New revelations on the September 6th bombing of a target in Syria by the Israeli Air Force make it increasingly unlikely that my assumption that it was solely an exercise against Iran was true. Photos of the bombed site, analyzed by strategic think tank, the Institute for Science and International Security, indicate that the site’s wreckage resembles that of a North Korean style nuclear reactor.

“If the facility is confirmed as the site of the attack, the photos provide a potential explanation for Israel’s middle-of-the-night bombing raid.

The facility is located seven miles north of the desert village of At Tibnah, in the Dayr az Zawr region, and about 90 miles from the Iraqi border, according to the ISIS report to be released today. [David] Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector, said the size of the structures suggested that Syria might have been building a gas-graphite reactor of about 20 to 25 megawatts of heat, similar to the reactor North Korea built at Yongbyon.

“I’m pretty convinced that Syria was trying to build a nuclear reactor,” Albright said in an interview. He said the project would represent a significant departure from past policies. ISIS, a nonprofit research group, tracks nuclear weapons and stockpiles around the world.”

There’s all the reason in the world for Syria to acquire nukes, as I’ve noted before. With Israel armed with nukes and Iran moving toward some manner of nuclear power, simply relying on its extensive chemical weapons program would make Syria seem like it was bringing a knife to a gunfight. On the other hand, it invites more incidents like those on the 6th of September.

In closing about this follow-up, it bears noting that I disagree with the comments of Mohammed El Baradei, head of the IAEA, when he said:

“ElBaradei also said an airstrike could endanger efforts to contain nuclear proliferation.

“When the Israelis destroyed Saddam Hussein’s research nuclear reactor in 1981, the consequence was that Saddam Hussein pursued his program secretly. He began to establish a huge military nuclear program underground,” he said. “The use of force can set things back, but it does not deal with the roots of the problem.”

And indeed, it doesn’t deal with the roots of the problem, but it is an effective measure. And, furthermore, as for it incentivizing secrecy, secrecy is already thoroughly incentivized - hence this site in Syria being a possibility, not a certainty, and hence Syria having been so shady abouts its construction. Yes, it will mean Syria will have to be even more secretive, but if they’re not going to be upfront about things in the first place, there’s little call to support the IAEA’s argument that the Israeli strike somehow steered Syria away from a path to full disclosure about their unsafe, unstable, clearly-weapon-oriented nuclear site.