I just received a fascinating analysis by Stratfor of the Bush administration's briefing to Congress this past Thursday on the September 2007 Israeli destruction of a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor that had been under construction, apparently with the assistance of Kim Jong-il's North Korea. Here's an excerpt:
More interesting is the question of why the United States - and not Israel - is briefing on an Israeli raid. Israeli media reported April 23 that the Israelis had asked the Americans not to brief Congress. The reason given was that the Israelis did not want the United States to embarrass Syria at this point. As we noted on April 23, there appeared to have been some interesting diplomatic moves between Syria and Israel, and it made sense that revealing this information now might increase friction.If this read is true, then it would appear that the United States briefed deliberately against Israeli wishes. Certainly, the Israelis didn't participate in the process. One answer could be that the United States is unhappy about Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's moves on Syria and wants to derail them. The United States wanted Syria out of Lebanon. The Israelis have a more complex view of their presence. In some ways, they see the Syrians as a stabilizing force. And they certainly aren't eager to see Bashar al Assad's government fall, since whatever might replace the al Assad government would probably be worse from the Israeli point of view. That would mean that the Israelis would want to take out the reactor, but not necessarily rub the Syrians' nose in it.
So there are two plausible answers to Thursday's show. One is to increase pressure on North Korea. The second is to derail any Israeli-Syrian peace process. The problem is that it's hard to see why North Korea is going to be moved by the official declaration of what Washington has been saying from the beginning. The second would assume that U.S.-Israeli relations had deteriorated to the point that the United States had to use this as a lever. That's tough to believe.The senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Peter Hoekstra, said after the briefing, "This administration has no credibility on North Korea. A lot of us are beginning to become concerned that the administration is moving away from getting a solid policy solution to 'let's make a deal.'"
So that seems to undermine the prep for strike theory. That leaves tension between the United States and Israel as the last standing theory. Not a good theory, but the last standing one.
The Bush Administration as far more hawkish vis-a-vis Syria than Israel is? That makes perfect sense, and once again points out the fact that far from Israel having an undue and/or unhealthy influence on U.S. foreign policy, the Bush Administration is quite capable of being super-hawkish, unilateralist nincompoops all by themselves. As to the Israelis, they have to "live in the neighborhood," which is one reason why Israeli policy tends to be more pragmatic in many cases, certainly in this case. The question is, what's the Bush Administration's strategy in the Middle East region, as well as vis-a-vis North Korea? Right now, it appears incoherently schizophrenic, which sadly might be better than the alternatives this administration might come up with.
As to the plant the Israelis bombed in Syria, by all accounts it looks like it was a nuclear plant, do you have evidence to the contrary?
Finally, as to WMD in Iraq, everyone knows Saddam had them and used them, the only questions are when he got rid of them, where he sent them, and why exactly he did so.
As far as the two ultimate possibilities offered by stratfor, I think it's shortsighted to say that there are only too plausible answers and that the Israeli tension answer has to be the most likely because it's slightly less ridiculous than the North Korea pressuring answer. On the one hand, I think that the administration sucks at diplomacy to the extent that they might actually have had the gall to think that this really would pressure North Korea.
And on the other hand, I also think that it's foolish to only look at foreign policy explanations for what could have a domestic policy answer. The economy is the #1 issue for voters right now when foreign policy is John McCain's "strength." Anything that gets foreign policy into the news--even when it's not entirely good news--is better for the Republican Party and George W. Bush's legacy.
Israel usually doesn't talk much at all publicly about its military activities, so I'm too surprised they weren't out in front briefing the dirty details.