Is Revealing Israeli Intel "A Reckless Intelligence Striptease"?

Now that the US has used Israeli intel to demonstrate that Syria was indeed building a nuclear reactor, the question arises whether revealing Israeli sources was worth the result.

David Hazony writes about one journalist who refers to the whole episode as A Reckless Intelligence Striptease:

The veteran Israeli journalist Alex Fishman, writing in Ynet, thinks the whole Congressional hearing was a major mistake, revealing crucial intelligence sources and possibly undermining future efforts to collect information.

Hazony counters:

The bottom line is that there are times when you need to show your cards, even if it means closing off vital sources of intel. When the Lebanon war started in 2006, Israel revealed its precise knowledge of the location of Hezballah’s medium-range missiles, destroying them in the first few days. Certainly Hezballah was pretty peeved, and did “everything in their power to block this breach.”

But can anyone say Israel should not have taken out the missiles? Obviously a congressional hearing is a different sort of thing. Yet Americans are often quite convinced by solid evidence, and sometimes the best thing the government can do is give it to them–even if it makes things a little harder for the spies.

OK, but keep in mind that solid evidence is subjective--as we have seen in a number of trials of people in the US accused of aiding and abetting terrorists, only to be found innocent; and let's not forget Colin Powell's revelation of US intel at the UN, 'conclusively' proving the existence of Iraq's WMD. If Israeli intelligence sources are revealed, only to have Syria escape consequences--what is the point? As it is, there were experts who testified that the reactor was not intended for manufacturing nuclear weapons:

...intelligence officials will tell members of the House and Senate intelligence, armed services and foreign relations committees that the Syrian facility was not yet fully operational and that there was no uranium for the reactor and no indication of fuel capability, according to U.S. officials and intelligence sources.

David Albright, president of Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) and a former U.N. weapons inspector, said the absence of such evidence warrants skepticism that the reactor was part of an active weapons program.

I think that one of the questions to be asked is how iron-clad a case should have to be made before Israel consents to having their intelligence sources revealed.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Syria.