American Spying on Syria and Iran

In a single day I read of spying objectives. One is of U.S. reconnaissance planes monitoring the Iranian nuclear project and the other is a satellite image of tanks surrounding the city of Idleb, a major stronghold of the Syrian opposition. The photo was taken five days before the deadline set by the Security Council and served as an announcement of foreign and international misinterpretation of the Syrian pledge. I have found these two cases of interest, and they have brought back memories of the eighties. I will evoke what remains of the memory of American spying capabilities in these two areas. There is hope for the conclusion of these American tendencies.

In terms of establishing U.S. spy-plane and reconnaissance monitoring of Iran’s nuclear facilities, they may just be based on gathering correct information, which is likely. Carrying out these tasks is expected to provide more useful information, in addition to what they already know. Thus, the purpose may have been to do a routine update of what’s been previously documented. This is because the objectives to be pursued are considered fixed strategic objectives which are not — as long as external structures are integrated — conducted with unknown variables. Their targets are modern, they have been constructed in secret locations under the earth and cannot be reported on by basic air reconnaissance, whether satellite or spy plane.

Satellite images have been sufficient to monitor form changes in ground targets. The only reasonable interpretation for spying gives us a twofold impression: to serve as a warning to Iran, or to be present in the region and to the nuclear program in order to soothe Iran’s feelings on the issue. This may serve as a morphine dose to the region. This won’t become clear until decision time, though it seems a tedious continuation of current solutions.

Mankind’s resources are only able to track the vein of the Iranian nuclear program. Electronic surveys envisioned by Valvaudh* remain superficial. I doubt the ability to obtain advanced installments in nuclear development, even in exceptional cases. Iran continues to talk about follow-ups to the spy plane and its morality. I do not think that the Iranians are concerned, nor have they been influenced, by the regional morphine dose that is reaching its saturation point.

The imagery surrounding the tanks in Idlib is influencing the perceptions and conclusions of many. It has been used by the United States as evidence of the Syrian regime’s lack of commitment to Syria’s peace initiatives. This effort reflects the failure of those making decisions and, after three months of conflict, I don’t think that the Syrian opposition has made matters better.

Follow-up confrontation has been continuously heavy between the army and security institutions on the one side and the “Free Army” and other armed groups — which have yet to declare themselves — on the other, demanding broad, accurate and active intelligence, since the confrontation extends from the ridges of northern Syria to the far south, from the Iraqi border on the east to the Mediterranean on the west. This requires directing several satellites in a single day and not moving from one center to another. This is because they have to pull in front of the moon and remain limited to a specific location for each task. Perhaps the city of Idlib is following up as a successive daily polling observer. Other areas in Syria that don’t fall in line with the polling demands require follow-up with a similar effort. This is especially true since the U.S. assessment of Syria’s air defense capabilities — talked about by the U.S. chief of staff — requires sending in reserve reconnaissance planes to areas falling within the scope of Syrian air defenses.

This brings us to the Middle East in general and Syria in particular, which has become the main concern of the surveillance effort. Harnessing the efforts of the surveillance is not heavily built to serve the interests or concerns associated with the high commander of the armed forces or the head of state. But does this mean much? The answer that I am convinced of is no. America, after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has become defined by the rules of participating in combat operations more complex than ever before. This is in addition to the security threats facing the country directly. It may not drop us like it overthrew Gadhafi, even though U.S. policy was floundering and reluctant at the time, especially despite the roles that the British and French played in supporting president Gadhafi.

In any case, the Arab and Gulf actors (as I said before) are no longer committed to the American lines, which is a major shift in the philosophy of making decisions based on the growing capacity to self-explored or be explored by America!

*Editor’s note: We have been unable to determine the meaning of this term.