16 thoughts on “Ashkenazi Video Admits IDF Bombed Syrian Nuclear Reactor and Created Stuxnet – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. The article doesn’t say the video actually admmited anything – only very strongly implied. This sort of thing is very common in israel, nothing I havn’t seen before.

    1. Well, if the chief of staff wants to produce a video touting his achievements & it includes references to the Syrian attack & Stuxnet, can’t we say that’s the equivalent of ‘”nuff said?” Does he need to come right out on screen and say the words before we believe him?

      1. Well everyone already knows israel did it. We don’t need to believe him. What would be a bigger deal is if they openly took responsibility, which, in israel’s crazy-land, they didn’t. Dagan also had that kind of praise. Peres is usually praised for his “textile” contributions.

        Israel has always been struggling between it’s paranoid secrecy and it’s need to boast.

  2. Richard, is there real evidence that what Israel bombed in Syria was in fact a nuclear reactor? If not, then your title is misleading.

      1. I’m not asking for incontrovertible proof. I also do not accept as convincing evidence “generallly accepted” by “experts”, especially unnamed experts.

          1. Shirin:

            What difference does it make to your position if it really was a nuclear reactor or not? I assume you consider the attack to be blatant aggression against a neighbouring country in any case?

            Or were it to be proven that it indeed were to have been a nuclear reactor that would somewhat mitigate the attack in your eyes?

  3. WSJ: Can I ask a broader question? I know the big issue in this region from Iran to Syria to Israel is of a region free of WMDs; nuclear free zone. On the one hand, I know Syria and other countries have been very interested in pushing Israelis to sign the NPT under international auspices and that does not happen, but at the same time is in a little bit of a conflict with IAEA over allegations that Syria has this kind of covered pursued nuclear technology. Can you talk about those and how to get to a nuclear free zone and beat your conflict with the IAEA and if there is a way to have a resolution over their accusations?

    President Assad: We were a member of the Security Council for two tears, 2002 and 2003, and there was a Syrian draft at that time regarding freeing the Middle East from WMDs and of course who opposed that? The Bush administration, because it included Israel, and actually it is still there, and I think they gave it a blue form, I mean it is not activated. This is our point of view: that it has been a region of conflict for centuries not decades. Regarding the IAEA, Israel attacked this site and we said this is a military site. Of course at the beginning they did not say it is a nuclear site. They waited for eight months and after we rebuilt the site, they said it was a nuclear site. They should be punishing the United States and Israel, especially the United States: why did you wait eight months to say it is nuclear, this is the first point. The second point is what happened with IAEA. They asked us to send experts; and because we were very confident we told them you can come, and they came and took samples and went to Vienna I think, and then they said that they discovered some particles of radiations, and you know if you had a nuclear plant, you would not allow anyone in the world to come if you want to keep it secret, this is first. Second, they said Israel attacked a nuclear site under construction and before it started working. If it is under construction, and before it started working, how could you have these particles? Where did they come from? Because you do not bring the materials to the site till it is working, it is ready, is that true? This is second. Third, how can they destroy a site without having causalities, without having any emergency plans, because it is supposed to be nuclear? What about radiations? Everybody could go there now, it is open and you can cross beside it. So, it is clear to everyone that it was not nuclear, but the question is: why they waited for eight months? Because when you wait eight months and we rebuilt the site, it is easy for you to say it was, you understand that?

    WSJ: Yes.

    President Assad: Because if they believed it was nuclear, they should have done that without the attacking. If they want to create a problem for Syria, they could tell the IAEA: look we have the satellite images, go to Syria and Syria will be cornered. What to do, we have a site, we are going to allow them and they are going to see the site as it is. So, they destroyed it and they waited for Syria to build it, and then they said it was a nuclear site. Now “was” how can you prove “was”. Now, this is the convoluted issue, the complicated issue they created and how to prove it? So, as long as you cannot prove it was, then this means it “was”…

    WSJ: And definitely it was not?

    President Assad: Definitely it was not. From the course of events, it was not because if you attack it, how was it, where are the materials? We do not have it; the experts went there and you have normal live there, how could you have radiations after the attack and you do not have any emergency plans? They have the satellite and its pictures every day and they can tell. The only thing that we did is that we took the debris and removed it somewhere else and rebuilt the site. We did not clean and you cannot clean if you want to clean the radiations; they say it stays for one hundred years or forever I do not know. So, this is not realistic, they know this. The other issue of the IAEA is not related to, what we call a small experimental reactor, of course under the supervision of the IAEA and they come from time to time to Syria to check and they checked this time and discovered materials which they say are illegal and we are still discussing this with them and we do not know about it because we have a phosphate factory and we have yellow cakes as a result and some of our expert scientists made some experiments and the funny thing is that those experiments were published in journals; these experiments are not a secret and they said this is a breach. Okay, but this is public and it was published in a journal; it is not a secret. So, there was this kind of conflict and they want to find a link between this first site and the second site, but this one is different from that

  4. Dear Richard Silverstein:

    There are very serious doubts about whether the Syrian site was a nuclear reactor. See my article

    Syrian Nukes: the Phantom Menace
    which can be found at


    I don’t know what experts you consulted, but you should have spoken with Joseph Cirincione, of the Center for American Progress. He says Israel bombed an arms depot, not a nuclear reactor.

    As for Stuxnet, it seems to me that the analyst Cyrus Safdari raises very serious doubts about the official story. Safdari thinks that the Iranian enrichment effort has made progress in the last year. A number of countries have had a problem with Stuxnet, not just Iran. And his research indicates that the Stuxnet worm doesn’t show a particularly high degree of expertise.


    Best regards!

    1. John Farley:

      I think you’re probably right. All the Israeli\US bashing on the Suxtnet story is probably unfounded and is yet another excuse for those who often like to criticise policies of Israel and the US.

      Thanks for showing us that this is another example of “mossadophobia”

  5. I believe the IAEA will be issuing a report soon stating that Syria has obstructed its requests to investigate the site and taking it to the SC for review. I can look for the article, but you can google IAEA and Syria for recent news on this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link