Very interesting if true. Why would the U.S. need Israeli 'cover' if they're the ones who carried out the attacks? Al-Jazeera was the one that initially reported this, citing a number of Israeli and Arab sources... USAF Struck Syrian "Nuclear" Site http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380718519&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull 11/02/07 "JPost" -- -- The September 6 raid over Syria was carried out by the US Air Force, the Al-Jazeera Web site reported Friday. The Web site quoted Israeli and Arab sources as saying that two strategic US jets armed with tactical nuclear weapons carried out an attack on a nuclear site under construction. The sources were quoted as saying that Israeli F-15 and F-16 jets provided cover for the US planes. The sources added that each US plane carried one tactical nuclear weapon and that the site was hit by one bomb and was totally destroyed. At the beginning of October, Israel's military censor began to allow the local media to report on the raid without attributing their report to foreign sources. Nevertheless, details of the strike have remained clouded in mystery. On October 28, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the cabinet that he had apologized to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan if Israel violated Turkish airspace during a strike on an alleged nuclear facility in Syria last month. In a carefully worded statement that was given to reporters after the cabinet meeting, Olmert 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." The New York Times reported on October 13 that Israeli planes struck at what US and Israeli intelligence believed was a partly constructed nuclear reactor in Syria on September 6, citing American and foreign officials who had seen the relevant intelligence reports. According to the report, Israel carried out the report to send a message that it would not tolerate even a nuclear program in its initial stages of construction in any neighboring state. On October 17, Syria denied that one of its representatives to the United Nations told a panel that an Israeli air strike hit a Syrian nuclear facility and added that "such facilities do not exist in Syria." A UN document released by the press office had provided an account of a meeting of the First Committee, Disarmament and International Security, in New York, and paraphrased an unnamed Syrian representative as saying that a nuclear facility was hit by the raid. However, the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency, SANA said media reports, apparently based on a UN press release, misquoted the Syrian diplomat.
Interesting if true is an understatement! Tactical Nukes? Even GWB isn't that dumb. Fails the common sense test many times over... That's not to say that the U.S. wasn't involved in some way, but I'll eat my hat if the U.S. had Israeli jets covering U.S. warplanes that dropped nuclear weapons. Much more likely, but far from anything solid, would be that some U.S. low observable dropped a moab, or possibly just a number of 5000 pounders. There isn't any reason for the U.S. to use nukes with current precision guided, penetrating ordinance. And really, there isn't much reason to escort them with fighters, even if it was a B1B and not a stealth bomber/fighter. Are the F-117's even still flying? I'm betting the entire story is horsesh!t. I'd bet money on Israeli F-15E strike fighters with F-16s and F-15Cs flying cover. If the U.S. was involved, I'd think as far as we'd go would be to provide intelligence with anything from Global Hawks, E8-JSTARS, AWACS, to space based assets. I'm not sure but I think only the Global Hawk would need to enter Syrian airspace to give good intel.
A rediculous story. Not that it could have been the US striking the target, although I believe it was Israel, but that atomic weapons were used. Several countries would have been able to figure that out, not the least of which is Russia, and they would be screaming bloody murder. What complete and utter nonsense. Al-whatever just went even more into the toilet with this one. (insert "roll-eyes" here) D&D. Attempt to be Civil! Impeach Bush for Promoting Terrorism.
Unfortunately, since the Syrians have apparently not developed geiger counter technology, we may never be able to find out the truth.
I think the "tactical nukes" translation is a bad one. I think what they were referring to were the so-called 'bunker busters'. But even if I ignore that important distinction, it still doesn't make sense to me...
If you are referring to your initial confusion over why Israel might provide 'cover' for the USA... Assuming the story is correct about US involvement, beyond simply 'air cover' Israeli planes also appear to have provided 'operational cover', in that until now everybody has described it as exclusively an Israel operation. The very obvious and apparently unique way in which the Israelis very pointedly refused to comment also has helped fuel the appearance that it was a Israeli job, without ever actually confirming or denying it. Public opinion of Israel in the Arab world can't get any worse. Perhaps the same is true of the USA, but I'm sure there is more . Therefore if Israel appears to be 'the heavy', then Israel's bad image doesn't get any worse (because it can't), and the USA retains some of its evaporating gravitas. Countries like Russia, or in the EU probably expect this sort of tit-for-tat from Israel. It is not expected from the USA. Some countries might freak out if the USA was doing it, but not so much if it appeared that it was just the usual Israeli stuff. As for why the USA would do the strikes and not Israel... assuming you are right about 'bunker busters', we only recently sold Israel any type of 'bunker buster' bombs - type GBU-28. The USA has both a larger supply, and a number of other models if the GBU-28 was determined to not be the best option. It also might have involved American ground troops with laser designators. The US probably has quite a bit more experience in coordinating such a thing.
