Israel’s Airstrike on Syria’s Reactor: Implications for the Nonproliferation Regime
Published on Arms Control Association (http://www.armscontrol.org)
Israel’s Airstrike on Syria’s Reactor: Implications for the
Nonproliferation Regime
Arms Control Today
Leonard S. Spector and Avner Cohen
IAEA Inspects Alleged Al-Kibar Nuclear Facility Site
On September 6, 2007, in a surprise dawn attack, seven Israeli warplanes destroyed an industrial
facility near al-Kibar, Syria, later identified by the CIA as a nearly completed nuclear reactor secretly
under construction since 2001.[1]
According to the CIA, the unit was built with North Korean assistance and was modeled on one used
by North Korea to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons.
The CIA declared that it had only “low confidence” that Syria was pursuing a nuclear weapons
program, however, because the agency had not unearthed evidence of other key facilities that would
be needed for such an effort, in particular a plant to fabricate fuel for the reactor and one to extract
weapons-usable plutonium from its spent nuclear fuel. Nonetheless, the CIA acknowledged that the
reactor was not suited for the production of electricity or for nuclear research, leaving little room for
doubt that the unit was intended to produce plutonium for nuclear arms. Although the location of the
plant would strongly indicate that it was part of a secret Syrian nuclear weapons program, a recent
story in the German weekly Der Spiegel, suggests another possibility: the article cites “intelligence
documents” as indicating that the unit was in fact part of a multinational nuclear weapons effort led
by Iran, in which Syria and North Korea were collaborating.[2] Both Syria and Iran are non-nuclearweapon
states-parties to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits such parties from
developing and producing nuclear weapons.
What was particularly notable about this attack was what occurred afterward: the near total lack of
international comment or criticism of Israel’s action. The lack of reaction contrasted starkly to the
international outcry that followed Israel’s preventive strike in 1981 that destroyed Iraq’s Osiraq
reactor. To be sure, foreign governments may have reserved comment because of the lack of
information after the attack. The Israeli and U.S. governments imposed virtually total news blackouts
immediately after the raid that held for seven months, and Syria was initially silent on the matter
and then subsequently denied that the bombed target was a nuclear facility. Yet, the international
silence continued even after the CIA on April 24, 2008, provided a 12-minute video and an extensive
briefing that made a strong case that the target was a North Korean-built reactor designed for
producing weapons-usable plutonium.
Was the international community tacitly condoning the 2007 Israeli raid even though it appeared
that the Syrian reactor did not pose an imminent threat to Israel, the sole justification under
international law for the anticipatory use of military force?[3] Were foreign governments, cognizant
that the UN Security Council had been unable to halt Iran’s continuing development of previously
undeclared sensitive nuclear facilities, tacitly endorsing Israel’s decision not to invoke the diplomatic
tools at its disposal, such as demanding an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) investigation
of the site, another traditional prerequisite to the anticipatory use of force?
With the case still unfolding, it is premature to draw firm conclusions about its meaning for the future
of global nonproliferation efforts, but two issues will bear close watching. Has confidence in the
enforcement of nonproliferation norms eroded to the point that the international community is
Page 1 of 11
Israel’s Airstrike on Syria’s Reactor: Implications for the Nonproliferation Regime
Published on Arms Control Association (http://www.armscontrol.org)
prepared to accept more readily than in the past the preventive use of force to suppress suspected
nuclear weapons programs in certain narrowly defined cases? If so, what does this augur for the
future use of military force to arrest Iran’s weapons-relevant nuclear activities?
Contrasting Reactions: Osiraq versus al-Kibar
On June 7, 1981, minutes before sunset, eight Israeli F-16 jet fighters in a surprise raid dropped 16
tons of high explosives on the French-supplied, nearly completed Osiraq research nuclear reactor in
Tuwaitha, Iraq’s main nuclear center, some 26 kilometers southeast of Baghdad. Two days later, in a
dramatic press conference in Tel Aviv, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin took full responsibility
for the operation, praised its execution as extraordinary, and justified it both on moral and legal
grounds. Begin referred to the strike as an act of “anticipatory self-defense at its best.”[4]
The message that Begin conveyed was that the raid on Osiraq was not a one-time operation but
rather a long-term national commitment. He ended his press conference with these dramatic words:
We chose this moment: now, not later, because later may be too late, perhaps forever. And if
we stood by idly, two, three years, at the most four years, and Saddam Hussein would have
produced his three, four, five bombs.… Then, this country and this people would have been
lost, after the Holocaust. Another Holocaust would have happened in the history of the Jewish
people. Never again, never again! Tell so your friends, tell anyone you meet, we shall defend
our people with all the means at our disposal. We shall not allow any enemy to develop
weapons of mass destruction turned against us.[5]
A few days later, in a CBS News television interview, Begin reiterated this doctrinal point: “This
attack will be a precedent for every future government in Israel.… [E]very future Israeli prime
minister will act, in similar circumstances, in the same way.”[6]
The international community did not share Begin’s view. On the contrary, the Israeli raid against a
declared nuclear facility belonging to an NPT signatory state in good standing met with nearuniversal
condemnation. Within two days, the surprised Reagan White House suspended the delivery
of F-16 warplanes to Israel (the suspension was cancelled two months later).[7]
If the U.S. reaction, especially in Congress, was somewhat ambivalent, the worldwide reaction from
Moscow to Paris was blunt and strongly disapproving. In the UN Security Council, after a week
marked by some 40 speeches all fiercely critical of Israel’s action, a tough seven-point resolution,
which “strongly condemned” Israel for the strike against Osiraq, was unanimously approved.[8] The
resolution characterized the Israeli action as a “clear violation of the UN charter and the norms of
international conduct” and admonished Israel to refrain in the future from similar actions. Defending
the right of Iraq to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, the resolution urged Israel to
accept IAEA inspections on all its nuclear facilities (a step that would force Israel to eliminate its
widely assumed nuclear arsenal) and concluded by recognizing Iraq’s right to “appropriate redress.”
The IAEA Board of Governors was equally condemnatory, repeating the Security Council demand that
Israel place its nuclear facilities under agency safeguards and warning that Israel might be expelled
from the agency if it declined to do so. Finally, on November 10, the UN General Assembly approved
a resolution harshly critical of the Israeli attack on Osiraq, with 109 states voting in favor, 34 states
abstaining, and only Israel and the United States voting against the measure.
More than a quarter century later, however, after Israel’s similar raid on the al-Kibar reactor, the
international repercussions were strikingly different. This time, Israel said nothing after the attack
and imposed a tight and unprecedented news blackout on the Israeli press regarding the episode.
The Bush administration, which apparently consulted with Israel on its concerns about the site before
the attack, was also mute and ordered U.S. officials not to discuss the matter. Although several
articles in the U.S. media reported that the Syrian installation was a nuclear facility of some kind,
there was no official confirmation of such speculation in Jerusalem or Washington until the CIA
release of information in April 2008.[9]
Page 2 of 11
Israel’s Airstrike on Syria’s Reactor: Implications for the Nonproliferation Regime
Published on Arms Control Association (http://www.armscontrol.org)
Syria said very little as well. Initially, Syria complained only that Israeli aircraft had violated its
airspace and dropped some explosive charges in a remote, desolate area, but Damascus went no
further.[10] Two weeks later, Syrian President Bashar Assad confirmed in an interview with the BBC
that a Syrian military facility under construction was attacked by Israel but provided no details.[11]
At the time, Syria (with North Korean help, according to the CIA) was razing the remnants of the alKibar
facility, in an apparent effort to remove any remaining evidence of the nature of the
installation. Within weeks, a new facility was erected, covering the location of the former reactor.
In subsequent statements, Syrian officials categorically denied that the country was building a covert
nuclear facility at the site of the Israeli attack.[12] In early June 2008, Syria agreed to an inspection
of the site by an IAEA team, to be dispatched later in the month. With Syria having razed the
remnants of the facility and built a new structure in its place, it was not clear whether IAEA
inspectors would be able to confirm that the site originally housed a reactor. Nor was it clear whether
Damascus would grant IAEA monitors access to other undeclared sites that might house the still
unidentified fuel fabrication and reprocessing plants that would be needed for a nuclear weapons
program.
In a stunning contrast with developments in 1981, no Arab government commented on the Israeli
raid, much less pressed for retaliation against Israel, diplomatic or otherwise. The Egyptian Al-Ahram
Weekly characterized the state of affairs as the “synchronized silence of the Arab world.”[13] The
restraint may have reflected the fact that many Arab governments were not displeased that a
possible clandestine Syrian nuclear weapons effort had been dealt a serious setback. Iran, Syria’s
closest ally, also remained largely silent on the issue (possibly to avoid calling attention to itself, if it
was, indeed, helping to build the facility). Surprisingly, given that virtually nothing was known
publicly about al-Kibar at the time, North Korea strongly condemned the Israeli attack, the only state
to do so.[14] Some in the Western press took this as evidence that North Korean nationals were
involved in the project and may have been injured in the Israeli attack.[15]
Similarly, the matter was not brought up for debate at the UN Security Council. Nor did the First
Committee of the UN General Assembly, which deals with disarmament and international security,
address the attack and Syria’s possible violation of its NPT pledges at its meetings, held from
October 8 to November 2, 2007.
Perhaps more importantly, this pattern of silence continued after the CIA video and briefings were
published on April 24, 2008, which disclosed that Israel had attacked what the U.S. intelligence
agency alleged was a Syrian nuclear reactor in a preventive strike. To be sure, IAEA Director-General
Mohamed ElBaradei issued a disapproving statement on April 25. The statement deplored the fact
that the United States and Israel had not provided information to the IAEA “in a timely manner, in
accordance with the agency’s responsibilities under the [NPT] to enable it to verify its veracity and
establish the facts.” It went on to declare that “the director general views the unilateral use of force
by Israel as undermining the due process of verification that is at the heart of the nonproliferation
regime.”[16] Although expressing concern about the impact of the Israeli strike on the NPT and the
IAEA, ElBaradei’s statement did not directly challenge Israel’s exercise of a right to anticipatory selfdefense
in this case, in sharp contrast to the findings in 1981 of the UN Security Council, the General
Assembly, and the IAEA Board of Governors regarding the Osiraq raid.
Indeed, the Security Council, the body that in 1981 had unanimously condemned Israel’s raid as
contrary to the UN Charter and “to norms of international conduct,” had an obvious opportunity to
debate the matter at its meeting on April 25. At that session, it addressed a major nonproliferation
issue, whether to extend the mandate of the council’s committee to oversee implementation of UN
Security Council Resolution 1540. The resolution calls on all UN member states to establish domestic
controls and adopt legislation to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Yet,
according to the official summary of the debate on the matter, neither the Israeli attack nor Syria’s
secret nuclear activities was mentioned.[17]
The Israeli attack also was not criticized at recent international meetings held in Geneva from April
28 to May 9 to prepare for the 2010 NPT Review Conference.[18] Presumably to avoid calling
attention to its own alleged misconduct, even Syria did not raise a complaint about Israel’s airstrike
Page 3 of 11
Israel’s Airstrike on Syria’s Reactor: Implications for the Nonproliferation Regime
Published on Arms Control Association (http://www.armscontrol.org)
in its official statement to the forum but focused instead on the traditional Arab state criticism of
Israel for blocking the establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East and of the
nuclear-weapon states for not making better progress toward disarmament.[19] A number of other
Arab states also called for universal adherence to the NPT, the indirect language commonly used to
press Israel to renounce its nuclear weapons and join the pact, but again these familiar calls were
made without reference to the September 6 airstrike.[20] The United States and Canada complained
openly about North Korea assistance to Syria and to Syria’s noncompliance with its obligations under
the NPT and under its safeguards agreement with the IAEA. Both states not only declined to criticize
Israel, but they did not even mention that Israel had attacked the site.[21]
At the recent meeting of IAEA Board of Governors in early June, ElBaradei declared in his opening
remarks, “It is deeply regrettable that information concerning this installation was not provided to
the Agency in a timely manner and that force was resorted to unilaterally before the Agency was
given an opportunity to establish the facts, in accordance with its responsibilities under the NPT and
Syria’s Safeguards Agreement.” He went on to stress, however, that “Syria, like all States with
comprehensive safeguards agreements, has an obligation to report the planning and construction of
any nuclear facility to the Agency. We are therefore treating this information with the seriousness it
deserves,” noting that an IAEA inspection team would visit Syria June 22-24, 2008.[22] Nonetheless,
the IAEA’s official summary of the meeting does not indicate that the matter was further debated, a
silence on the matter that at least one official present confirmed.[23]
Bush Doctrine
Adding to the difficulties of understanding the implications of this case is the Bush doctrine,
articulated in the 2002 U.S. National Security Strategy.[24] The traditionally accepted justification for
the use of force in the absence of actual aggression was established in 1837 in a U.S.-British
controversy known as the Caroline case, which permitted a state to use appropriate military force
when not under attack only in case of necessity, “where the attack was imminent and only forcible
action could forestall such attack.”[25]
The Bush doctrine sought to expand this definition to justify pre-emptive military action. Highlighting
the catastrophic destructive potential of weapons of mass destruction, the readiness of international
terrorist groups and isolated leaders of anti-status quo states to use them, and the ease of
concealing such weapons, the doctrine declared that “[t]he greater the threat, the greater is the risk
of inaction—and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves,
even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent
such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.”[26]
Then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice expanded on the new doctrine in an address shortly
after the release of the National Security Strategy.
The National Security Strategy does not overturn five decades of doctrine and jettison either
containment or deterrence. These strategic concepts can and will continue to be employed
where appropriate. But some threats are so potentially catastrophic—and can arrive with so
little warning, by means that are untraceable—that they cannot be contained. Extremists
who seem to view suicide as a sacrament are unlikely to ever be deterred. And new
technology requires new thinking about when a threat actually becomes “imminent.” So as a
matter of common sense, the United States must be prepared to take action, when
necessary, before threats have fully materialized.
But this approach must be treated with great caution. The number of cases in which it might
be justified will always be small. It does not give a green light—to the United States or any
other nation—to act first without exhausting other means, including diplomacy. Preemptive
action does not come at the beginning of a long chain of effort. The threat must be very
grave. And the risks of waiting must far outweigh the risks of action.[27]
The National Security Strategy sparked immediate controversy, in part because it was articulated by
Page 4 of 11
Israel’s Airstrike on Syria’s Reactor: Implications for the Nonproliferation Regime
Published on Arms Control Association (http://www.armscontrol.org)
the world’s sole superpower and by an administration with a reputation for acting unilaterally and
seemingly eager to advance U.S. interests through the use of military force, particularly in the thenlooming
confrontation with Iraq.[28] The Bush doctrine misfired badly in Iraq, where the U.S.-led
intervention was justified as essential to destroy Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs, which were later
found not to exist. Nonetheless, the underlying rationale for modifying the norms governing
anticipatory self-defense to confront nascent nuclear weapons programs has gained a degree of
recognition within the U.S. policy community, even among some who have criticized the Bush
administration for its assertive projection of U.S. military might.[29] Internationally, however, the
doctrine has remained the target of strong criticism.[30]
Israel’s strike on al-Kibar in September 2007 was, in effect, a clear application of this internationally
disfavored doctrine. Given that the al-Kibar reactor had not started to operate and, according to the
CIA, Syria’s fuel fabrication and reprocessing facilities had not been discovered and might not yet
have been completed, Syria was unquestionably some time away from producing fissile material for
nuclear weapons and still further from producing the weapons themselves. Thus, few could argue
that Israel met the traditional necessity/imminence standard in the case of the al-Kibar reactor
strike. (The same would be true if the reactor was, in fact, part of an Iranian nuclear weapon
program.) Moreover, Israel bypassed a key restraint enumerated by Rice, in that Israel did not
exhaust or apparently ever initiate other diplomatic means for dealing with this threat. Yet, even
then, the international community refrained from condemning the Israeli attack.
Explaining the Silence
What can account for this reaction, now that the major details of the episode have begun to emerge?
One senior Middle Eastern diplomat, Egyptian Ambassador Nabil Fahmy, said at a June 2008 forum in
Washington that governments in the region had refrained from commenting because so little
authoritative information was originally provided officially by the governments involved. He added
that the episode had also been overshadowed by other events in the region and that governments
would be more likely to speak to the issue once the IAEA had completed its initial investigation of the
incident. Yet, the reasons behind the international silence appear to be considerably more complex
and could indicate a broader concern about the underlying weakness of the NPT regime.
Regional politics have certainly played a role. An isolated state with close ties to Iran, Syria is
perceived as a disruptive influence in the region, even within the Arab community, making it a
decidedly less sympathetic victim of Israeli pre-emption than Iraq in 1981. Also, the specific details
of the al-Kibar case itself, coupled with the as yet ineffective efforts to enforce the NPT in the case of
Iran, have undoubtedly influenced thinking in foreign capitals.
In contrast to the Osiraq reactor, which was openly purchased from France, declared, and subject to
IAEA monitoring, the Syrian reactor was secretly built with North Korean aid, undeclared, deliberately
concealed, and not subject to IAEA safeguards. These differences in themselves made the Syrian
reactor, once revealed, immediately suspect and lent an element of credibility to Israel’s underlying
concerns about the installation. The physical characteristics of the al-Kibar reactor reinforce these
points. The Osiraq reactor was appropriately sized and designed for nuclear research; only by a
complex scheme of emplacing and removing uranium targets around its core between IAEA
inspections could it have been used to secretly produce plutonium for weapons. Al-Kibar, in contrast,
was modeled on a reactor specifically designed to produce plutonium for nuclear arms, immediately
creating an additional cause for suspicion and concern.
At the same time, Israel’s principal diplomatic option for eliminating the risk posed by the
facility—seeking an IAEA investigation, possibly leading to UN Security Council action—hardly
appeared promising. Israel has never placed trust in international organizations to guarantee its
security, particularly in cases where its very existence may be at stake. Indeed, this is the
philosophy behind the 1981 Begin doctrine. In recent years, as international nonproliferation
enforcement efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear program have escalated from IAEA demands to UN
Security Council sanctions, Israel has grappled with the profound dilemma of deciding how long it
can rely on these efforts before reverting to the Begin doctrine.
By the time of the al-Kibar raid, the Security Council had adopted two resolutions demanding that
Page 5 of 11
Israel’s Airstrike on Syria’s Reactor: Implications for the Nonproliferation Regime
Published on Arms Control Association (http://www.armscontrol.org)
Iran cease its uranium-enrichment and plutonium-production-related activities and had imposed
sanctions against Iran until it did so. Iran has defied these measures, however, as well as demands
from the IAEA that it provide a full explanation of evidence that it conducted work on nuclear
weapons at least through early 2004.[31] Meanwhile, Tehran significantly expanded its uraniumenrichment
capabilities and indicated its intent to continue doing so, in effect bringing it ever closer
to the ability to produce material for nuclear weapons. (On April 25, 2008, the council adopted a
third sanctions resolution seeking to halt the sensitive elements of the Iranian nuclear program,
Resolution 1803.)
Given this history, had Israel brought the matter to the IAEA, Israel would have had reason to fear
that Syria would have followed the Iranian example: stalling for time, delaying inspections, removing
evidence, asserting (however falsely) that the site was peaceful in nature, and claiming that it had
disguised the unit in order to protect it from possible attack. Moreover, for Israel to have approached
the agency might have required it to compromise intelligence about the al-Kibar site and would
certainly have led Syria to heavily protect the facility, potentially constraining Israel’s option to
destroy the reactor if IAEA inspections and other diplomatic measures failed to prevent its operation.
Once it was operating, Israel would have been further constrained because destroying the facility
could have created significant radiological fallout.
It probably would be an overstatement to interpret the international silence on the al-Kibar attack as
constituting tacit endorsement that diplomatic mechanisms for enforcing the nonproliferation regime
have proven ineffective and that threatened states have a right to preventively attack clandestine
foreign nuclear facilities. Silence is a convenient, noncommittal reaction that avoids the need for a
government to openly take sides in a potentially incendiary international controversy. Nonetheless,
the persistence of the silence suggests that states are becoming increasingly concerned about the
weakness of the nonproliferation regime in enforcing its norms and, therefore, cautiously more
tolerant of an affected state using force preventively, beyond the classic rule limiting anticipatory
self-defense to cases where a threat is imminent.[32]
Impact on Nonproliferation
If the international response was indeed an unspoken expression of anxiety about current regime
enforcement mechanisms, the most important means to begin to restore confidence in the regime is
for the IAEA and the Security Council to act decisively to address the Iranian nuclear program. In its
most recent report, the IAEA appears to be intensifying its pressure on Tehran, but the Security
Council seems incapable of decisive action because of Chinese and Russian reluctance to impose
strong sanctions against Iran. The international response to the Israeli attack should be taken as a
clear rebuke for their hesitancy.
After all, Iran pursued a clandestine uranium-enrichment program for some 18 years, with secret
support from the Abdul Qadeer Khan nuclear smuggling network, behavior not unlike Syria’s pursuit
of the al-Kibar project. Even after placing all of its known nuclear facilities under IAEA inspection,
Tehran continues to bring new suspicions on the program. Since 2005, for example, Tehran has
rescinded expanded authority it had previously granted the IAEA to conduct inspections on its
territory. Moreover, according to U.S. intelligence estimates and documents now in the hands of the
IAEA, Iran pursued work specifically on nuclear weapons at least through early 2004, including
development of a nuclear warhead for its intermediate-range Shahab-3 missile. As recently reported
by the IAEA, Iran has refused to acknowledge or explain this earlier work and has denied the agency
the access necessary to confirm that Iran is not currently engaging in any nuclear weapons research
or clandestine fissile material production activities.[33]
These are the principal underlying reasons the UN Security Council has demanded, inter alia, that
Iran cease all enrichment activities. At the same time, the response to the Syria attack is far from a
clear precedent implicitly endorsing the use of military force against the Iranian nuclear program.
The cases are not identical. The council has imposed sanctions against Iran under Article 41 of the
UN Charter, which excludes the use of military force to implement Security Council mandates. Thus,
the al-Kibar strike, even if seen as tacitly expanding the right of preventive attacks against
clandestine nuclear programs, can hardly be said to provide Israel or any other state with a green
light for attacking threatening nuclear installations in Iran.
Page 6 of 11
Israel’s Airstrike on Syria’s Reactor: Implications for the Nonproliferation Regime
Published on Arms Control Association (http://www.armscontrol.org)
Moreover, from an operational military perspective, there is a huge difference between the ability
(especially for Israel) to conduct a successful strike against a single, ground-level reactor in nearby
Syria and the ability to destroy the dozen or so major nuclear weapons-relevant components of a
much larger nuclear program in distant Iran, including Iran’s underground, heavily shielded
enrichment facility at Natanz. These are two radically different military missions. Moreover, with
allies in Iraq, southern Lebanon, and Gaza, as well as missiles able to reach Israel, Iran would have a
wide range of retaliatory measures at its disposal. Thus even if international quiescence regarding
the al-Kibar attack might provide a political opening for striking Iran, military realities would make
this a very dangerous and daunting effort. Nonetheless, with the recent war of words between
Iranian officials, threatening to “erase” Israel and declaring that it will soon disappear, and one
potential Israeli candidate for prime minister, Shaul Mofaz, declaring that military strikes to stop Iran
developing nuclear weapons looked “unavoidable,” this option cannot be ruled out.[34]
Although other senior Israeli officials criticized Mofaz’s declaration as reckless and driven by
domestic considerations, only days before he spoke Israel carried out a major military exercise
involving over 100 jet fighters and refueling tankers, apparently intended to rehearse the execution
of long-range strikes. Some U.S. officials characterized the maneuvers as a warning to Iran.[35]
Moreover, if the Der Spiegel report is accurate and Iran was the hidden hand behind al-Kibar, Israel’s
attack against Iran’s nuclear weapon program may have already begun.
Finally, as analysts consider the lasting impact of the al-Kibar attack, some may criticize it as a
challenge to the treaty- and inspection-based nonproliferation regime. Although it is still too early to
predict the lasting normative legacy of the Israeli action on al-Kibar, the difference in international
attitudes between 1981 (Osiraq) and 2007-2008 (al-Kibar and subsequent release of information
about the attack) is unmistakable. One explanation may be that in the intervening years, the gross
violations of nonproliferation regime compliance rules by Iraq, Iran, and North Korea—all NPT nonnuclear
weapon state parties—have altered thinking regarding the legitimacy of unilateral
preventive action, at least in cases of undeclared nuclear facilities that are apparently oriented
towards the production of weapons.
There may also be a growing appreciation in the international community that military action can
sometimes complement and reinforce the regime. Military modalities, such as alliances and security
assurances, have traditionally played a supporting role in reducing the motivations of states to go
nuclear, but it appears that since the first Gulf War there may be a increased recognition that, in
some cases, military action or the threat of such action may also play a more direct role in halting
violations of the regime compliance rules. This was the case in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, which,
with the subsequent work of the UN Special Commission, eliminated Saddam Hussein’s WMD
programs; with the threat of military intervention against North Korea in the early 1990s, which
facilitated the freeze of Pyongyang’s plutonium program under the 1994 Agreed Framework; and
with the enforcement of the inspection requirements in UN Security Council Resolution 687 in Iraq
through the threat of invasion in 2002-2003.
Conclusion
Although many details about this incident are yet to be revealed, it is already evident that its
reverberations challenging the efficacy of the classic nonproliferation regime and potentially
expanding the rights of states to intervene against clandestine nuclear programs in their early
stages appear inevitable. Effective investigations by the IAEA in Syria, perhaps unearthing still
undiscovered clandestine facilities, and significantly intensified efforts by the agency and the
Security Council in addressing the Iranian threat could do much to help restore the regime’s integrity
and need to be urgently pursued.
Click here to comment on this article.
Leonard S. Spector directs the Washington, D.C., office of the James Martin Center for
Nonproliferation Studies and heads its new program on nonproliferation policy and law. Avner Cohen
is a senior fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace and author of Israel and the Bomb. Deborah Berman
Page 7 of 11
Israel’s Airstrike on Syria’s Reactor: Implications for the Nonproliferation Regime
Published on Arms Control Association (http://www.armscontrol.org)
of the James Martin Center and Christopher Neu of the U.S. Institute of Peace provided research
assistance and made substantive contributions to this article.
IAEA Inspects Alleged Al-Kibar Nuclear Facility
Site
Peter Crail
A team of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors led by
Deputy Director-General Olli Heinonen carried out inspections at the site of
the alleged al-Kibar nuclear facility June 22-24. As of the end of June, the
outcome of the inspections was unclear.
Heinonen said June 26 that inspectors were able to take extensive samples at
the site in search of traces of evidence and that Syria’s cooperation had been
generally satisfactory, Reuters reported.
Saying the inquiry was off to “a good start,” Heinonen indicated that it would
take time to evaluate the initial findings and that additional talks with Syrian
officials were scheduled. He also hinted that further visits would be needed to
resolve all issues.
The inspections were limited to the al-Kibar site although the United States
apparently has other sites that it believes the agency should inspect to
determine whether Syria had a secret nuclear program. The Washington Post
reported May 29 that the United States provided the IAEA with information
regarding at least three additional sites it suspects are associated with
clandestine Syrian nuclear efforts.
Gregory Schulte, U.S. permanent representative to the IAEA, praised the June
visit but warned Syria not to stand in the way of a full inquiry, Reuters
reported.
“We call on Syria to fully cooperate with the IAEA and in no way hinder the
investigation by refusing the IAEA unfettered access to any site or information
needed for the investigation,” Schulte said in a statement e-mailed to the
news agency.
Syria claims that the al-Kibar facility was not nuclear related.
ENDNOTES
1. “Background Briefing With Senior U.S. Officials on Syria’s Covert Nuclear Reactor and North
Korea’s Involvement,” April 24, 2008, available at dni.gov/interviews.htm; Ronen Bergman and
Ronen Solomon, “Al-Asad’s Atom Program,” Ye’diot Achronot, April 4, 2008.
2. “Syria Turning Toward the West?: Assad’s Risky Nuclear Game,” Spiegel Online News, June 23,
2008, available at www.spiegel.de and Ian Black, “Syria Planned to Supply Iran With Nuclear Fuel,
Israel Says” The Guardian, June 25, 2008.
3. UN Charter, art. 51. For discussion of the scope of Article 51, see Ivo Daalder and James Steinberg,
“The Future of Preemption,” The National Interest, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Winter 2005); Anthony Clark Arend,
“International Law and the Preemptive Use of Military Force,” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 26, No.
Page 8 of 11
Israel’s Airstrike on Syria’s Reactor: Implications for the Nonproliferation Regime
Published on Arms Control Association (http://www.armscontrol.org)
2 (Spring 2003), pp. 89-103.
4. For the best Israeli narrative of the Osiraq raid, see Shlomo Nakdimon, First Strike: The Exclusive
Story of How Israel Foiled Iraq’s Attempt to Get the Bomb (New York: Summit Book, 1987), pp.
230-233.
5. Ibid., p. 240. For a more expanded version in Hebrew, see Shlomo Nakdimon, Tamuz in Flames
(Tel Aviv: Edanim, 1993).
6. “CBS News: An Interview with Prime Minister Menachem Begin,” Face the Nation, CBS June 15,
1981 (emphasis added). For the same commitment, in a slightly different wording, see Nakdimon,
Tamuz in Flames, p. 384; Nakdimon, First Strike, p. 334.
7. Abraham Ben-Zvi, The United States and Israel (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp.
131-136.
8. UN Security Council Resolution 487, June 19, 2001.
9. See for example Mark Mazzetti and Helene Cooper, “Israeli Nuclear Suspicions Linked to Raid in
Syria,” The New York Times, September 18, 2007; David E. Sanger and Mark Mazzetti, “Israel Struck
Syrian Nuclear Project, Analysts Say,” The New York Times, October 14, 2007.
10. For a detailed review of contemporaneous Syrian and other international press and foreign
official responses to the incident, see Richard Weitz, “Israeli Airstrike in Syria: International
Reactions,” CNS Feature Story, November 1, 2007.
11. “Assad Sets Conference Conditions,” BBC, October 1, 2007.
12. Weitz, “Israeli Airstrike in Syria.”
13. Ibid.
14. Sanger and Mazzetti, “Israel Struck Syrian Nuclear Project, Analysts Say.”
15. “Report: Israeli Forces Seized Nuclear Material During Syrian Raid,” Sunday Times, September
23, 2007.
16. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), “Statement by IAEA Director General Mohamed
ElBaradei,” 2008/06, April 25, 2008.
17. “Security Council Extends ‘1540 Committee’ for Three Years to Halt Proliferation of Mass
Destruction Weapons, Encourages States to Map Out Implementation Plans,” SC/9310, April 25,
2008.
18. Oliver Meier, “NPT Meet Buoys Hopes for 2010 Conference,” Arms Control Today, June 2008, pp.
35-37.
19. In a sentence that undoubtedly raised diplomats’ eyebrows but did not elicit comment, the
Syrian delegate also declared that “Syria reaffirms its continual commitment to its international
obligations under the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons.” “Statement of Dr. Faysal
Hamoui, Second Preparatory Committee of the 2010 Review Conference of States Parties to the
Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons,” April 29, 2008.
20. See “General Statement of Egypt to the Second Preparatory Committee of the 2010 NPT Review
Conference,” April 28, 2008.
21. Christopher A. Ford, “Cluster Two – Nonproliferation: Facing Up to the Most Fundamental
Challenge to the NPT,” Remarks at the 2nd Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2010
Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, May 5, 2008.
Page 9 of 11
Israel’s Airstrike on Syria’s Reactor: Implications for the Nonproliferation Regime
Published on Arms Control Association (http://www.armscontrol.org)
Statement by Colleen Swords Assistant Deputy Minister, International Security Branch and Political
Director Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, 2008 NPT Preparatory
Committee, April 28, 2008, http://www.international.gc.ca/canada_un/geneva/2008-04-28-en.asp
Under Syria’s safeguards agreement, Damascus was obligated to declare any new facility to the
agency “as soon as the decision to construct” or “authorize construction” of a new facility were
taken. “Strengthening Agency Safeguards: The Provision and Use of Design Information,” April 1,
1992. GOV/2554/Att.2/Rev. 2.
22. “Introductory Statement to the Board of Governors by IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed
ElBaradei,” June 2008.
23. Western government official, conversation with authors, Washington, DC, June 2008.
24. “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America,” September 17, 2002, chap. 5.
25. Arend, “International Law and the Preemptive Use of Military Force.” See Lee Feinstein and AnneMarie
Slaughter, “A Duty to Prevent,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2004; Daalder and Steinberg,
“The Future of Preemption.”
26. “National Security Strategy,” p. 15.
27. Condoleezza Rice, “A Balance of Power That Favors Freedom,” Wriston Lecture, Manhattan
Institute for Policy Research, October 1, 2002.
28. Robert W. Tucker and David C. Hendrickson, “The Sources of American Legitimacy,” Foreign
Affairs November/December 2004; Richard Falk, “The New Bush Doctrine,” The Nation, June 27,
2002; Roger Speed and Michael May, “Dangerous Doctrine,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,
March/April 2005.
29. See Daalder and Steinberg, “The Future of Preemption.”
30. In Israel, where the Bush doctrine was perceived as an official vindication of the thinking that led
Israel to destroy Osiraq in 1981, there was a sense that the United States adopted the Begin doctrine
to address new WMD threats. This assertion is based on numerous conversations with Israeli officials
and former officials at the senior level. Israelis, of course, are aware of the practical and political
differences in the respective application of this doctrine by Israel and the United States. For Israel,
virtually any emergence of a nuclear threat in the region is viewed in existential terms. This is not
necessarily the case for the United States.
31. IAEA, “Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of Security
Council Resolutions 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007) in the Islamic Republic of Iran,” GOV/2008/4,
February 22, 2008.
32. Israel apparently paved the way for this acquiescent response by sharing crucial evidence with a
number of key states, in addition to the United States. Ronen Bergman and Ronen Solomon’s
“Dangerous IAEA,” Ye’diot Achronot, June 20, 2008.
33. IAEA 2008 Iran implementation report. Like al-Kibar, it may be added, Iran’s uranium-enrichment
program is difficult to justify as a peaceful effort, given the fact that the country has no reactors that
use enriched uranium other than the Russian-supplied Bushehr nuclear power plant, for which Russia
is also providing all the necessary fuel. See also National Intelligence Council, “National Intelligence
Estimate - Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities,” November 2007, 9 pp.
34. “Iran FM Calls on Muslims to ‘Erase’ Israel,” Agence France-Presse, June 1, 2008; “Iran’s
Ahmadinejad Says Israel Will Disappear,” Reuters, June 2, 2008; “Mofaz Criticised Over Iran Threat,”
BBC, June 8, 2008.
35. Michael R. Gordon and Eric Schmitt, “U.S. Says Israeli Exercise Seemed Directed at Iran,” The
New York Times, June 20, 2008.
Page 10 of 11
Israel’s Airstrike on Syria’s Reactor: Implications for the Nonproliferation Regime
Published on Arms Control Association (http://www.armscontrol.org)
Source URL: http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_07-08/SpectorCohen
Page 11 of 11