WarSclerotic

Syria may have up to 50 tons of enriched uranium, enough to create five nuclear bombs, the Financial Times reported on Tuesday, citing nuclear experts in the US and Middle East.

Up until this point, the paper pointed out, western governments have focused on the fate of Syria’s chemical stockpiles, and less on the fate of the country’s uranium, which was reportedly meant for the nuclear facility at Al-Kibar reportedly destroyed by Israel in 2007.

The Financial Times quoted David Albright, head of the US-based Institute for Science and International Security, as saying that the fears about the Syrian uranium were “legitimate.”

“There are real worries about what has happened to the uranium that Syria was planning to put into the Al-Kibar reactor shortly before the reactor was destroyed in 2007,” he said.

“There’s no question that, as Syria gets engulfed in civil war, the whereabouts of this uranium are worrying governments. There is evidence to suggest this issue has been raised by one government directly with the IAEA.”

The paper said that some government officials are concerned that Iran might be trying to get control of the uranium stockpile for its own nuclear program.

The Prime Minister’s Office had no comment on the report.

In recent days Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has discussed with visiting US legislators on Israeli-US intelligence cooperation regarding Syria’s chemical weapons, including images Israel passed on to the Pentagon apparently showing Syrian troops mixing chemicals and filling dozens of bombs with them, government officials said. The issue of uranium, however, is not one that is believed to have been raised.

Netanyahu met with Florida’s Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson on Tuesday and Kentucky’s Republican Sen. Rand Paul on Monday, as well as a delegation on the same day of seven visiting Republican congressman, led by California’s Rep. Darrell Issa.

The New York Times on Tuesday reported that in late November, Israel’s top military commanders discussed with the Pentagon satellite imagery showing what appeared to be Syrian troops mixing chemicals – probably the nerve gas sarin – at two storage sites, and filling dozens of 500- pound bombs.

According to the report, this resulted in a “remarkable show of international cooperation” that included a public warning by US President Barack Obama, and sharp private messages to Syrian leaders through Russia, Iraq, Turkey and possibly Jordan that stopped the chemical mixing and bomb preparation.

In recent weeks Netanyahu has spoken on a number of occasions about the close cooperation on the matter that exists between Israel, the US, and “other countries” on the matter.

In mid-December the Prime Minister’s Office issued a statement following a meeting with Texas senator-elect Ted Cruz, underlining the chemical weapons issue.

Netanyahu, according to the statement, told Cruz, “We’re monitoring very closely the possibility of the use of chemical weapons in Syria. President Obama has spoken forcefully about this. Israel and the United States have close consultations about this issue and it highlights the dangers of these regimes receiving such weapons, and that these weapons can even go from there to terrorist organizations.”

“This is a threat to Israel, a threat to America, a threat to others in this region. We treat it accordingly.”

That Netanyahu stressed this issue, and that his office at the time decided to release his comments to the media, underscored heightened sensitivity to the issue at the time in light of the unending bloodshed and growing chaos in Syria.

Explaining Netanyahu’s comment, the government official said it was important that “all the actors in Syria understand that this is a very sensitive issue not only for Israel, but for the entire international community.” He said “irresponsible behavior” with the chemical weapons would not be tolerated.

The official, without elaborating at the time, but in hindsight apparently referring to the intelligence information that was passed on, said, “We were not speaking this way two or three weeks ago,” and that there were “reasons for our concerns.”

On Tuesday the official said that the close US-Israel coordination on the matter is continuing, “because the problem is continuing.”

Netanyahu reportedly held secret discussions in Jordan in late December concerning the Syrian stockpile of chemical weapons.

An embattled people will seek help from wherever it can be found. It is perhaps one of the simplest and most basic rules humanity has produced. Yet as we enter the 19th month of the Syrian revolution, it is a rule that decision makers in Washington seem frustratingly ignorant of.

That the Syrian revolution, which has smoldered for almost two years and consumed the lives of nearly 30,000 people, has attracted the attention of al- Qaida and affiliated Islamists groups should come has no surprise – and we have only ourselves to blame.

Since late last fall the Syrian opposition has been pleading for military assistance of some kind.

While Libyan entreaties were rewarded with the strong support of Western military forces, less substantive pleas from Syria have fallen on deaf ears.

The Syrian opposition, including both the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and Syrian National Council, have made it abundantly clear that they believe the revolution can triumph from within, asking only for the means to finish the job. Yet despite these highly achievable requests, few arms and little direct assistance has been forthcoming.

So where is the United States? The same place that it was before its tardy entry into Libya: bound to an administration governed by an acute fear of the unknown.

When given the choice, the Obama administration has hewed relentlessly toward the side of “stability,” a word which has become synonymous with inaction.

Succumbing to such fears, and of course considering the impending presidential election, the United States has signaled to FSA representatives that no support is likely to be forthcoming.

ENTER AL-QAIDA. With the FSA failing to win control of the field, and with Syrian cities like Hama and Idlib suffering from incessant siege and assault, Islamist groups found fertile ground to enter the fray. These radical fighters have proven critical in buttressing the morale of the resistance movement.

Though relatively small in number compared to the dispersed battalions of the FSA, they have inflicted heavy casualties on the Syrian military, mostly in rural ambushes and bombings.

As a result of their high-profile activities and energetic presence on the ground they have established a valuable political space for themselves, one which they continue to enlarge.

It is frustrating and worrying – it also didn’t have to happen.

Al-Qaida and its allies have triumphed precisely because of a lack of foreign intervention and support, not in spite of it. When the FSA was first formed in the summer of 2011 under the leadership of Riad Assad it was made up of relatively moderate officers and supported by an average cross-section of Syrian society.

Had the United States chosen to intervene then, by creating an intelligence network (which many have intimated still does not exist) and controlling the arms conduits to Syrian groups, it would have been in a position to choose the “winners” of the Syrian opposition.

BY EMPOWERING legitimate or moderate groups and organizations with the firepower to achieve results, it would have removed the space for al-Qaida to operate. Instead, by holding back the flow of arms and support, the United States created the environment for al-Qaida to flourish.

It is a recurring theme in recent history. While the Libyan Civil War was raging observers and insiders noted the increased presence of Islamist groups, potentially even al-Qaida, among the opposition. This was cited as part of the reason why intervention should be avoided.

However once intervention commenced it reduced the need for the opposition to rely on al- Qaida volunteers, and gave them a reason to make themselves more amenable to their new Western allies.

However, many conflicts go the route of Chechnya, with resolution taking so long that radical groups find a permanent presence, eventually supplanting or absorbing the original opposition.

That final point is what should concern Washington.

There is a definite expiration date on involvement. The longer the US waits, the more popular and powerful alternatives like al- Qaida will become. At some point, as this conflict rages on they will become a permanent fixture in the political mix, and perhaps even become the resistance itself.

Many now agree that Bashar Assad is likely to fall, one way or another. Whether or not it is the Syrian tricolor or the black flag of al-Qaida that is rung up in Damascus, is in fact entirely up to the United States.

Joshua Jacobs is a policy analyst at the Institute for Gulf Affairs.