Total Pageviews

Tuesday, October 22, 2024

ESPIONAGE / WHO’S LEAKING U.S. INTELLIGENCE THIS TIME?

Tehran as seen from the top of the Sky Lounge restaurant/bar

GUEST BLOG / CNN Investigative reporting by Katie Bo Lillis, Evan Perez, Zachary Cohen, and Natasha Bertrand--The publication on social media of two classified US intelligence documents detailing Israeli preparations for an attack on Iran has set off a scramble inside the US government to discover how they were leaked, a closely held investigation in its early stages that is zeroing in on who had access to the documents. 

On Monday, the White House said publicly that there are presently no indications that more documents beyond those two had been leaked or would be published. 

But the exposure of the two documents — which appeared to have been produced by two Defense Department intelligence entities, the National Security Agency and the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency — has deeply alarmed American officials at a profoundly sensitive moment in US-Israel relations.

The FBI is leading the investigation, working with Pentagon investigators and the intelligence community, according to US officials briefed on the matter. 

In recent days, investigators have worked to authenticate the documents and determine who could have had access to them, the officials said. That focus is one indication that, for now, the FBI and other investigators are working off the theory that the breach most likely came from a government insider and not from a cyber intrusion. 

Both documents were widely accessible products, according to two sources familiar with US intelligence. But at least one appears to be scanned from an officially printed briefing book. 

That could provide investigators with a critical jumping-off point: The Defense Department, like other federal agencies, tracks when employees print classified documents. The pool of people who printed these pages would be relatively small, these sources said. But the investigation is still considered to be in its early stages, so no conclusions have been made, the officials say. 

The FBI declined to comment. 

National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told reporters Monday that officials do not yet know how the documents were released and that the Department of Defense is continuing its investigation. Kirby also said that “at this time” they have no reason to believe similar documents will be released. “We don’t have any indication at this point that there’s an expectation that there will be additional documents like this finding their way into the public domain,” he said. 

The documents, dated October 15 and 16, began circulating online Friday after being posted on Telegram by an account called “Middle East Spectator.” They are marked top secret and have markings indicating they are meant to be seen only by the US and its “Five Eyes” allies — Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. 

One of the documents, which says it was compiled by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, says the plans involve Israel moving munitions around. 

Another document says it is sourced to the National Security Agency and outlines Israeli air force exercises involving air-to-surface missiles, also believed to be in preparation for a strike on Iran. 

CNN is not quoting directly from or showing the documents. Highlighting the sensitive nature of the leak, American officials were extremely tight-lipped about the investigation on Monday. 

Officially, multiple agencies declined even to confirm that an investigation is ongoing. In a statement over the weekend, the Middle East Spectator account said it was “not aware of any additional leaked classified U.S. documents” and that it had “no connection to the original source, which we assume to be a whistleblower within the U.S. Department of Defense.” 

According to one US official, it wasn’t what the documents described that is so worrying to the intelligence community but rather the fact that they leaked at all. 

Although it’s quietly accepted that the US spies even on its allies, to have American surveillance of Israel leaked publicly risks straining relations at a moment when the US is desperately trying to bring to a close the series of interconnected conflicts in which Israel is now embroiled. 

A major leak of US intelligence last year also strained the US’ relationships with allies and partners, including South Korea and Ukraine, after 21-year-old Air National Guardsman Jack Teixeira posted highly classified information on the social media platform Discord. 

In that instance, the FBI was able to move quickly to identify Teixeira, who had left behind an electronic trail that helped investigators quickly narrow their lens. Texeira is now serving a 16-year sentence for the leak, and the Pentagon has since said that it has narrowed the number of people with access to certain documents. 

Monday, October 21, 2024

ESPIONAGE / HOW ISRAEL DESTROYED NUCLEAR REACTOR IN SYRIA BEING BUILT WITH NORTH KOREAN AID.

OPERATION OUTSIDE THE BOX

GUEST BLOG / By Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.-- Operation Outside the Box also known as Operation Orchard, was an Israeli airstrike on a suspected nuclear reactor, referred to as the Al Kibar site (also referred to in IAEA documents as Dair Alzour), in the Deir ez-Zor region of Syria, which occurred just after midnight (local time) on 6 September 2007. 

The Israeli and U.S. governments did not announce the secret raids for seven months. The White House and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) subsequently confirmed that American intelligence had also indicated the site was a nuclear facility with a military purpose, though Syria denies this.  

A 2009 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) investigation reported evidence of uranium and graphite and concluded that the site bore features resembling an undeclared nuclear reactor. IAEA was initially unable to confirm or deny the nature of the site because, according to IAEA, Syria failed to provide necessary cooperation with the IAEA investigation.

Syria has disputed these claims.

Nearly four years later, in April 2011 during the Syrian Civil War, the IAEA officially confirmed that the site was a nuclear reactor. 

Israel did not acknowledge the attack until 2018. The attack reportedly followed Israeli top-level consultations with the Bush administration.


After realizing that the US was not willing to bomb the site after being told so by U.S. President George W. Bush, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert decided to adhere to the 1981 Begin Doctrine and unilaterally strike to prevent a Syrian nuclear weapons capability, despite serious concerns about Syrian retaliation. 

In stark contrast to the doctrine's prior usage against Iraq, the airstrike against Syria did not elicit international outcry. A main reason is that Israel maintained total and complete silence regarding the attack, and Syria covered up its activities at the site and did not cooperate fully with the IAEA. 

The international silence may have been a tacit recognition of the inevitability of preemptive attacks on "clandestine nuclear programs in their early stages." If true, the Begin Doctrine has undoubtedly played a role in shaping this global perception.

According to official government confirmation on 21 March 2018, the raid was carried out by Israeli Air Force (IAF) 69 Squadron F-15Is, and 119 Squadron and 253 Squadron F-16Is, and an ELINT aircraft; as many as eight aircraft participated and at least four of these crossed into Syrian airspace.[

The fighters were equipped with AGM-65 Maverick missiles, 500-pound (230 kg) bombs, and external fuel tanks. One report stated that a team of elite Israeli Shaldag special-forces commandos arrived at the site the day before so that they could highlight the target with laser designators, while a later report identified Sayeret Matkal special-forces commandos as involved.

 The Israeli attack used sophisticated electronic warfare (EW) capabilities, as IAF's EW systems took over Syria's air defense systems, feeding them a false sky-picture for the entire period of time that the Israeli fighter jets needed to cross Syria, bomb their target, and return. 

On 6 March 2017, the Kibar nuclear site was captured by the Syrian Democratic Forces – a U.S.-backed coalition of Kurdish and Arab militia fighters – from a retreating ISIL force in northern Deir Ezzor province. 

Pre-strike activity 

In 2001, the Mossad, Israel's external intelligence service, was profiling newly inducted Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Visits by North Korean dignitaries, which focused on advanced arms deliveries, were noticed. Aman, Israel's military intelligence department, suggested nuclear arms were being discussed, but the Mossad dismissed this theory. 

In spring 2004, U.S. intelligence reported multiple communications between Syria and North Korea, and traced the calls to a desert location called al-Kibar. Unit 8200, Israel's signals intelligence and codebreaking unit, added the location to its watch list.

The Daily Telegraph, citing anonymous sources, reported that in December 2006, a top Syrian official (according to one article this was the head of the Atomic Energy Commission of Syria, Ibrahim Othman arrived in London under a false name. 


The Mossad had detected a booking for the official in a London hotel, and dispatched at least ten undercover agents to London. The agents were split into three teams. One group was sent to Heathrow Airport to identify the official as he arrived, a second to book into his hotel, and a third to monitor his movements and visitors. Some of the operatives were from the Kidon Division, which specializes in assassinations, and the Neviot Division, which specializes in breaking into homes, embassies, and hotel rooms to install bugging devices. On the first day of his visit, he visited the Syrian embassy and then went shopping. Kidon operatives closely followed him, while Neviot operatives broke into his hotel room while he was having drinks with an unknown bar customer ( a woman) they found his laptop. 

Chemical Warfare

A computer expert then installed software that allowed the Mossad to monitor his activities on the computer. When the computer material was examined at Mossad headquarters, officials found blueprints and hundreds of pictures of the Kibar facility in various stages of construction, and correspondence. 

One photograph showed North Korean nuclear official Chon Chibu meeting with Ibrahim Othman, Syria's atomic energy agency director. Though the Mossad had originally planned to kill the official in London, it was decided to spare his life following the discovery. 

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was notified. The following month, Olmert formed a three-member panel to report on Syria's nuclear program. The CIA was also informed and the American intelligence network joined the quest for more information. Six months later, Brigadier-General Yaakov Amidror, one of the panel's members, informed Olmert that Syria was working with North Korea and Iran on a nuclear facility. Iran had funneled $1 billion to the project, and planned on using the Kibar facility to replace Iranian facilities if Iran was unable to complete its uranium enrichment program.

In July 2007, an explosion occurred in Musalmiya, northern Syria. The official Sana news agency said 15 Syrian military personnel were killed and 50 people were injured. The agency reported only that "very explosive products" blew up after a fire broke out at the facility. 

The edition of 26 September of Jane's Defence Weekly claimed that the explosion happened during tests to weaponise a Scud-C missile with mustard gas. A senior U.S. official told ABC News that, in early summer 2007, Israel had discovered a suspected Syrian nuclear facility, and that the Mossad then "managed to either co-opt one of the facility's workers or to insert a spy posing as an employee" at the suspected Syrian nuclear site, and through this was able to get pictures of the target from on the ground." 

In mid August 2007, Israeli commandos from the Sayeret Matkal reconnaissance unit covertly raided the suspected Syrian nuclear facility and brought nuclear material back to Israel. 

Two helicopters ferried 12 commandos to the site in order to get photographic evidence and soil samples. The commandos were probably dressed in Syrian uniforms. Although the mission was successful, it had to be aborted earlier than planned after the Israelis were spotted by Syrian soldiers. 

Soil analysis revealed traces of nuclear activity. 

However, there was disagreement between CIA director Michael Hayden and Mossad director Meir Dagan about whether the site should be bombed. Hayden was fearful that this would cause an all-out war, but Dagan was sure that Assad would not react, so long as the bombing was done covertly and not publicized.

Anonymous sources reported that once material was tested and confirmed to have come from North Korea, the United States approved an Israeli attack on the site.

Senior U.S. officials later claimed that they were not involved in or approved the attack, but were informed in advance. In his memoir, President G. W. Bush wrote that Prime Minister Olmert requested that the U.S. bomb the Syrian site, but Bush refused, saying the intelligence was not definitive on whether the plant was part of a nuclear weapons program. 

Bush claimed that Olmert did not ask for a green light for an attack and that he did not give one, but that Olmert acted alone and did what he thought was necessary to protect Israel.

Another report indicated that Israel planned to attack the site as early as 14 July, but some U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, preferred a public condemnation of Syria, thereby delaying the military strike until Israel feared the information would leak to the press.

The Sunday Times also reported that the mission was "personally directed" by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

Three days before the attack, a North Korean cargo ship carrying materials labeled as cement docked in the Syrian port of Tartus. An Israeli online data analyst, Ronen Solomon, found an internet trace for the 1,700-tonne cargo ship, the Al Hamed, which allegedly was docked at Tartus on 3 September.

By 25 April 2008 the ship was under the flag of the Comoros, an island nation in the Indian Ocean neaar Madagasca.

Several newspapers reported that Iranian general Ali Reza Asgari, who had disappeared in February in a possible defection to the West, supplied Western intelligence with information about the site.

Target Alleged 

Syrian nuclear reactor, after it was destroyed by Israeli air strike CNN first reported that the airstrike targeted weapons "destined for Hezbollah militants" and that the strike "left a big hole in the desert".

One week later, The Washington Post reported that U.S. and Israeli intelligence gathered information on a nuclear facility constructed in Syria with North Korean aid, and that the target was a "facility capable of making unconventional weapons".

According to The Sunday Times, there were claims of a cache of nuclear materials from North Korea. Syrian Vice-President Faruq Al Shara announced on 30 September that the Israeli target was the Arab Center for the Studies of Arid Zones and Dry Lands, but the center itself immediately denied this.

The following day Syrian President Bashar al-Assad described the bombing target as an "incomplete and empty military complex that was still under construction". He did not provide any further details about the nature of the structure or its purpose. 

On 14 October The New York Times cited U.S. and Israeli military intelligence sources saying that the target had been a nuclear reactor under construction by North Korean technicians, with a number of the technicians having been killed in the strike.

On 2 December, The Sunday Times quoted Uzi Even, a professor at Tel Aviv University and a founder of the Negev Nuclear Research Center, saying that he believes that the Syrian site was built to process plutonium and assemble a nuclear bomb, using weapons-grade plutonium originally from North Korea. He also said that Syria's quick burial of the target site with tons of soil was a reaction to fears of radiation.

On 19 March 2009, Hans Rühle, former chief of the planning staff of the German Defense Ministry, wrote in the Swiss daily Neue Zürcher Zeitung that Iran was financing a Syrian nuclear reactor. Rühle did not identify the sources of his information. He wrote that U.S. intelligence had detected North Korean ship deliveries of construction supplies to Syria that started in 2002, and that the construction was spotted by American satellites in 2003, who detected nothing unusual, partly because the Syrians had banned radio and telephones from the site and handled communications solely by messengers. He said that "The analysis was conclusive that it was a North Korean-type reactor, a gas graphite model" and that "Israel estimates that Iran had paid North Korea between $1 billion and $2 billion for the project". He also wrote that just before the Israeli operation, a North Korean ship was intercepted en route to Syria with nuclear fuel rods.

The Operation F15Is and F16Is over the Mediterranean Sea in 2007 Ten Israeli F-15I Ra'am fighter jets (including aircraft '209') from the Israeli Air Force 69th Squadron armed with laser-guided bombs, escorted by F-16I Sufa fighter jets – including aircraft '432' from 253rd squadron and '459' from 119th squadron – and a few ELINT aircraft, took off from Ramat David Airbase. Three of the F-15s were ordered back to base, while the remaining seven continued towards Syria. The Israelis destroyed a Syrian radar site in Tall al-Abuad with conventional precision bombs, electronic attack, and jamming.

Electronic warfare 

The IAF's Special Electronic Missions Aircraft, which reportedly took part in the operation Israel reportedly used electronic warfare to take over Syrian air-defenses and feed them a false-sky picture, for the entire period of time that the Israeli fighter jets needed to cross Syria, bomb their target and return. This technology which neutralized Syrian radars may be similar to the Suter airborne network attack system. This would make it possible to feed enemy radar emitters with false targets, and even directly manipulate enemy sensors.

In May 2008, a report in IEEE Spectrum cited European sources claiming that the Syrian air defense network had been deactivated by a secret built-in kill switch activated by the Israelis.

When the aircraft approached the site, the Shaldag commandos directed their targeting laser at the facility, and the F-15Is released their bombs. The facility was totally destroyed.

The Shaldag commandos were extracted, and all Israeli aircraft returned to base. 

On their way back to Israel, the aircraft flew over Turkey and jettisoned fuel tanks over the Hatay and Gaziantep provinces. Immediately following the attack, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, explained the situation, and asked him to relay a message to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that Israel would not tolerate another nuclear plant, but that no further action was planned. Olmert said that Israel did not want to play up the incident and was still interested in peace with Syria, adding that if Assad chose not to draw attention to the incident, he would do likewise. Israeli official statements 

The first report about the raid came from CNN. Israel initially did not comment on the incident, although Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert did say that "The security services and Israeli defence forces are demonstrating unusual courage. We naturally cannot always show the public our cards."

 Israeli papers were banned from doing their own reporting on the airstrike. 

On 16 September, the head of Israeli military intelligence, Amos Yadlin, told a parliamentary committee that Israel regained its "deterrent capability".

The first public acknowledgment by an Israeli official came on 19 September, when opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu said that he had backed the operation and congratulated Prime Minister Olmert.

Netanyahu advisor Uzi Arad later told Newsweek "I do know what happened, and when it comes out it will stun everyone."

On 17 September, Prime Minister Olmert announced that he was ready to make peace with Syria "without preset conditions and without ultimatums".

 According to a poll done by the Dahaf Research Institute, Olmert's approval rating rose from 25% to 35% after the airstrike.

On 2 October 2007, the IDF confirmed the attack took place, following a request by Haaretz to lift censorship; however, the IDF continued to censor details of the actual strike force and its target.

On 28 October, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the Israeli cabinet that he had apologized to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan if Israel violated Turkish airspace. In a statement released to the press after the meeting he said: "In my conversation with the Turkish prime minister, I told him that if Israeli planes indeed penetrated Turkish airspace, then there was no intention thereby, either in advance or in any case, to—in any way—violate or undermine Turkish sovereignty, which we respect." 

Syrian reaction Abu Mohammed, a former major in the Syrian air force, recounted in 2013 that air defenses in the Deir ez-Zor region were told to stand down as soon as the Israeli planes were detected heading to the reactor. According to a leaked diplomatic cable, the Syrian government placed long-range missiles armed with chemical warheads on high alert after the attack but did not retaliate, fearing an Israeli nuclear counterstrike.

Syria at first claimed that its anti-aircraft weapons had fired at Israeli planes, which bombed empty areas in the desert, or later, a military construction site. During the two days following the attack, Turkish media reported finding Israeli fuel tanks in Hatay and Gaziantep Province, and the Turkish Foreign Minister lodged a formal protest with the Israeli envoy.

In a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, Syria called the incursion a "breach of airspace of the Syrian Arab Republic" and said "it is not the first time Israel has violated" Syrian airspace. Syria also accused the international community of ignoring Israeli actions. A UN spokesperson said Syria had not requested a meeting of the UN Security Council and France, at the time the president of the Security Council, said it had received no letter from Syria. 

On 27 April 2008, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, making his first public comments about the raid, dismissed the allegations that it was a nuclear site which was attacked as false: "Is it logical? A nuclear site did not have protection with surface to air defenses? A nuclear site within the footprint of satellites in the middle of Syria in an open area in the desert?" 

Independent experts, however, suggested that Syria did not fortify its suspected reactor in order to avoid drawing attention and because the building was not yet operational. 

Besides a nuclear program, Syria is believed to have extensive arsenals, as well as biological and chemical warheads for its long-range missiles.

On 25 February 2009, IAEA officials reported that Ibrahim Othman, Syria's nuclear chief, told a closed IAEA technical meeting that Syria built a missile facility on the site. 

International reactions 

No Arab government besides Syria formally commented on the incident. The Egyptian weekly Al-Ahram commented on the "synchronized silence of the Arab world." Neither the Israeli nor Syrian government has offered a detailed description of what occurred. Outside experts and media commentators have filled the data vacuum by offering their own diverse interpretations about what precisely happened that night. Western commentators took the position that the lack of official non-Syrian Arab condemnations of Israel's action, threats of retaliation against Israel, or even professions of support for the Syrian government or people must imply that their governments tacitly supported the Israeli action. Even Iranian officials have not formally commented on the Israeli attack or Syria's reactions.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was asked if North Korea was helping Syria in the nuclear realm, but replied only that "we are watching the North Koreans very carefully. We watch the Syrians very carefully."

The North Korean government strongly condemned Israel's actions: "This is a very dangerous provocation little short of wantonly violating the sovereignty of Syria and seriously harassing the regional peace and security."

On 17 October, in reaction to the UN press office's release of a First Committee, Disarmament and International Security meeting's minutes that paraphrased an unnamed Syrian representative as saying that a nuclear facility was hit by the raid, Syria denied the statement, adding that "such facilities do not exist in Syria." 

However state-run Syrian Arab News Agency said that media reports had misquoted the Syrian diplomat.[60] On the same day, the IAEA's Mohamed ElBaradei criticized the raid, saying that "to bomb first and then ask questions later [...] undermines the system and it doesn't lead to any solution to any suspicion."

The IAEA had been observing the disabling of the DPRK Yongbyon nuclear facilities since July 2007, and was responsible for the containment and surveillance of the fuel rods and other nuclear materials from there.

Meanwhile, U.S. House Resolution 674, introduced on 24 September 2007, expressed "unequivocal support ... for Israel's right to self defense in the face of an imminent nuclear or military threat from Syria." The bill had 15 cosponsors, but never reached a vote.

On 26 October, The New York Times published satellite photographs showing that the Syrians had almost entirely removed all remains of the facility. U.S. intelligence sources noted that such an operation would usually take up to a year to complete and expressed astonishment at the speed with which it was carried out. 

Former weapons inspector David Albright believed that the work was meant to hide evidence of wrongdoing.

On 28 April 2008, CIA Director Michael Hayden said that a suspected Syrian reactor bombed by Israel had the capacity to produce "enough plutonium for one or two weapons per year", and that it was of a "similar size and technology" to North Korea's Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center.

In his memoir Decision Points, President George W. Bush claimed that the strike confirmed that Syria had been pursuing a nuclear-weapons program and that "intelligence is not an exact science", relating that while he had been told that U.S. analysts only had low confidence that the facility was part of a nuclear-weapons program, surveillance after the airstrike showed parts of the destroyed facility being covered up. 

Bush wrote that "if the facility was really just an innocent research lab, Syrian President Assad would have been screaming at the Israelis on the floor of the United Nations". He also wrote that in a telephone conversation with Olmert, he suggested that the operation be kept secret for a while and then made public to isolate the Syrian government, but Olmert asked for total secrecy, wanting to avoid anything that might force Syrian retaliation.

In April 2011, after a lengthy investigation the International Atomic Energy Agency officially confirmed that the site was a nuclear reactor.

In 2012, the Non-aligned Movement adopted a statement according to which: 'The Heads of State or Government underscored the Movement's principled position concerning non-use or threat of use of force against the territorial integrity of any State. 

In this regard, they condemned the Israeli attack against a Syrian facility on 6 September 2007, which constitutes a flagrant violation of the UN Charter and welcomed Syria's cooperation with the IAEA in this regard’. 

Release of intelligence 

On 10 October 2007, The New York Times reported that the Israelis had shared the Syrian strike dossier with Turkey. In turn, the Turks traveled to Damascus and confronted the Syrians with the dossier, alleging a nuclear program. Syria denied this with vigor, saying that the target was a storage depot for strategic missiles.

On 25 October 2007, The New York Times reported that two commercial satellite photos taken before and after the raid showed that a square building no longer exists at the suspected site.

On 27 October 2007, The New York Times reported that the imaging company Geoeye released an image of the building from 16 September 2003, and from this security analyst John Pike estimated that construction began in 2001. "A senior intelligence official" also told The New York Times that the U.S. has observed the site for years by spy satellite.

Subsequent searches of satellite imagery discovered that an astronaut aboard the International Space Station had taken a picture of the area on 5 September 2002. The image, though of low resolution, is good enough to show that the building existed as of that date. 

 On 11 January 2008, DigitalGlobe released a satellite photo showing that a building similar to the suspected target of the attack had been rebuilt in the same location. However, an outside expert said that it was unlikely to be a reactor and could be cover for excavation of the old site.

On 1 April 2008, Asahi Shimbun reported that Ehud Olmert told Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda during a meeting on 27 February that the target of the strike was "nuclear-related facility that was under construction with know-how and assistance from North Korean technicians dispatched by Pyongyang."

On 24 April 2008, the CIA released a video and background briefing, which it claims shows similarities between the North Korean nuclear reactor in Yongbyon and the one in Syria which was bombed by Israel.

According to a U.S. official, there did not appear to be any uranium at the reactor, and although it was almost completed, it could not have been declared operational without significant testing. 

A statement from the White House Press Secretary on 24 April 2008, followed the briefing given to some Congressional committees that week. According to the statement, the administration believed that Syria had been building a covert reactor with North Korean assistance that was capable of producing plutonium, and that the purpose was non-peaceful. It was also stated that the IAEA was being briefed with the intelligence.

The IAEA confirmed receipt of the information, and planned to investigate. It was critical of not being informed earlier, and described the unilateral use of force as "undermining the due process of verification".

Syrian officials, however, denied any North Korean involvement in their country. 

According to BBC News, Syria's ambassador to the UK, Sami Khiyami, dismissed the allegations as ridiculous. "We are used to such allegations now, since the day the United States has invaded Iraq – you remember all the theatrical presentations concerning the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." 

Mr Khiyami said the facility was a deserted military building that had "nothing to do with a reactor".

On 21 March 2018, Israel formally acknowledged the operation and released newly declassified materials including photographs and cockpit video of the airstrike.

 Initial skepticism about the US and Israeli claims 

Despite the release of intelligence information from the American and Israeli sources, the attack on the Syrian site was initially controversial. Some commentators had argued that at the time of the attack the site had no obvious barbed wire or air defenses that would normally ring a sensitive military facility.

Mohamed ElBaradei had previously stated that Syria's ability to construct and run a complex nuclear process was doubtful – speaking ahead of the IAEA inspection of the alleged Syrian nuclear site, which had been demolished, he said: "It is doubtful we will find anything there now, assuming there was anything in the first place."

The New York Times reported that after the publishing of US intelligence data on 24 April, "two senior intelligence officials acknowledged that the evidence had left them with no more than "low confidence" that Syria was preparing to build a nuclear weapon. However, while they said that there was no sign that Syria had built an operation to convert the spent fuel from the plant into weapons-grade plutonium, they had told President Bush last year that they could think of no other explanation for the reactor."

BBC Diplomatic Correspondent Jonathan Marcus commented on the release of the CIA video that "Briefings about alleged weapons of mass destruction programmes have a lot to live down in the wake of the US experience in Iraq".

Aftermath

On 19 November 2008, IAEA released a report which said the Syrian complex bore features resembling those of an undeclared nuclear reactor and UN inspectors found "significant" traces of uranium at the site. The report said the findings gleaned from inspectors' visit to the site in June were not enough to conclude a reactor was once there. It said further investigation and greater Syrian transparency were needed. The confidential nuclear safeguards report said Syria would be asked to show to inspectors debris and equipment whisked away from the site after the September 2007 Israeli air raid.

On 19 February 2009, the IAEA reported that samples taken from the site revealed new traces of processed uranium. A senior UN official said additional analysis of the June find had found 40 more uranium particles, for a total of 80 particles, and described it as significant. He added that experts were analyzing minute traces of graphite and stainless steel found at and near the site, but said that it was too early to relate them to nuclear activity. 

The report noted Syria's refusal to allow agency inspectors to make follow-up visits to sites suspected of harboring a secret nuclear program despite repeated requests from top agency officials.

Syria disputed these claims. According to Syria's IAEA representative Othman, there would have been a large amount of graphite had the building been a nuclear reactor. Othman continued, "They found 80 particles in half a million tonnes of soil. I don't know how you can use that figure to accuse somebody of building such a facility."

In a November 2009 report, the IAEA stated that its investigation had been stymied due to Syria's failure to cooperate. 

The following February, under the new leadership of Yukiya Amano, the IAEA stated that "The presence of such [uranium] particles points to the possibility of nuclear-related activities at the site and adds to questions concerning the nature of the destroyed building. ... Syria has yet to provide a satisfactory explanation for the origin and presence of these particles".

Syria disputed these allegations, saying that there is not a military nuclear program in the country and that it has the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the field of nuclear medicine. Syria's foreign minister said, "We are committed to the non-proliferation agreement between the agency and Syria and we (only) allow inspectors to come according to this agreement. ... We will not allow anything beyond the agreement because Syria does not have a military nuclear program. Syria is not obliged to open its other sites to inspectors."

Syria maintains that the natural uranium found at the site came from Israeli missiles.

On 28 April 2011, the head of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano declared for the first time that the target was indeed the covert site of a future nuclear reactor, countering Syrian assertions.

The site during Syrian Civil War During the Syrian Civil War, the reactor site fell to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) militant group in May 2014. 

On 6 March 2017, the site was captured by the Syrian Democratic Forces – a U.S.-backed coalition of Kurdish and Arab militia fighters. Since then, the site has remained inside the territory governed by the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria.

Claiming responsibility

On 22 March 2018, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) officially took responsibility for destroying a nuclear reactor built in the northeastern Syrian province of Deir al-Zor in 2007 after a decade of ambiguity.

YOUTUBE VIDEO:


Wednesday, October 16, 2024

DESIGN / YUCATAN


Brutalist-style villa by a leading Mexico-based architectural firm embodies the natural beauty of Yucatán Peninsula caves. 


GUEST BLOG / By Jane Englefield as published in Dezeen Online Architecture magazine--Espacio 18 Arquitectura has designed a concrete holiday home in Tulum with a circular window in one of the ceilings revealing a swimming pool. Called Villa Cava, the fortress-like house takes cues from brutalism and is surrounded by lush vegetation in Tulum's Aldea Zamá neighborhood. 

The board-formed concrete holiday home is split between two levels and also features a rooftop garden. "The concrete was the result of a search to maintain a timeless architecture without maintenance that would adapt to the humid environment of Tulum, as well as hurricanes," explained architects Carla Osorio and Mario Ávila. 

 Described as a "habitable sculpture", visitors enter Villa Cava through a geometric double-height entrance that was constructed around two existing trees and leads to a staircase. 

A lower-level hallway is illuminated by a striking circular window in the ceiling that reveals a rooftop swimming pool. Blue-hued light filters through the opening and reinforces the cavernous atmosphere. "There is something amazing about the reflections on the walls that the water creates," Osorio and Ávila told Dezeen. 

An open-plan kitchen, a study and an airy living space feature on the lower floor, which also includes another swim-up pool. 

 Private bedrooms and bathrooms are contained on the second level where nine-metre-tall ceilings and a selection of skylights cast an abundance of natural light on the interiors. 

Throughout these spaces, interior designer Kayla Pongrac opted for light timber accents and neutrally toned furniture while smooth concrete floors and walls echo the home's facade. 

 The rooftop provides additional outdoor seating and presents views of the surrounding trees. Chunky, zigzagged concrete shapes that contain internal staircases protrude from various areas of the facade, enhancing its striking outward appearance. 

Espacio 18 designed the villa in collaboration with a young couple from Canada who were drawn to Mexico. "The inspiration came from the magical Cenote Suytun in Yucatán, which captured [the couple's] hearts, and they decided to create a home that embodied the natural beauty and spatial quality of the region," said Osorio and Ávila. 

Based in Oaxaca, Espacio 18 previously designed a townhouse with an internal courtyard in Puebla and a seafront Oaxacan home with two wings oriented to follow the rising and setting of the sun. 

Photography posted below is by César Béjar. 







Tuesday, October 15, 2024

AMERICANA / I LOVE LUCY DEBUTS


On this day in 1951, the first episode of I Love Lucy aired on CBS television; the comedy series—which starred Lucille Ball and her real-life husband, Desi Arnaz—became a classic. For 179 episodes until May 6, 1957, the sitcom aired on Monday nights at 9 pm. 



Monday, October 14, 2024

MEDIA MONDAY / A CASE FOR SHORTER U.S. ELECTION CAMPAIGNS.


GUEST ESSAY / By Oscar Pocasangre, New America, a Wash/DC think tank dedicated to realizing the promise of America in an era of rapid technological and social change. 

Mr. Pocasangre: If Vice President Kamala Harris wins this fall, it could set a precedent for a critical evaluation of the length of American electoral campaigns and the consequences of long campaigns on voters, governance, and democracy. Her presidential campaign will run just 107 days—a remarkably short period compared to the lengthy campaigns typically seen in the United States. 

For many political observers, this is too short of a runway to mount an effective campaign and make a compelling case to voters. To put this into perspective, Joe Biden would have had 560 days to campaign if he had stayed in the race and Donald Trump will have 721 days. 

American campaigns are some of the lengthiest campaigns in the world, with presidential bids often stretching over two years. Long campaign cycles can give voters ample time to learn about candidates and their policy positions, allow candidates more time to address a wide range of issues, and help filter out less viable candidates. 

However, these potential benefits are undone by the country’s polarized two-party system in which most voters make up their minds early in the process. Studies show that in the U.S., a significantly smaller share of voters decide on their candidate of choice in the final two months of the campaign compared to other advanced democracies, reflecting entrenched partisanship and early voter decisions during the long primary season. 

By the time a general election campaign is in full swing, most voters are not learning much about the candidates. Moreover, lengthy campaigns can alienate voters and fuel fatigue and frustrations with politics. This fatigue and frustration can lead to reduced political engagement, lower turnout, and even increased anxiety and depression among voters. 

So it is no surprise that 62 percent of Americans were already worn out by the 2024 campaigns by April. “Kamala Harris’s remarkably short 107-day presidential campaign highlights a pressing issue within the American electoral system: the need for reform in campaign duration.” 

Along with negatively affecting voters, extended campaign periods bring about a host of political and governance challenges. The financial demands of longer campaigns contribute to the excessive amounts of money in American politics and seemingly never-ending fundraising efforts. 

Additionally, lengthy campaigns can distract incumbent politicians from their official duties and hinder effective governance—discouraging collaboration and policymaking as the parties avoid giving each other any political victories. For example, 

Congress’ inability to pass border-related legislation in 2024 was partly attributed to political maneuvering by former President Trump intended to prevent any wins for the Biden administration, and in turn, the Biden campaign. Looking abroad, other countries provide different models for how to organize electoral calendars. In some countries, shorter campaigns are often a necessity due to flexible electoral calendars and strict campaign spending limits. 

For instance, France holds its official campaigns for just two weeks and conducted a snap election in 21 days this year. The United Kingdom also held snap elections this year with a 35-day period. 

In other countries, official campaign periods are meant to equalize the playing field for parties and limit the amount of money in politics. Following a 60-day period for primary campaigns, Mexico limits official campaign periods to 90 days for concurrent presidential and congressional elections and to 60 days for congressional elections alone. 

In 2023, Argentina allowed 33 days for campaigning for primaries (which are held all in one day) and 48 days to campaign for the first round of voting. Kamala Harris’s remarkably short 107-day presidential campaign highlights a pressing issue within the American electoral system: the need for reform in campaign duration. 

The contrast between Harris’s brief campaign and the extensive periods typically seen in the U.S. underscore the inefficiencies of the current system. The U.S. lacks a strong electoral agency to enforce strict campaigning limits and periods, and judicial resistance to regulating campaign spending further complicates the issue. 

Despite these challenges, there are promising pathways to reform. Implementing public campaign financing at the state level could impose sensible restrictions on campaign spending and reduce the excessive fundraising demands on candidates. 

On the federal level, adopting proportional representation could invigorate electoral competition and strengthen political parties. This approach could better streamline primary elections, potentially condensing them into a series of Super Tuesdays to accelerate candidate selection and minimize voter fatigue. 

By focusing on governance and cultivating a pipeline of quality candidates, political parties could shift their attention from perpetual campaigning to meaningful policy development. While the path to reforming the length and structure of campaigns is challenging, it could bring significant benefits: reducing financial burdens on candidates, increasing voter engagement, and improving overall governance. 

Shorter campaigns could also lead to fewer automated texts and emails that annoy voters and contribute to voter frustration—something everyone would welcome. As we consider these potential reforms, Harris’s brief campaign serves as a stark reminder of the need to innovate and refine our electoral processes. 

Embracing a shorter, more efficient campaign model could rejuvenate American democracy, making it more responsive and less burdensome for both candidates and voters alike. 

Sunday, October 13, 2024

SUNDAY REVIEW / GOOD GRIEF AND NOT SO GOOD GRIEF

 


5 things not to say to a grieving friend 

GUEST BLOG / By Alisyn Camerota, CNN, New York Correspondent---It’s almost impossible to know what to say to someone in the throes of grief. We all want to say something comforting. Very few of us know what that is. 

I’ve learned this the hard way. 

My beloved husband of 23 years died at the end of July, two years after being diagnosed with stage IV pancreatic cancer. 

Since then, I’ve seen friends and neighbors struggle for the right words, and I’ve been surprised by how even the kindest questions can set me off. 

There’s no one right answer, of course. What is helpful for me may not work for someone else, and words that I find off-putting may be the perfect balm for another person. Still, trading notes with a few grieving people, including my own children, I’ve found some helpful do’s and five unexpected not so hot questions:

No. 1: ‘How are you?’ 

I was surprised how loaded this basic question can feel. A caring friend wants to know how you’re doing. What could possibly be wrong with that? The problem, my kids and I realized, is that it’s a near-impossible question to answer. Our feelings of grief change by the hour, sometimes by the minute, so there’s no answer that will stand the test of time. 

Do you mean how am I this very second? I can answer that, but my answer might change a second later. 

 Do you mean how are we coping in life? The answer is, we don’t know yet. We find it easier to answer less overarching questions, such as, how was college drop-off? How was the first day of school? How was dinner last night? 

Specific questions are less challenging than existential ones. 

No. 2: ‘How can I help?’ 

I’ve had to dig deep to figure out why this generous question from well-meaning friends doesn’t sit right. I think it’s because it puts the onus on the griever to help the helper. 

The helper wants to figure something out – but those of us who are grieving are in no position to help. We often can’t articulate, and might not even know, what we want or need. 

 Here’s something that worked really well: neighbors who, without asking, dropped off a tray of lasagna or cookies or flowers or fill-in-the-blank. They didn’t ring the doorbell. They didn’t call to find out if we liked lasagna or if we’d be home. They simply left something on the doorstep. One helpful friend showed up at my house and immediately rolled up her sleeves and started doing my sink full of dishes. She didn’t ask. She just dived in. 

 One recent morning, as I struggled to summon the energy to open the fridge and figure out breakfast for the kids and me, I watched a delivery truck back into our driveway. Out came bags of bagels, platters of cream cheese, smoked salmon, fresh fruit and a carton of hot coffee sent by my colleagues. 

That morning, I did not have the forethought to say, “You know, I could really go for a bagel and coffee right now,” but it turns out that’s exactly what we needed. 

 No. 3: ‘I can’t imagine what you must be going through’ 

One of my teenage daughters, a theater kid, explained to me why this phrase really rubs her the wrong way: It reveals a curious lack of creativity. 

 Here’s what she wanted to ask her friends who said this: Really? You’ve never imagined losing a parent? Have you ever seen a movie about loss or death? “The Fault in Our Stars,” perhaps? How ‘bout “The Lion King”? Were you dry-eyed when Mufasa died, or did you cry and feel Simba’s pain? 

My daughter’s hunch is that you can, in fact, imagine a devastating loss, but you don’t want to imagine it for yourself or have to think of how sad this is for us. 

 That’s understandable. 

We want to protect you from our pain, too. But the statement has the unintended effect of isolating us on a grief island, as though loss was somehow singularly ours. 

 So instead of putting our feelings in an unimaginable silo, try relating to us. Say something like, “I remember when I lost my X and I felt X”. 

Or maybe share a specific memory like “I really enjoyed watching your dad coach you in soccer. I’m going to miss that.” A statement like that lets us know we’re not alone. 

 No. 4: ‘This is so unfair’ 

I was surprised when friends, particularly friends my age, said this. I’m in the news business, so I think my notion of life “being fair” vanished somewhere in the middle of covering yet another senseless school shooting. I’ve long since stopped thinking of life as being neatly organized into fair and unfair categories. Instead of trying to untangle grief from injustice, I’ve started the practice of radical acceptance. 

This concept was introduced to my husband and me by our grief counselor immediately after his diagnosis. It goes something like this: 

Some things in life are glorious, and some things suck. Try to accept life on its own terms and deal with the hand you’re dealt. Radical acceptance has been a game-changer for me and how I tackle the tough stuff. Instead of asking, “Why me?” or “How can life be so unfair?” I say, “This is what I’m dealing with. What’s the best way forward?” 

 No. 5: ‘I want to come give you a hug’ 

 Before I became a widow, I would not have understood how a loving gesture from a friend could ever feel uncomfortable. Now I do. Those of us grieving need to pace ourselves. 

It’s draining to grieve for too long on any given day, so we titrate the pain. I find myself carefully carving out chunks of time to read condolence cards and respond to sympathy emails because I need to conserve energy to attend to the stuff of life: my kids’ needs, my work schedule, unpaid bills, returning my husband’s leased car. 

 Being wrapped in grief does not allow me to function the way I need to. Friends who arrived at my door teary-eyed forced the unintended response of me having to grieve with them on their timetable, rather than my own. 

Sometimes it felt as though I had to comfort them and help them cope with the loss, which was counterproductive for my mental state. If you do feel compelled to show up at the doorstep of someone who has just suffered a loss, try to bring laughter and lightness with you to help alleviate the grief load on them. 

What to say when there are no words What worked beautifully for us was receiving a lovingly composed letter, email or text, expressing someone’s emotions. I could read the message on my own schedule, at a time I had chosen for reflection. One dear friend sent a lacquered box where I can store condolence cards and keep coming back to when I want to remember the deep impact my husband had on our community. 

 Remember, it’s OK to say you don’t know what to say. It’s also OK to wait a beat before saying it. 

Last week, I got a text from an old friend who I’d not heard from in the months since my husband’s death. She said, “I haven’t found the right words to text you.” I knew exactly what she meant, and somehow those words felt just right.

Thursday, October 10, 2024

THE FOODIST / TOP U.S. DINING REVIEWER PICKS HIS FAVORITE RESTAURANT.

Chicatana co-owners, from left A to Z: Jose Abrego, Hector Flora and Marcelino Zamudio. Photo: Scott Suchman, WaPo. 

Note: This Blog presents this guest article as part of an occasional series of outstanding restaurant journalism from around the world. 

Food critic Tom Sietsema [Washington Post] has picked--out of all the restaurants in the nation’s capital—a friendly, enticing Mexican spot in Columbia Heights as his year’s best place to eat: 

Welcome to Chicatana. 3903 14th St. NW. chicatanadc.com. 202-481-0511. Indoor and outdoor seating. Mains $13 to $29. Dinner daily and brunch weekends. Takeout and delivery. Sound check: 70 decibels/Must speak with raised voice. Accessibility: No barriers at entrance; ADA-compliant restroom. 

[Sietsema:] Marcelino Zamudio has worked for some admired chefs, notably José Andrés, in some of Washington’s most popular restaurants. 

Up until a few months ago, his mornings were spent at Oyamel in Penn Quarter, after which he’d race to 14th Street NW to cook for dinner guests at Chicatana, the intimate Mexican storefront he and friends opened during the pandemic. 

If you ask Zamudio to identify his best teacher, though, the native of Guerrero, in southwestern Mexico, names his mother. When he was a child, she insisted he learn how to make eggs and salsa in case “your wife doesn’t like to cook,” Zamudio says she told him. Like many immigrants before him, his first job in Washington was as a dishwasher at Rosa Mexicano. 


Co-owner Hector Flora, the face behind the bar and a childhood friend of Zamudio’s, learned his craft early, as well. As a boy, he grew up watching, and sometimes helping, his father make mezcal. Back home, he says, the evening tradition was to enjoy a shot of mezcal before dinner (cheers to that). 

Flora’s clear pride in the spirit is evident on the drinks list at Chicatana, where most of the cocktails are fueled by mezcal and the shelves are stocked with around 120 varieties. 

The third reason for the success of Chicatana is co-chef and co-owner Jose Abrego, the first face I remember from my maiden visit last year. Sitting at one of the stools overlooking his small open kitchen near the entrance, I admired the care Abrego took with everything he touched, including the trompo, or vertical meat spit. 

Abrego met Zamudio when the two worked at the Spanish-accented Boqueria in Penn Quarter, where they dreamed of serving polished versions of Mexican street food, or “tapas in a taqueria,” as Zamudio put it. 

Focus, and teamwork, meant the trio of friends could relocate Chicatana from small quarters to bigger digs on the same block in just three days in August. On opening week, the new version of Chicatana felt like it had been operating for years. 

Follow-up visits find an indoor-outdoor restaurant that’s doubled in size, as friendly and enticing as the original — actually more mouthwatering, since a larger kitchen means a lot more specials. 

There are no finer fried potato cakes than the tortitas de papa here, presented on lush epazote aioli, or more compelling shrimp sopes, their golden corn saucers brushed with haunting mole. 

One meal begot another at Chicatana, a beacon that I wish for every neighborhood. 

As I was eating (and drinking!) here, basking in the charm of owners who also act as ambassadors in the dining room, I was always plotting my next return. 

Beef Tinga from Chicatana

Chicatana is where I’d happily go on my own time and dime. Which is a long way of honoring Chicatana with my Restaurant of the Year award. 

The crew isn’t resting on its laurels. Already, the original workspace has been re-christened La Plaza, with a menu of Spanish and Mexican tapas designed to complement rather than compete with nearby restaurants. 

A good D.C. city block is poised to become greater. 

Wednesday, October 9, 2024

DESIGN / SOUTH PARK’S OTHER WORLDLY BAR LANDS INTERIOR AWARD


The Mothership bar and restaurant in San Diego's South Park quadrant won the Orchid for Interior Design. The 48-year old Orchids and Onions gala awards Orchids for exceptional architecture and Onions for projects that missed the mark. This year the 48-year-old competition led by the San Diego Architectural Foundation awarded more than a dozen Orchids for exceptional architecture and two Onions. 

There were more than 100 nominations but none quite like this ex-Mexican cafe. Few dining spots in town boast the decor of a crashed space shuttle, but why not? It's not our money, right?

Says San Diego Eater, Mothership is the second project from Kindred restaurant (Beech & Fern Sts.), owner Kory Stetina, in partnership with CH Projects co-founder Arsalun Tafazoli. Designed and built by Ignacio “Notch” Gonzalez of Top Notch Kustoms (SF’s Whitechapel and Smuggler’s Cove).

The Mothership was lauded for its sci-fi interior hiding inside a Mission-style building at 2310 30th Street just north of Juniper. Reservations are suggested, which gets you a 90 minute window to eat. Click here for the menu that's pure out of this world entrepreneural hutzpah.

The Mothership with hits Orchid award hype will no doubt be this year's hot Halloween dining experience.  So make that reservation! 



Tuesday, October 8, 2024

THE DAY CHE GUEVARA WAS CAPTURED IN BOLIVIA

An American tourist visiting Cuba in 2015 poses in front of a figure of Che Guevera, a larger than life leader of the Cuban Revolution, his stylized visage has become a ubiquitous countercultural symbol of rebellion and global insignia in popular culture.  PillartoPost.org photo.

Photo: Alberto Korda.
Che Guevara (1928-1967), a prominent communist figure in the Cuban Revolution and a South American guerrilla leader. 

Ernesto "Che" Guevara was an Argentine Marxist revolutionary, physician, author, guerrilla leader, diplomat, and military theorist.  

In early 1965, from Cuba he travelled to Africa and eventually to Bolivia to lead unsuccessful attempts to bring Cuban style Marxism overseas.  In 1967 he led forces rebelling against the government of René Barrientos Ortuño. With alleged US assistance, the Bolivian army captured Guevara [see below]and his remaining fighters. 

He was executed on 9 October 1967 in the Bolivian village of La Higuera.


Monday, October 7, 2024

MEDIA MONDAY / GAZA WAR YEAR ONE WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED

 

A resident walks amid the devastation following an overnight Israeli airstrike that targeted the neighborhood of Haret Hreik in Beirut's southern suburbs on October 3, 2024 (Photo by AFP) (Photo by -/AFP via Getty Images). 

GUEST ESSAY / By Michael Froman, President of the Council on Foreign Relations--Today marks one year since thousands of Hamas fighters breached the barrier separating Gaza from Israel and launched a deadly coordinated assault on Israel. The October 7 attack not only killed more than 1,000 Israelis (mostly civilians); it also upended Gaza, Israel, and the entire Middle East. For more on the changes of the past year—and what might happen next—I spoke with  Steven A. Cook, CFR’s Eni Enrico Mattei Senior Fellow for Middle East and Africa Studies, who recently returned from a week-long trip to Israel.   

 **** 

Mr. Froman
First some background music. Who is Michael Froman and what is CFR? Michael Froman is president of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He previously served as vice chairman and president, strategic growth, at Mastercard, chairman of the Mastercard Center for Inclusive Growth, and a distinguished fellow at CFR.

 The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an American think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy and international relations. Founded in 1921, it is an independent and nonpartisan 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. CFR is based in New York City, with an additional office in Washington, D.C. Its membership has included senior politicians, secretaries of state, CIA directors, bankers, lawyers, professors, corporate directors, CEOs, and prominent media figures. 

 CFR meetings convene government officials, global business leaders, and prominent members of the intelligence and foreign-policy communities to discuss international issues. CFR publishes the bi-monthly journal Foreign Affairs since 1922. It also runs the David Rockefeller Studies Program, which makes recommendations to presidential administrations and the diplomatic community, testifies before Congress, interacts with the media, and publishes research on foreign policy issues. 

 Michael Froman is the organization's 15th president. 

 **** 

 Mr. Froman: "...Israel has now been at war in Gaza for nearly a year. Tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians have been killed, and yet victory hardly seems close at hand. What is the Israeli government’s strategy?   

The Israeli goal remains “the defeat of Hamas,” though Israeli leaders more likely mean “rendering Hamas unable to threaten Israel’s security.” From what I heard during my time in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, the Israelis believe they have realized or are close to realizing this aim. They have all but declared major combat operations over, and as I was departing, they began shifting military units to Israel’s northern border.   

 Israeli officials have said that Hamas fighters remain in Gaza, but they are a disorganized force. As a result, the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] will continue to fight there, hitting small groups of terrorists whenever they have the opportunity. Early in the conflict, Israeli officials declared that after major combat Israel would maintain “overall security control in Gaza.” That seems to be what is happening.   

 How about the Israeli public? What’s their attitude toward the war?    

The Israeli public is deeply divided. The hard right wants victory in Gaza, arguing that if the IDF does not win there, it will not win in the West Bank or Lebanon. By “win,” they mean defeating Hamas and Hezbollah. This is why the right has clearly pushed the government to prioritize the fight against Hamas over the fate of Israel’s remaining hostages.   

 This puts the right at odds with the mushy middle that analysts call “liberal Zionists,” which runs from left of center to right of center. This group deeply distrusts the government and would like to bring the conflict to an end. 

Anecdotally, members of this group seem to be in an internal struggle; they recognize that the hostages make Israel’s battle more difficult, but they also want the government to do everything possible to bring the hostages home, and they simply do not believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu has done that. 

 The left, for its part, fears that the government is slipping into fascism. It wants to end the war in Gaza and would like the government to fall. The problem is that leftists and liberal Zionists do not have a political program to achieve this goal. They are long on outrage, but short on strategy.  

 Q. Set the domestic political scene. How secure is Netanyahu’s position? And what’s the state of the opposition?  

Netanyahu’s coalition is stable, with a 68-seat majority after a number of Likud dissidents agreed to join the government. That will make it easier for the prime minister to weather the constant political threat from his right flank, which will brook no compromise in the fight with Hamas. 

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir, for example, are both suspicious of any ceasefire, fearing it would effectively end the war, allowing Hamas to fight another day. 

As long as Netanyahu is careful not to cross this line, he seems safe.    

Q. While you were in Israel, the Houthis launched a missile near Tel Aviv, and the Israelis set off explosives in pagers used by Hezbollah members in Lebanon. The war in Gaza has escalated well beyond Gaza. Since you returned, Israel has sent ground forces into Lebanon, and Iran has again launched missiles at Israel. When you think about how the conflict could intensify and spread further, what worries you most?   

 Indeed, I slept through the air raid sirens when the Houthis attacked. That was my first morning in Israel. In rapid succession, Israel attacked Hezbollah with exploding pagers and walkie talkies, and then, when the group’s commanders met because they could not otherwise communicate, killed them in an airstrike. 

A week later, of course, Israel killed Hezbollah’s spiritual leader, Hassan Nasrallah. The Israeli escalation is clearly intended to intimidate Hezbollah (and its patron, Iran) and re-establish the deterrence it lost on October 7.      

 Certainly, Hezbollah is back on its heels, and it remains an open question whether it can muster an effective response to Israel, at least in the short run. My concerns are twofold. First, I worry that Israel's determination to launch a significant retaliatory strike against Iran will not deter Tehran, which may then order another round of (possibly larger) ballistic missile strikes on Israel. 

If that were to happen, it would be hard to control the spiral, and the Israel-Iran war that everyone has worried about will be upon us. This would likely draw the United States and others into the conflict. 

Second, I worry about the Israelis getting stuck in Lebanon. The Israelis are determined to change the rules of the game with Hezbollah and press their advantage. Fair enough, but if they go in on the ground, as they are poised to do, how do they get out?   

 We have seen this before: in the early 1980s, when Israel undertook Operation Peace for Galilee and drove all the way to Beirut. Israel ended up occupying a “security belt” in southern Lebanon between 1985 and 2000. About 250 Israeli soldiers were killed in those years. The difference between then and now is that the Israelis had help in the 1980s and 1990s from Lebanese Christian militias. Today, they would have no such allied help.  

Sunday, October 6, 2024

SUNDAY REVIEW / HELLO, TALKIES!


On this day in 1927, The Jazz Singer, starring Al Jolson, premiered in New York City, Debuting the sound era of motion pictures. 

 And, what were the first words uttered on the motion picture screen? 

Al Jolson as Jack Robin: “Wait a minute, wait a minute, you ain't heard nothin' yet! Wait a minute, I tell ya! You ain't heard nothin'! You wanna hear "Toot, Toot, Tootsie"? All right, hold on, hold on...” • [then he walks back to one of the band members] 

Jack Robin: “Lou, listen. Play "Toot, Toot, Tootsie", three chorus, you understand. In the third chorus, I whistle. Now give it to 'em hard and heavy, go right ahead.”

Al Jolson and May McAvoy in a scene from
the first “talkie” movie The Jazz Singer.