The first of the two photos, taken in August, shows a sprawling complex surrounding a 150-foot by 150-foot monolithic. Experts say that this building is similar to the kind needed to house a nuclear reactor. Also, a smaller building on the Euphrates River, about a half-mile away, resembles the kind of pumping station that would be needed to cool such a reactor. The second photograph, taken a few days ago on Oct. 24, shows nothing but a smooth patch of paved earth where the building once stood. Many observers were shocked about the speed at which the site was cleaned. "It's a magic act - here today, gone tomorrow," one senior intelligence official told the Times. "It doesn't lower suspicions; it raises them. This was not the long-term decommissioning of a building, which can take a year. It was speedy. It's incredible that they could have gone to that effort to make something go away."
Many analysts say that such a speedy cleanup could be interpreted as a sign of guilt. Officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna stated that while they are currently looking at the photographs, they would still like to examine the site in person. The fact that Syria dismantled the structure before international attention was focused on it seems like an attempt to hide its true nuclear nature. Even more unsettling is that the structure in the photographs is nearly identical to a North Korean design for a nuclear reactor, differing by only a few feet in dimension. However, Syrian Ambassador to the United States Imad Moustapha vehemently denied accusations of nuclear ambitions, calling them "absolutely blatant lie[s]." Regardless of the ambassador's protestations, it should be noted that the site was most likely the target of an Israeli air strike last month, a fact which Israel only recently confirmed. Syrians claim that the only thing destroyed in the attack was an empty military warehouse.
A reactor that would most likely have been housed in a structure of such size would have been able to produce enough plutonium to create roughly one weapon per year. Absent from the photographs, however, is the building needed to process the nuclear fuel rods after they are spent. Nuclear expert at the Center for American Progress Joseph Cirincione said that even though the evidence "tilts towards a nuclear program," and even if the worst suspicions are confirmed, such a program would still be years away from being operational and so does not present an immediate threat.
This should do little to ease the worries of those who fear nuclear weapons in the hands of an aggressive nation that has a laundry list of human rights violations and a president who claims to have been elected with over 97% of the vote in his favor. We should treat the laying of the first brick of a nuclear installation with the same severity as the completion of an operational missile silo. It is not the actual possession of nuclear weapons that makes a nation a threat to its neighbors, but rather the will to use those weapons, which Syria does not lack. If the allegations are true and Syria was indeed trying to extract weapons-grade plutonium, we should not be surprised that Israel decided to bomb the installation before the first molecule of nuclear material was ever created. Syria is Israel's most immediate military threat, and history has shown that the Israelis will not hesitate to preemptively strike if they feel threatened.
This entire incident should redouble efforts to keep nukes out of the hands of aggressive states like Syria or Iran, on the part of not only the U.S., but of any nation that values global stability, especially where the Middle East and nuclear nonproliferation are concerned.
Currently, with so many troops and resources being employed in Iraq, people are hesitant to point out dangerous encroachments made elsewhere in the world. But we as a nation would be remiss to change our stance on nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue states, or even worse, to turn a blind eye to such developments out of a mere sense of prudence. It would hardly benefit our situation in Iraq to allow nearby countries free reign in their hostile ambitions. We must prevent Syrian nuclear weapons, not only for our own sake, but for the stability of the entire Middle East and the balance of world power.