Israel's September Raid

Last month's feud over an Israeli violation of Syrian airspace cause a rash of theories that encompassed everything from an accidental violation, to a test of Syrian air defenses, to an airstrike on a nuclear facility that was under construction. Last week, Syria told journalists that the raid never occurred.

Today, more reports came in that support the theory that Israel struck a nuclear reactor:

ISRAEL'S attack on Syria last month was directed at a site that Israeli and US intelligence judged was a partly built nuclear reactor.

It was believed to be modelled on one North Korea has used to create its stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel, according to American and foreign officials.

This wouldn't be the first time Israel attacked another country in the Middle East to prevent the construction of a nuclear reactor. In 1981, Israel launched an attack on a near-finished reactor in Iraq. Although the Syrian reactor was reportedly years away from being finished, a strike this early in its construction sends a clear message to other countries in the Middle East about obtaining nuclear materials. The New York Times quoted an Israeli intelligence official of saying just that:

A senior Israeli official, while declining to speak about the specific nature of the target, said the strike was intended to “re-establish the credibility of our deterrent power,” signaling that Israel meant to send a message to the Syrians that even the potential for a nuclear weapons program would not be permitted.

The International Atomic Energy Association was unaware of the reactor, and is still waiting for official reports from Syria about their undeclared nuclear program:

VIENNA (AFP) — The UN nuclear watchdog said Monday it had no information about any "undeclared nuclear facility in Syria" and it was investigating media reports that such a site had been the target of a recent Israeli air strike.

The International Atomic Energy Agency "has no information about any undeclared nuclear facility in Syria and no information about recent reports," spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said.

"We would obviously investigate any relevant information coming our way. The IAEA Secretariat expects any country having information about nuclear-related activities in another country to provide that information to the IAEA."

According to the Times, Syria is not required to declare the existence of the reactor in early construction stages, which might be why the IAEA is in the dark about it.

Most Syrian news outlets haven't denied the construction efforts, but www.syriatruth.org has spoken against the report of a strike:

Syrian newspapers doesn’t even bothered to answer, surprisingly the answer came from the Syrian opposition.

They said:

The question which no media asked until now, if these claims are true and that the target was a nuclear reactor, why the American administration or Israel didn’t publish photographs of the site before and after the bombing.

There is one answer, they can’t show these images because there are no images to prove these claims, all what they did was the bombing of empty buildings or missiles stores.

The issue continues to bounce back-and-forth between Syrian, U.S. and Israeli media reports, and until the IAEA makes a definitive statement about the existence of a facility, it seems the conflicting news will continue to pile up.