IAF attacks Syrian target

[tartare]

Mods, merge if another thread, but haven't seen one yet.
Will be intriguing to see what detail emerges.

Arms Shipment Was Target as Israel Bombed Syria, U.S. Says
By ISABEL KERSHNER, MICHAEL R. GORDON and RICK GLADSTONE - NYT
Published: January 30, 2013

JERUSALEM — Israeli warplanes carried out a strike deep inside Syrian territory on Wednesday, American officials reported, saying they believed the target was a convoy carrying sophisticated antiaircraft weaponry on the outskirts of Damascus that was intended for the Hezbollah Shiite militia in Lebanon.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the Israelis had notified the Americans about the attack, which the Syrian government called an act of “Israeli arrogance and aggression” that raised the risks that the two-year-old civil conflict in Syria could spread beyond the country’s borders.

In a statement, the Syrian military said a scientific research facility in the Damascus suburbs had been hit and denied that a convoy had been the target.

Israeli officials declined to comment on the airstrike. But they have been warning that they are monitoring the possible movement of weapons in the Syrian conflict, including chemical weapons, and would take action to thwart any possible transfers into Hezbollah’s possession.

It was the first time in more than five years that Israel’s air force had attacked a target in Syria, which has remained in a technical state of war with Israel although both sides have maintained an uneasy peace along their decades-old armistice line.

Hezbollah, which plays a decisive role in Lebanese politics, has long relied on Syria as both a source of weapons and a conduit for weapons flowing from Iran. Hezbollah has supported the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad throughout the uprising against him in part because it does not want to lose that weapons corridor, and some analysts say that Hezbollah may be trying to stock up on weapons now in case Mr. Assad falls. Other analysts say that Hezbollah would be cautious now about receiving arms from Syria because it does not want to risk drawing an Israeli attack or destabilizing its political position in Lebanon.

Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, recently urged Lebanese citizens to welcome Syrian refugees regardless of their political affiliation, a move widely interpreted as aimed in part at preserving its relationship with Syria in the event of a rebel takeover, in addition to maintaining political calm in Lebanon.

Hezbollah is believed to have replenished and increased its weapons stocks after the 2006 war with Israel, in which Israeli bombardments destroyed some of its arms and other missiles were used to unleash a barrage that killed Israelis as far south as Haifa and drove residents of northern Israel into shelters.

The Syrian statement, carried by state television, said an unidentified number of Israeli jets flying below radar had hit the research facility, killing two people and causing “huge material damage.”

“Israeli warplanes violated our airspace at dawn, bombing directly one of the research scientific centers in the Jimraya district in rural Damascus,” the Syrian statement said, calling it a “breach of Syrian sovereignty.”

It cast the attack as “another addition to the history of Israeli occupation, aggression and criminality against Arabs and Muslims.”

“The Syrian government points out to the international community that this Israeli arrogance and aggression is dangerous for Syrian sovereignty and stresses that such criminal acts will not weaken Syria’s role nor will discourage Syrians from continuing to support resistance movements and just Arab causes, particularly the Palestinian issue,” the statement said.

Israelis have expressed increasing concern in recent days about what they called the threat of chemical or advanced conventional weapons leaking from Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon or into the hands of extremist Islamic rebel groups as a result of the turmoil in Syria.

The Lebanese Army said in a statement on Wednesday that Israeli warplanes had carried out two sorties, circling over Lebanon for hours on Tuesday and before dawn on Wednesday, but made no mention of any attacks.

Jerusalem has long maintained a policy of silence on pre-emptive military strikes. It would not comment after Sudan accused the Israel military of carrying out an air attack that destroyed a weapons factory in Khartoum, the Sudanese capital, in October. Israel also never admitted to the bombing of a Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007, and Syria kept mum about that attack. The ambiguity allowed that event to pass without Syria feeling pressure to retaliate.

The heightened sense of alert in Israel this week had focused on the Syrian government’s precarious hold on its stockpiles of chemical weapons. But Israeli officials and experts have also voiced worry about the fate of what they describe as conventional “strategic weapons” in Syria, including advanced ground-to-air missiles, shore-to-sea missiles and anti-tank missiles. They say such weapons in the hands of Hezbollah could upset the current balance of forces in the region.

Amnon Sofrin, a retired brigadier general and former Israeli intelligence officer, told reporters in Jerusalem on Wednesday that Hezbollah, which is known to have been storing some of its more advanced weapons in Syria, was now eager to move everything it could to Lebanon. He said Israel was carefully watching for convoys transferring weapons systems from Syria to Lebanon.

Israel’s air force chief, Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel, said on Tuesday that Syria was a prime example of “the weakening governance in neighboring countries that heralds greater exposure to hostile activity.”

Speaking at an international space conference in Israel, General Eshel said: “We work every day in order to lessen the immediate threats, to create better conditions so that we will be victorious in future wars. This is a struggle in which the Air Force is a central player, from here to thousands of kilometers away.”

There have been reports in the last week of feverish security consultations between Israel’s political and security chiefs, and at least one Iron Dome anti-rocket missile defense battery was deployed in northern Israel. Israel’s national security adviser, Yaakov Amidror, was in Moscow for talks with Russian officials on Monday.

Israel has made it clear that if the Syrian government loses control over its chemical weapons or transfers them to Hezbollah, Israel will most likely be compelled to act. Avi Dichter, the minister for the home front, told Israel Radio on Tuesday that options to prevent Syria from using or transferring the weapons included deterrence and “attempts to hit the stockpiles.”

[Lonewolf_50]

Updates this morning in various news organs:

SA-17 battery is the suspected target in the convoy.
Depending upon which source you believe, another target "northwest of Damascus" was attacked, but what was there is a bit vague.
Israelis have expressed increasing concern in recent days about what they called the threat of chemical or advanced conventional weapons leaking from Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon or into the hands of extremist Islamic rebel groups as a result of the turmoil in Syria.
The Israelis are in a very tough spot on this, politically. I think I'd have done the same in their shoes, however.

[TEEEJ]

The Syrians are claiming that a Scientific Research Centre was bombed.

Syrian Arab news agency - SANA - Syria : Syria news :: (http://www.sana-syria.com/eng/21/2013/01/31/464736.htm)

Is the site bombed one of the other locations referenced in the International Atomic Energy Agency reports? The IAEA has requested access but has been denied.

The Agency regrets that Syria has not cooperated since June 2008 in connection with the unresolved issues related to the Dair Alzour site and the three other locations allegedly functionally related to it.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-30.pdf

[Lightning Mate]

Iran is not going to be so easy though.

[Lonewolf_50]

True enough, LM.

I will point out that
Iran isn't in the middle of a civil war at the moment
Iran isn't "right next door"
Iran (as far as I know) isn't at risk of having such chemical weapons as it may possess falling out of government's control and into the hands of "who the hell knows" any time soon.

[Lightning Mate]

But Ahmadinejad has threatened to "annihilate" Israel.

I am sure the Israelis won't take that threat lying down.

edit:

Neither will the USA methinks.

[tonker]

LiveLeak.com - "israeli" planes over Damascus 30.1.2013

By the very fact they aren't careering towards the ground on fire, is a probably a good indication they are in fact Israeli.:E

[just another jocky]

That's a lot of contrailing caught by the sun. :eek:

I guess they must feel pretty secure.....not sure I'd be doing that myself though.

[walter kennedy]

Has the IAEA ever even dared to ask the Israelis about inspecting their facilities?
How many nukes do they have for "defence"?
The "M.A.D." doctrine is alive and well in the Middle East - shouldn't the rest of the planet have a say in just how much damage could be done to the environment?

[blaireau]

CND Walt?

A very strong Israel is in the West's interests.

The ability to intimidate and even knock out their volatile and unpredictable neighbours is highly desirable. The more so in the face of our declining abilities.

For safety, walk strong with a large stick.

[Heathrow Harry]

"A very strong Israel is in the West's interests."

Really? Stirring up s*** all over the Middle East???

[hval]

I am curious as to how the politics in theMiddle East would be if Israel didn't exist, and hadn't been recreated post the Balfour Declaration.

Would the Middle Eastern countries and the West get on much better, or would there still be problems with Jihadists?

I do not know. Personally, I suspect that there would be problems but not to the extent that there currently are. Any thoughts?

[tonker]

No, they'd still find something to blame all their self induced problems on us.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Has the IAEA ever even dared to ask the Israelis about inspecting their facilities?

Sharpen up. Israel is not a signatory to the NNPT, so IAEA has no inspection mandate.

[tartare]

Back on thread - Anyone seen any info on what was in the IAF package?
F16I Sufas I assume.
The contrails looked like some kind of orbit at quite high altitude although it's hard to know at what phase of the operation those pictures were shot, if they are in fact the Israeli jets.
Would they have simply plinked the target from altitude using some Laser guided bombs?
What kind of profile do you fly on a mission like that?

[bcgallacher]

If Israel did not exist the Arabs would have to invent something similar to keep them from each others throats. The problems of the Middle East are not political - they are cultural. The so called 'Arab Spring' just exchanged one dictatorship for another.Democracy is not yet part of Arab culture - and may never be.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

and may never be

Women are not, by the Grace of Allah, equal to men in Islam. They are in a democracy.

[tartare]

It's getting like the bloody Middle East on this thread:ooh:
Anyone interested in talking about military aviation?

[Roland Pulfrew]

Democracy is not yet part of Arab culture - and may never be.


Given the state of our democracy, who can blame them. It's not all its cracked up to be and there are valid alternatives, it seems our politicians think that liberal western democracy is the right and only answer. It would appear the Egyptians aren't too happy with their new found democracy! Be careful what you wish for.

[skydiver69]

The Syrians are claiming that a Scientific Research Centre was bombed.

Syrian Arab news agency - SANA - Syria : Syria news ::

Is the site bombed one of the other locations referenced in the International Atomic Energy Agency reports? The IAEA has requested access but has been denied.


Updates this morning in various news organs:

SA-17 battery is the suspected target in the convoy.
Depending upon which source you believe, another target "northwest of Damascus" was attacked, but what was there is a bit vague.

Is it feasible that the IAF attacked both targets? Both targets would be tempting to the Israelis (missiles being sent to their enemy and nuclear research on their doorstep) and they have a track record of attacking Syria without publicly acknowledging their actions. For their part the Syrians aren't going to do anything to confirm rumours that they were supplying ground to air missiles. They might also calculate that they could win some propaganda points by saying that Israel had bombed an innocent research facility as well as violating their air space.

[TEEEJ]

The Syrians have released video of damaged buildings and vehicles.


Syria releases images after Israeli air strike on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/58815576#)

The conspiracy nuts are going ballistic over this news. I know, I know it is a Debka source! Those pesky Russians and their MiG-31 Foxhounds! :rolleyes: Why do the gullible and naive always fall for this nonsense?

Lebanese sources later reported a Russian Mig-31 fighter had crossed over Sinai Wednesday in the direction of Israel. It veered west over the Mediterranean after encountering an Israeli warning not to intrude into its air space and continued flying over Lebanon.

Russia slams Israeli attack on Syria. US forces in Jordan on alert (http://www.debka.com/article/22724/Russia-slams-Israeli-attack-on-Syria-US-forces-in-Jordan-on-alert)

[ORAC]

Bit of history. Makes you wonder they're discussing in the White House these days.

Bombing the Syrian Reactor: The Untold Story (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/bombing-the-syrian-reactor-the-untold-story/)

[Courtney Mil]

Good article. Thanks, Orac.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Ditto. Interesting reading.

I love the way he says "America was a steward of wars in two Islamic countries already"(my italics). Sounds so much nicer than "We started them".

[Courtney Mil]

Yes I liked that too, Fox3. As well as the simple statement that the reactor "must go away". Move to a different neighbourhood? emmigrate to France? Go to Coventry. Or be vapourized off the face of the Earth?

[Lonewolf_50]

For Fox3:

His is very correct in re stewardship. The wars begun were with the political aim of toppling two regimes: Taliban and Saddam. That was completed. The civil wars over which the US presided were not begun by the US, but rather by local factions who chose that path to try and grab what power they could when the previous power structure fell.

That wasn't a required course of action. It was elective. It was not dependent upon US will or influence, but rather in spite of it.

Regarding an interesting point Abrams makes (I don't much care for him, but this touches on something I used to deal with on a daily basis). :mad:
A very well-placed Arab diplomat later told us that the strike had left Assad deeply worried as to what was coming next. He had turned Syria into the main transit route for jihadis going to Iraq to kill American soldiers. From Libya or Indonesia, Pakistan or Egypt, they would fly to Damascus International Airport and be shepherded into Iraq. Assad was afraid that on the heels of the Israeli strike would come American action to punish him for all this involvement. But just weeks later, Assad received his invitation to send a Syrian delegation to that big international confab of Condi’s, the Annapolis Conference, and according to the Arab envoy, Assad relaxed immediately; he knew he would be OK. I had not wanted Syria invited to Annapolis because of its involvement in killing Americans in Iraq, but Condi had wanted complete Arab representation as a sign that comprehensive peace might be possible. It was only years later that I learned that Assad had instead interpreted the invitation just as I had: as a sign that the United States would not seriously threaten or punish him for what Syria was doing in Iraq.
General John Abizaid once responded to criticism of foreign fighters infiltrating into Iraq from Syria and Saudi by pointing to our own southern border, and the problems there in peacetime. The infiltrators were using low tech smuggling methods there were centuries old in that region.

That Assad turned a blind eye to being the enabler of that movement strikes me as one reason "W" may have chosen to turn a blind eye on the Israeli move.

My guess is that "W" set up all of the other smoke screens and noise to drive Ohlmert into that decision, more or less backing him into a corner so that he had to act as he did.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

There are a large number of very experienced people in the world who see the pre- and post-war actions of the Bush Administration, not least the woeful lack of post-conflict planning and the immediate disbandment of the Iraqi Army, as leading directly to the civil war.

[Lonewolf_50]

Fox, I understand what you are saying, but it isn't the US who started the Civil Wars. The locals did that. You can well argue that the US set the conditions that made such likely, and I'll agree, but it took local initiative to do so. The intent wasn't to follow the invastion with a civil war, the intent (badlly handled) was to enable a transformation. <-- That didn't work, for a variety of reasons.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I agree the civil war was started by the locals, but the Bush Administration started the conflict on the basis of realpolitik. It can hardly claim innocence when the locals post-war decided to do the same, especially when anyone with any experience of the region was telling them its actions (or lack of) would result in same.
Never mind the likely long term outcome, which will be another dictatorial regime that will hate the US a lot more than Saddam ever did.

[West Coast]

Connect the dots using historical perspective rather than the bias of "very experienced" partisans. What is the history of nations post dictatorship?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Quite varied, I think. Which do you feel are particularly relevant?

[Lonewolf_50]

Fox
I agree the civil war was started by the locals,

Thank you, that is the semi pendantic point I was trying to make in re your casual comment on Abrams accurate statement of "stewardship" of the wars in progress at the time of his narrative. As above, he's not on my list of favorite policy wonks, not by a long shot.

Point further being is that in 2007, the context of his article, the US could have long since "conquered and left" either Iraq or Afghanistan, or both, but chose instead to try to be "good stewards" (in "W's" own inimitable fashion :p ) by trying to keep a lid in the civil wars that did indeed start as a consequence of the despots being tossed out. More realipolitik. ;) It is my belief that the chain of events has informed President Obama's circumspection in re Syria, which leaves Israel basically in the role of lone actor, just as with W. It is my belief that this is a deliberate policy choice, and a deliberate political stance intended to gently influence events in a particular direction. Just as was W's.

That the policy behind the whole mess in Iraq had some serious holes isn't worth arguing in this thread (sorry for the derail), nor something I disagree with. I deemed the strategic risk to be that taking down Iraq only makes Iran stronger, which is against American interest at the time, and for the foreseeable future. Sadly, nobody at OSD was listening to me at the time. :{

Which brings us to Syria, at present an ally of Iran but for the near future, of dubious use as other than a playing field for intramural homicide.

[West Coast]

Any number of them. That a nation enter civil war after booting its strongman or gaining independence isn't a measure of the initial movement but of the divisiveness of its citizens minus a common enemy thereafter. Be that religious and clan affiliation post Saddam in Iraq or relatively secular, politically based divisions in Ireland after the British pullout.

As lone wolf mentions, the original predicate might have been set by the invasion, however with regards to the causes of the civil war, that powder keg was long in place before some post war narrative was thought up by the current intelligentsia to advance a political position.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Forgive me. I get the drift of your arguments now.
Yes, the locals started the civil war. The US did not in a legal sense. I'm not one of the intellectuals who would dream of bringing the US to court for that.

However,
If the US had not invaded, would there have been a civil war? No
If the Bush Administration had actually bothered with some post-war planning, could a civil war have been largely or wholly suppressed? Probably
Did the US destroy the power structure? Yes, by disbanding the army, not simply by removing Saddam. Jay Garner told Bremer that.

In that sense, pragmatically, did the US 'start' the civil war? Yes

Has the Invasion of Iraq made the World a safer place? I doubt it.

[Lonewolf_50]

Forgive me. I get the drift of your arguments now.
Yes, the locals started
the civil war. The US did not in a legal sense.
Nor in a practical sense. Nor in the semantic sense that I was getting all pedantic over in my criticism of your observation.

Of all the things the US Administration wanted to happen, a civil war wasn't one of them. This need got to the point of the absurd, when in 2005 there was OBVIOUSLY a civil war going on, but with each successive press conference Rummy and Cheney and a whole host of others got more and more adamant that "this isn't a civil war, this is some regime dead enders" which was purest horsecrap. I read the brief from Maj General Mattis' HQ (back 2004-2005 time frame) and it was freaking obvious what was going on.
However, If the US had not invaded, would there have been a civil war? No
We don't know.
The matter is to my view "when" not if.
Once Saddam died/fell (and he wasn't getting any younger) a civil war was a near certainty due to both internal pressure and the agendas of a few of his neighbors. Take a look at Egypt with Mubarak's fall for a mild taste, Syria for something less mild. To a certain extent, and this takes a bit of out of the box thinking to grasp, history might (might) suggest that W in his ham handed way did Iraq at large a favor by forcing the issue of the state of Post Saddam Iraq. I do not believe there could have been a peaceful power share. The grasping nature of the power factions simply would not permit that. See break up of Yugoslavia when Tito bit it for a fantastic example, and one which W and his inner circle deliberately ignored as they set their course in Iraq. :mad:

Civil war had been going on and off in Afghanistan since before the Russians invaded, it's a matter of degree, not kind.
If the Bush Administration had actually bothered with some post-war planning, could a civil war have been largely or wholly suppressed? Probably
I don't know.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Maybe firing the whole army was dumbest of policy mistakes that some idiots like Bremmer supported ... we'll never know. Maybe boosting that Shia maroon as the inserted president in waiting, or in exile, was an even bigger mistake ...
The inernal fractures were not of recent vintage. All that was needed was a tipping point.
Did the US destroy the power structure? Yes, by disbanding the army, not simply by removing Saddam. Jay Garner told Bremer that.
I mentioned that above. What I saw while in theater was continual efforts to keep destroying the infrastructure by the locals. Continued and sustained. Deliberate even.
In that sense, pragmatically, did the US 'start' the civil war? Yes

No, unless you are inventing new meanings for the term start.
The US set the conditions that made it more likely. People still had to decide to start killing one another over the power grab, rather than try to put together a new system without so doing. The US and its allies took some measures (albeit awkward and in a lot of ways ineffective) to prevent a civil war. "I want it NOW" with a gun tends to beget violence. That was the attitude being dealt with.
Has the Invasion of Iraq made the World a safer place? I doubt it.
Not germane to the point (nit pick) I was making, at all.
Vague notions about "making the world a safer place" for much of anything I leave to intellectuals and ivory tower mop heads. :}:8 Or to nitwits like Feith. :eek: Or Wolfowitz. :p

Now, link this all to Syria. It happened in Yugoslavia. It happened in Iraq. It keeps going on like a running sore in Afghanistan. It may happen in Egypt. It is happenind in Syria. Not sure how settled Libya is.

The next ten years won't be much safer, not by a long ******* shot.

[West Coast]

Fox

Well, not quite true I would suggest. There's been a number of uprisings in Iraq, all quashed by Saddam and his ilk. Given that a civil war did happen after the invasion, its not beyond the realm of possibilities that had a successful organic effort to see saddam off would also have led to civil war. the same underlying issues have been in place long before Saddam.

Subjective perhaps but led by history, I would suggest a highly probable scenario. As far as your statement regarding world safety, curious to know if that's just opinion or is there some way of determining that? Saddam was an odd bird and any future looking statement with regard to increasing or decreasing world safety to be considered accurate would have to account for his unpredictable nature. Not sure how you would do that.

Care to educate me?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

All very valid points gentlemen, which I acknowledge.
I feel his sons would have been able to take over when he died, much as Bashar did in Syria. Whether Iraq would have collapsed into civil war triggered by the Arab Spring, I don't know. The youth unemployment wouldn't have been as bad as other countries, nor would initial protests have been likely to be allowed.

I chucked in the comment about world safety because, although not relevant to your point, it was one of the stated points by the Bush Administration.

Can I prove it? No, though I would contend that Saddam had no intentions of annoying America or the west, and was passionately opposed to Iran, and there are now factions with power (though not all are in Government) in Iraq who do and aren't respectively. Thus the world is less safe.

[Lonewolf_50]

Fox, while I doubt the boys would have been as effective as Saddam, it is one way it could have played out.

The world has been increasingly less safe since the Wall fell in '89. The multi polar world includes national actors, and extra national actors. The non safeness of the world was driven home to Americans, at long last, in September of 2001. A lot of us in uniform knew how unsafe things already were, but nobody wanted to hear it. Beyond our shores, plenty of folks in Africa and Europe were already keenly aware of the blood price of political change.

As a general rule, a multi-polar world is inherentlly less safe than the bi-polar world of the Cold War. For a thought experiment, apply the model of 17th century Europe to the global situation of now and you may see what I mean. Even with the Treaty of Westphalia, there remained multiple power nodes, any which could force a shift in the status quo via armed means. Likewise, multi polar political dynamics in 1914 and 1939 sent Europe up on flames.

When the American policial morons went ape over "the peace dividend" when the Wall fell, mine was one of a number of dissenting voices warning that the world had just gotten more uncertain, what with China growing, and with multiple poles arising, not less. The noise of "the world's only super power" coming from our political class drowned out those who looked a bit deeper than the next election cycle. :mad:

As to what happens in Syria any time soon, you may find of interest a piece provided in the recent New York Times:

After Assad, Chaos? By Ramzy Mardini

Worth a look.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I shall take a look, thanks.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

What chance a Kurdish State? What price a Kurdish State?
I realise Turkey will go nuts if it's even mentioned.

[Lonewolf_50]

I'd love to see the Turks go nuts over a Kurdish state. Sadly, it might be the one thing where Turkey and Iran might begin to establish and accord. That might not be good for NATO.

So, a bit of Syria, a bit of Iraq, and set up Kurdistan.

Then sit back, bowl of popcorn, and watch the fur fly. The Kosovars got one, why not the Kurds? The Bosniaks got one, why not the Kurds?

And so on.

Next up, my advocacy for Pashtunistan. :ok:

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Well, why not for everybody?
'Self-determination' is a basic principle for the UN.
'What a bunch of aristocrats and dictators divi-ed up with some arm-twisting and bribery back in the 1920's' isn't

[Lonewolf_50]

Fox, are you sure you want the Newfies pushing for self determination?

Is the world ready for that? :eek::}

PS:
Woodrow Wilson was neither a dictator nor a monarch.
See also Clemenceau.
Not sure what role PM Lloyd George played, as HM government has certain forms that France and the US did not.
Orlando was ... lucky to be invited. :p

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

The Newfie's have the attitude that Canada joined them, not the other way around.

I was generalising about Middle Eastern boundaries.No offence intended to Mr Wilson. His fourteen points had some merit (though I agree with Clemenceau). Pity the USA didn't stick to them any more than anyone else. Hey, ho; that's international diplomacy.

[Lonewolf_50]

Turkey Uses NEB Smart Bomb in Strikes against PKK Targets
(Excerpted from Jane’s Missiles & Rockets 01 February 2013)

Turkey has used its indigenous NEB (Nufuz Edici Bomba, Penetrating Bomb)
Hardened and Deeply Buried Target Defeat (HDBTD) munition in combat, per a 16 January report in the Istanbul newspaper Star.

The bomb was dropped by F-16C/Ds based at Diyarbakir, who struck over 90 targets in northern Iraq associated with the PKK (Parti Karkerani Kurdistan) in an attempt to target that organization’s leadership.
As a fan of Kurdish homeland, where's the protest in the UN over violating Iraqi airspace? :cool: Where's the outrage? :p
Turkey is also reported to have deployed its indigenous SOM air-launched cruise missile to the airbase at Diyarbakir for potential use in cross-border airstrikes.
Across which border: Syria, or Iraq? Both?
NEB uses an initial (precursor) shaped charge for breaching structures and a second follow-through main charge (bomb) to attack the internal target. The use
of the precursor charge provides a predrilled hole for the bomb allowing it to
penetrate even at low impact speeds and at the same time reducing the chance of
ricochet at low angles of impact. This dual-warhead arrangement is also used by
the BAE Systems Bomb Royal Ordnance Augmented CHarge (BROACH) warhead and TDW Mephisto products. Johny Turk is entering the arena of "the big boys" again, it seems.