its verification role and for the role of the UN Security Council. We look forward to DG El Baradei’s November report to the IAEA Board of Governors on the level, scope, and extent of Iran’s cooperation and transparency.

7. In view of the fact that Iran has not fulfilled the requirements of UN Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747, including the suspension of its enrichment and reprocessing activities, *we agree to finalize a text for a third UN Security Council Sanctions Resolution under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations with the intention of bringing it to a vote in the UN Security Council unless the November reports of Dr. Solana and Dr. El Baradei show a positive outcome of their efforts.*

I do wonder what a “positive outcome” would be.