You Don’t Say

The U.N. is beginning to suspect that those Syrians and North Koreans may have been up to something suspicious after all.

“It cannot be excluded” that the Syrian facility “was intended for non-nuclear use,” the IAEA report says.However, it continues, “The features of the building . . . along with the connectivity of the site to adequate pumping capacity of cooling water, are similar to what may be found in connection with a reactor site.”

Pre-attack photographs show a “containment structure (that) appears to have been similar in dimension and layout to that required for a biological shield for nuclear reactors, and the overall size of the building was sufficient to house the equipment needed for a nuclear reactor of the type alleged” by the United States , the report says.

It also says that dirt samples taken from the site by IAEA inspectors who visited in June contained “a significant number of natural uranium particles.”

An analysis of the particles found that they were “produced as a result of chemical processing,” the report says.  [McClatchy]

In 2005, we learned that the North Koreans had sold uranium hexafluoride to Libya.  If North Korea supplied uranium to the Syrians, it would mean that in addition to the technology transfer, they had supplied a fellow rogue state with nuclear material yet again.  Syrian stonewalling still prevents us from knowing where the uranium came from.
And naturally, the IAEA’s report condemned the Israelis for putting a stop to this through “the unilateral use of force.”  Of course, whatever Syria and North Korea were up to, it was by definition bilateral and therefore nothing to be unduly excited about.  After all, just look how brilliantly the IAEA is handling Iran’s nuclear ambitions.