U.N. report concludes that Syrian site destroyed in 2007 was a nuclear reactor

[oberliner]

Source: Washington Post

A U.N. investigation has formally concluded that Syria “very likely” was building a secret nuclear reactor in 2007 when the partially completed project was destroyed by Israeli warplanes, according to a report Tuesday that put new pressure on the embattled government of President Bashar al-Assad.

The report by the International Atomic Energy Agency was the first by the watchdog group to officially link Syria to a clandestine nuclear program, a move that opens the door to punitive measures, including a possible referral to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions.

The United States and its allies have maintained for years that the construction site attacked by Israel on Sept. 6, 2007, was a nuclear reactor intended for making fuel for nuclear bombs, a claim that Syria has vigorously denied. Tuesday’s IAEA report essentially ends the debate, citing extensive physical and photographic evidence showing that Syria’s Dair Alzour project had all the hallmarks of a 25-megawatt nuclear reactor.

U.N. officials determined that the partially completed reactor on the banks of the Euphrates River was not configured to produce electricity, suggesting that it was almost certainly part of a clandestine nuclear weapons effort.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/un-report-concludes-that-syrian-site-destroyed-in-2007-was-a-nuclear-reactor/2011/05/24/AFJ9tdAH_story.html

[Moondog]

1. Duh.

In other news, tomorrow the sun will rise in the east.

[oberliner]

4. I don't think this opinion was widely shared here at the time

There was a lot of skepticism.

[Moondog]

5. Yeah, I know.

Sometimes one just needs to keep one's head down.

[oberliner]

6. The default assumption for some is that Israel/US are lying

It can be quite frustrating.

[Journeyman]

2. And this is why I never believed Saddam Hussein was even close to building a nuclear facility. . .

if he were, the Israelis would destroy it anyway, so why get the U.S. involved? . . .

[truebrit71]

3. So why haven't they gone after the Iranian ones?

I don't disagree with your statement, I just don't think it is 100% accurate...