China's Politburo Behind Google Cyber-Attack? 142
theodp writes "While Wikileaks itself is under a DoS attack, details about the US State Department cables obtained by WikiLeaks are starting to come out via the mainstream media. Among the most newsworthy, reports Techcrunch's Erick Schonfeld, is one set which deals with the massive computer attack on Google and other companies which was first revealed last January. According to the NY Times, some of the new leaked cables point directly at China's Politburo for instigating the original attacks, which should shed some more light on why the White House and State Department backed Google so vociferously at the time. Developing, as Drudge likes to say."
headline? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:headline? (Score:5, Insightful)
So the USA suppresses information that china's government engaged in illegal hacking, and the USA is behind the DDOS attack on wikileaks. Why can't China be behind it after a US agent tells a chinese agent what is happening.
I know because China is good and the USA is bad.
What? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
so innuendo, is worth more than facts.
i am not saying the USA isn't behind the attacks, what i am saying is that there is zero proof. And right now if wikileaks pointed to proof it is not very credible unless backed up by multiple independent sources. Because assange was been begging, and telling people who is after him.
I don't believe the USA is behind it, simply because the government of the USA really isn't that technologically intelligent enough to do so. power mad and corrupt enough, you betcha. Ho
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
all it takes is the b-tard kid of one G-man and suddenly they know how to ddos. it's not rocket science (and they are at least a little bit competent at that).
and considering the story's only just broken, innuendo is all anybody has. and usual suspects. and occam's razor.
i would be very surprised if the US didn't have some part in the ddos, though there are plenty of other governments that would gladly join in. ...or wikileaks hasn't got as robust a site as we all thought, and it's just been slashdotted
governments (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is that capability secret? All a DDoS is a lot of computers, and the US government certainly has a lot of computers. Even if they didn't want to use their own, all it really takes is paying cash money to the operator of a bot net, again the US government is certainly capable of paying cash money to a bot net operator.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
[T]he military, hates to use encryption on their datalinks, has so poor security that a demoted enlisted man had full access to all sorts of diplomatic, and covert records. Does this group sound capable of not only creating a DDOS but doing it in such a way that it can't be tracked back to them?
Well the managed to arrange 911 and make it look like foreign terrorists were responsible. And that's never been traced back to them, has it?
At least that's what the dude on the train with 'TRUTH' on his tee-shirt
Re: (Score:2)
Well the managed to arrange 911 and make it look like foreign terrorists were responsible.
Better than that. 911 was arranged by Saudi terrorists, and the US managed to make it look like Iraq was responsible!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Naa, the US prefers the personal touch of hired goons. Either that or redirects to seizeddomains.com.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm very surprised Julian Assange is still alive.
Re:headline? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm very surprised Julian Assange is still alive.
He is smart enough not to leak Russian secrets.
Re: (Score:2)
Is he?
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/1026/WikiLeaks-ready-to-drop-a-bombshell-on-Russia.-But-will-Russians-get-to-read-about-it [csmonitor.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm very surprised Julian Assange is still alive.
Well, I gotta hand it to the guy for having some serious huevos. It's almost like they're all afraid to bump him off. Maybe they think he'll come back to haunt them by releasing his own death warrant on Wikileaks.
Re: (Score:2)
huevos are eggs ... ?are you saying he's gay?
I think you meant cajones, gringo.
Nope [urbandictionary.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And I think you meant cojones...oh, and btw, "having huevos" it's also used in many Latinamerican countries the same way you use "having guts"...
Correct, which if you'll re-read my post was the exact context in which I used it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, replying a bit late to this, but I was correcting AC, not you. As a matter of fact, I was actually supporting you...
My apologies. I was typing on a small screen at the time.
Re:headline? (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that he is still alive raises some questions, for me. WHY is he still alive if what he had to leak was as important as has been said? Was the information not as significant as we have been told? Is the CIA really off their game, and not capable of clandestine actions anymore?
The US government knows what Assange knows, they say him divulging it will endanger security, yet they don't stop him? Is he a necessary demon, needed for the future of their security theater? Something about this saga just doesn't add up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The US government has a known leaker who's talented at personally discrediting himself and deals primarily in proof of widely-known information that's humiliating (sometimes for our rivals rather than us, see this story!) but of low operational value. He also leaks to the public rather than foreign security services, and gives them a month or two for preemptive damage control.
I'm sure he's not exactly in great graces, but the terrible PR of him coming down with a sudden case of the dead would quite possibly
the leaker (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the leaker is this guy [wikipedia.org].
What the OP was saying is that Assange is a useful tool, in that what he publishes isn't that harmful, yet. Plus he gives them months to work on damage control before publishing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can ask the same question of Fidel Castro.
--- ,and shot the president all during the hight of the cold war without any assistance from any outside agency whatsoever."
"Lee Harvey Oswald, a former Marine, renounced his citizenship, defected to the Soviet union, married a soviet wife, came back to the USA with state department blessing
-U.S. Government publication
Re:headline? (Score:4, Insightful)
That would be an act of war.
Killing a citizen is just espionage and will get you in a big of hot water.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be an act of war.
Yeah, Cuba is so going to jump on it and invade the USA - it's the only thing they've been waiting for!
assassination (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:assassination (Score:5, Insightful)
No, killing him would make him the message, and that would be worth something.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Killing him would make him a martyr, and would likely create more supporters of the WikiLeaks organization, including other people now willing to be a figurehead, but probably better capable of hiding themselves (such as the owners of botnets which possess tremendous capacity to hide their origin).
Killing Assange would not halt the flow of information. WikiLeaks is a hydra, cut off its head, and two more will grow in its place. Killing him would likely increase the flow of information, and would legitimiz
Re:headline? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or is the USA not as evil as everyone likes to make it out to be? If this happened to any of several dozen other countries Assange would be dead already, and there is no doubt that he would be dead if the CIA were ordered to make it so.
Actually, I'm surprised some other country hasn't had him killed just to place blame on the US.
Re:headline? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or is the USA not as evil as everyone likes to make it out to be?
Hmm, is that the peevish whine of self-pity I hear there?
America has dispensed heavy-handed criticism out to just about everybody over the years; it is only fair that you guys get some back, I think. But it is not reasonable to say that "everybody hates America" every time a valid point of criticism is raised - in fact, I think it is the duty of a friend to tell you when you are getting things wrong. Your friends - and you have many - wish you well and expect you to do better than just scraping the bottom. In other words, have a some pride and show a bit of dignity.
Re: (Score:2)
What good would it be for them to kill him?
Would it stop people from leaking and divulging information? No.
Would it make people stop caring about the leaks? No, on the contrary.
You also don't know what kind of "dead man switches" Wikileaks may have implemented. Perhaps a barrage of damaging classified information could come out at once. Maybe something that really shouldn't / won't be revealed like the locations of CIA agents, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
If Assange were assassinated it would raise the stakes of leaks pretty substantially. I suspect it might cause at least some whistle-blowers to think twice.
Ultimately, if everyone's guess as to who leaked the documents is true, Wikileaks got very lucky in being in the right place at the right time. They probably won't get such a mother lode again any time soon.
They need to find some to give him a code red (Score:2)
They need to find some to give him a code red
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since Assange claims to be in regular contact with the US government and leaks lots of stuff of questionable value, there's a good chance that he's a total fraud. Supposedly this was all leaked by that army PFC... so the data have been sat on for months.
If you read magazines like the Economist or Foreign Affairs, you've already read paraphrased summaries of all of this stuff. My guess is that these leaks contain misinformation to misdirect folks like the Chinese who have already hacked State Department netw
Troll mods (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't get much more paranoid then that. Yep, the US is behind the evils of the entire world.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
To be perfectly honest, if you look at the flow of money and the financing and who has placed particular political groups in strategic positions of power around the globe, the mathematical conclusion is that, yes, the United States _is_ behind a good portion of the world's grief.
If, however, you do not like that option then you are free to conduct your own research and determine who is providing the United States with financial authority and pulling their strings to direct how that money is dispersed. Vici
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*ducks*
The U.S. government is very unlikely to be behind a DDoS attack of the wikileaks web site. These types of attacks typically reveal the political leanings of some 15 year old botmaster who happens to p0wn fifty or a hundred thousand unsuspecting zombie home PCs with cable internet access.
Top Secret America (Score:2)
The more interesting question is how the obsession with secrecy damages the national interests of the U.S. It's not at all clear t
dang... (Score:2)
WikiLeaks actually CIA (Score:1)
China's Politburo Behind Google Cyber-Attack? (Score:2)
Re:China's Politburo Behind Google Cyber-Attack? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is always someone who, after something is relieved, says "told you!" Well, one thing is to speculate, another is to have some [more or less] solid proof. Or are your speculations "good enough"?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And you take a single email (cable) referencing hearsay as "solid proof"?
Re: (Score:2)
And you take a single email (cable) referencing hearsay as "solid proof"?
Re: (Score:2)
I understand what you're saying, but this is just another data point. This isn't "US Intelligence", it's Ambassador Bob saying Mr. Chu said "blah, blah, blah". Be careful how much weight you assign to individual data points.
Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that hardly anyone is surprised that China's Politburo (a group of 24 people who oversee the Communist Party of China) was behind the hacking of the Chinese Google office computers. You can see the seriousness of the issue after reading Google's response to the hacking and their threat to pull out of China all together and also after reading the Department of the State's involvement in this issue. The Department of the State, and someone as high up as Hillary Clinton, getting involved in this issue shows how important this single hacking event was, and not just because Google is everyone's the current favorite company.
US asks China to explain Google hacking claims [guardian.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. In other words, duh?
And a likely candidate for the current DDoS (Score:3, Insightful)
It makes sense for a few reasons:
1. The Chinese government has already proven they're not above this.
2. As inept as the US government can be I think they know they can't stop the spread of this information.
3. To public knowledge, the US government hasn't initiated a DDoS. Why show your hand and capabilities on something like this? It's a waste.
There's also a good chance it's another party or that WikiLeaks is just making it up b/c the guys are complete attention wh0res (don't think for a second they're doing it for a "greater good"... the founder _loves_ the spotlight.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it's another party or that WikiLeaks is just making it up b/c the guys are complete attention wh0res (don't think for a second they're doing it for a "greater good"... the founder _loves_ the spotlight.
Uh huh, and what exactly are you basing this on? Not saying it's not true, but I've seen this opinion on /. pretty much every time there's a wikileaks related article, and I'm just trying to figure out what I missed ('cause I don't recall any incident that'd justify such an opinion about Assange).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you watch any of his interviews (twice on the Colbert Report, for example), it's pretty clear that he revels in the attention. He oozes more smug than a coffee shop full of Macbook Pro users who think the J in WWJD stands for Jobs, which is, incidentally, enough smug to power Wikileaks for 3-4 years.
I say this agreeing completely with the philosophy of Wikileaks. It would be nice to have a more affable face on the organization, but nothing's perfect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I concede that your distinction may be valid, but WikiLeaks isn't exactly hurting for attention in the first place. I admit I'm a cynic, but it seems to me that the only agenda served by Assange doing a talk-show is that of satisfying a personal desire for publicity and/or validation. Now you may be right that he's of the mind that drawing (more) attention to the issue at any price is worthwhile, but I think it's far easier to argue against a personal desire for attention when one avoids attention in the
Re: (Score:2)
Attention wh0re? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Attention wh0re? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Attention wh0re? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this tactic is known as 'running cover'. Assange knows that someone has to be the focal point for the ogranisation, to make contact with media reps and various others in order to ensure the responsible dissemination of the data. Doing so allows a great many others to work quietly, undisturbed in the background. Say what you like about his motivation, he's chosen that role. I'd argue that, as someone who believes more in daylight than shadows, he's using the spotlight to keep himself out of harm's way.
Sure. This actually is one of the largest leaks of information in modern history. It's sensational in its very essence. Given that wikileaks' reason for being is to disseminate leaked information as effectively as possible, advance press is perfectly understandable.
Great idea. How about sharing it quietly with a number of the most reputable media organisations in the Western world? How about giving them months of prep time, so they could conduct analysis. How about -shocking, I know- even telling the affected agencies what was about to be released and offering them the opportunity to assist in the redaction process? That's exactly what they did.
Now, there's no way a government could be seen to be negotiating with them, so this might be seen as grandstanding, but who knows what contacts might have been made behind the scenes? (Well, wikileaks, of course, but... you get what I'm saying.)
Indeed they are. And indeed they have.
You can characterise what they do as attention-whoring if you like. The fact is that their job is to get as much attention as possible on the data they're releasing. If you suffer from this process, you won't be glad about it. I can accept that.
I have friends who were directly affected by information divulged to wikileaks some years ago. While I'm still angry at those who so cynically used wikileaks to release context-free data that wrongly created some very nasty implications, I don't blame wikileaks for releasing the information. That's just what they do.
In fact, I'd rather see wikileaks do it than others. While they're occasionally guilty of editorialising about their data, at least they release all of it, providing others with the opportunity to draw their own conclusions. Most media organisations do not do this. They run with what they think will lead, and leave the rest by the roadside.
I don't always like the results of what wikileaks does, but at least they are exactly what the claim to be.
Re: (Score:2)
"How about sharing it quietly with a number of the most reputable meia organisations in the Western world."
That's not exactly what they did. They withheld information from all sources so they would have a "bombshell" to deliver.
And, again, they didn't have to announce they had this information before release.
"The fact is that their job is to get as much attention as possible..."
That's not their stated mission... it's to release this information to as many people as pos
Re: (Score:2)
I can see the distinction you're drawing; it's quite a fascinating one.
It would be really interesting, actually, to consider what other tactics and methods could achieve the same strategy (i.e. run a generic whistle-blower service).
It would certainly elevate the debate about the nature of wikileaks, something wh
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where you're getting that. In the last three dumps, Wikileaks has followed the same pattern: Share the data with a limited number of news agencies, one each in multiple countries. Here's how the Guardian [guardian.co.uk] described this round:
Re:And a likely candidate for the current DDoS (Score:4, Insightful)
The Chinese government has proven that they'll do anything to stop distribution of negative information about them.
the only difference in between the us government and chinese government, is how they approach the concept of 'doing anything' to stop distribution of negative information.
one does it directly, by arresting or killing those who distribute it, the other does it through underhanded, but improvable means.
Clashes with Europe over human rights: American officials sharply warned Germany in 2007 not to enforce arrest warrants for Central Intelligence Agency officers involved in a bungled operation in which an innocent German citizen with the same name as a suspected militant was mistakenly kidnapped and held for months in Afghanistan. A senior American diplomat told a German official “that our intention was not to threaten Germany, but rather to urge that the German government weigh carefully at every step of the way the implications for relations with the U.S.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I feel a little surprised that China wouldn't have already had Wikileaks blocked.
Re:And a likely candidate for the current DDoS (Score:4, Interesting)
2. No they don't. And they're right. It's only a matter of time before the US government figures out a way to crush wikileaks in a way that makes no one else ever try it again.
3. Plenty 12 year olds have the capability of launching a DDoS attack. The US wouldn't be tipping any hand. And, just because they are under a DDoS attack doesn't mean that's all that's going on. This may very well be a symptom or a diversion of something else entirely.
Yes, wikileaks is DDoSing their own site for attention. On the day they probobly got more hits than any other site on the internet they feel the need to DDoS themselves so no one can read what their publishing, so they can get more attention... even though they already have every News organization and Political party on earth staring directly at them. You're brilliant.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wikileaks is China's friend. The PRC loves it, it does their work for them. The west's secrets are handed to them, what's easier. It does double duty besmirching the USAs reputation to their own Chinese people; no Chinese bureaucrats needed. Gravy all over.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
just suppressing it long enough that they can configure the "Great Firewall" to block it (content filters, etc).
You misunderstand the purpose of the GFW, and overestimate its level of sophistication
2. As inept as the US government can be I think they know they can't stop the spread of this information.
No, but they can slow it down until they've assess the content and created a narrative to counter the negative aspects.
3. To public knowledge, the US government hasn't initiated a DDoS. Why show your hand and capabilities on something like this? It's a waste.
And this is the least convincing of your statements. Do you think anyone, let alone the US gov, would execute a DDoS without covering their tracks? A DDoS can be executed by a child without getting caught. You don't think the US is also capable? jeez
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"China is the new bogeyman."
China was also the old bogeyman, 2000-2001, before we went drooling and raving for 10 years about guys in caves who got off one lucky, unrepeatable shot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Team_%28U.S._politics%29
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?us_military_specific_cases_and_issues=us_military_tmln_spy_plane_crash_in_china&timeline=us_military_tmln
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Asia/Revving_China_Threat.html
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
wikileaks (Score:5, Interesting)
Iraq document leaks show US forces found WMD after invasion - http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/ [wired.com]
Wikileaked documents normalise Iraq civilian death toll at 'massive' 66,000
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
John Young of Cyprome has claimed [cryptome.org] for some time that Wikileaks is a CIA front, almost right from the start.
Sure, everyone's paranoid when it comes to the world of intelligence, but still, it is an interesting thought. Selective "leaking" to Wikileaks, which disseminates it to key media outlets ... that would be a fantastic propaganda tool.
Re: (Score:2)
Conspiracy theories are fun but I wouldn't be surprised if that was true. Some day we'll find that Assange was a CIA agent all along, but of course that will be a leak too.
Re: (Score:2)
Selective leaking to friendly media has already happened many times without needing wikileaks - Valerie Plume etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Promoting the US view? According to that article they found a few remnants. It's hard to get exact numbers out of that article with wikileaks being DoSed, but I don't think that some rusty artillery shells (it strikes me as a very bad idea to try to fire a round that's leaking) and the 10 rounds amount to anything significant and justify the war.
Re:wikileaks (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you really surprised that diplomatic cables between US diplomats express a "US world view"?
Re: (Score:2)
diplomatic discussion and world views (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm honestly not that surprised that the Saudis are freaked out about Iran. Any way you look at it from the Saudi point of view, Iran is a scary place. If it carves out a chunk of southern Iraq, it represents a serious threat to Saudi territorial integrity. If Iran gets into a nuclear exchange with Israel, well, that represents a pretty huge threat to the Saudis too. Hell, maybe the Saudis are freaked that the military junta that is actually running Iran right now may represent a very direct threat to t
Re: (Score:2)
If those cables include replies from Saudi Arabians urging a strike on Iran, yeah, that is pretty surprising.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not very surprising at all, and it has been reported in the media over the last year or so. Searching quickly found a Jun 12, 2010 article in the Times (now behind a paywall) titled "Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites".
OMG it's a conspiracy! (Score:2)
I can't believe this! George Bush was right all along and the media suppressed the story! Only a massive, international socialist conspiracy could explain this!!!!!!!11!!1!oneone
Yeah, the blister agents were discovered and reported by the media. The chemicals had so degraded in potency that Saddam would have had to get American troops to agree to have it rubbed on them, and even then in most cases they would have had a nasty rash. If that's your justification for starting a war that resulted in hundreds of
tirade (Score:2)
cyber war? (Score:2, Interesting)
is that 3 ddos attacks going at once?
at this rate the whole idea of a cyberwar is much less idiotic?
Gosh! (Score:2)
This is the most surprised I have been all year!
Sure, it's nice to have reliable confirmation, but still, this was kind of an obvious one.
Civ Game (Score:2, Funny)
Is it me or does the world look more and more like some kid's Civ game from another dimension? A word of wisdom to the Chinese: hack Google all you want, just don't get too ambitious and start building a spaceship to Alpha Centauri, and doom us all to the endgame.
Perhaps (Score:4, Interesting)
Was "China" (ie somebody in China) behind the attack on Google? Perhaps; all governments at some level do this kind of things.
But I don't think this is anything like the main story to extract from this leak; which is much more about what American government and diplomats think, privately, about everybody else. Very revealing stuff, I think, which confirms what we all have had our suspicions about.
In their defence I'll say that what you think in private is often much less refined than what you end up saying or doing, so perhaps we shouldn't judge them too harshly.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
credible? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The most newsworthy item is that war with Iran is apparently inevitable. Who cares about Google hacking.
I find that a bit of an extraordinary claim, though not in itself unrealistic. Where's the evidence?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just search for cables about Iran: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-wikileaks [guardian.co.uk] It becomes clear pretty soon that most countries in the region are far most hostile to Iran that I ever knew before (including words like existential threat and direct urging by a number of countries for the US to strike, bunch of leaders call Iran evil and a fascist state) and that Israel will definitely not be willing to live with nuclear Iran and that apparently Iran is not negotiating i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
UAE prince fears 'logic of war' [guardian.co.uk] (February 9, 2010):
The UAE leadership sees Iran as its primary external threat, and one that is existential in nature. Like much of the international community, the UAE finds the idea of an Iran with nuclear weapons unacceptable and thinks this eventuality would lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. At least as worrying to MbZ are Iran's aspirations for regional hegemony by support for terrorist proxies (Hizballah, HAMAS, possibly underground organizations in the Arab Gulf countries). MbZ is skeptical that Iran can be convinced to end its nuclear weapons program, and is not convinced that the international community will adopt tough sanctions. In other words, he sees the logic of war dominating the region, and this thinking explains his near obsessive efforts to build up the UAE's armed forces.
[...]
MbZ's main message to us during his September visit was that we needed to be better coordinated for Iran contingencies. High level engagement by CENTCOM planners have helped to address this concern, but he believes we have made less progress in addressing what he sees as the slow pace of deliveries of US security assistance and he is still worried that he does not have enough equipment in place to defend his people when war with Iran breaks out. (And for MbZ it is a matter of when, not if.) We have repeatedly presented to his staff the various explanations for what he perceives as delays, but he remains unconvinced that we are addressing his concerns as a matter of priority.
UAE fret over Iranian meddling [guardian.co.uk] (February 22, 2010):
The UAE views Iran as a huge problem that goes far beyond nuclear capabilities. Iranian support for terrorism is broader than just Hamas and Hizballah. Iran has influence in Afghanistan, Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrain, the Eastern Province of KSA, and Africa (AbZ mentioned Nigeria specifically). Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez have close, cooperative ties. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the expeditionary aspect of its foreign policy will become ever more challenging for neighboring states.
[...]
Lowey asked what AbZ thought about tougher sanctions against Iran and how the UAE can help with China. AbZ said the US and its allies "have to decide how to stop Iran" and that the UAE was surprised at the Chinese attitude. AbZ noted the Emiratis and the Saudis have spoken to the Chinese, and the UAE expressed a willingness to expand its energy ties (Note: AbZ seemed to be indicating that this was intended as a carrot, but he acknowledged the difficulty of supplanting an Iran-China trade relationship that reached $50 billion last year. End Note.)
[...]
In response to questions from members of Congress, AbZ said that if Iran goes nuclear others in the region will move forward on the same track and the nuclear nonproliferation treaty will completely break down. He said a crisis or confrontation in the region would create oil supply problems worldwide. 14 million barrels a day pass through the Strait of Hormuz. That said, he noted that the US and UAE militaries have plans to keep Hormuz clear.
US steps up pressure on Turkey over Iran [guardian.co.uk] (February 25, 2010):
Burns strongly urged Sinirlioglu to support action to convince the Iranian government it is on the wrong course. Sinirliolgu reaffirmed the GoT's opposition to a nuclear Iran; however, he registered fear about the collateral impact military action might have on Turkey and contended sanctions would unite Iranians behind the regime and harm the opposition. Burns acknowledged Turkey's exposure to the economic effects of sanctions as a neighbor to Iran, but reminded Sinirlioglu Turkish interests would suffer if Israel were to act militarily to forestall Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons or if Egypt and Saudi Arabia were to seek nuclear arsenals of their own. He said the international community's patience with Iran had been met with the Iranian refusal, since October, to work with the P5-plus-1, the clandestine enrichment facility near Qom and Tehran's recent decison to enrich its low-enriched uranium to 20%. The IAEA's creative proposal to fabricate new fuel assemblies for the Tehran Research Reactor had stumbled on a technically unfeasible Iranian counter-offer for a simultaneous exchange in Iran of Iranian fuel for fuel assemblies. Carefully constructed sanctions, Burns argued, targeting the increasingly pervasive economic power of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, would convey the international community's unity and determination. "We'll keep the door open to engagement," he stressed. A visibly disheartened Sinirlioglu conceded a unified message is important. He acknowledged the countries of the region perceive Iran as a growing threat: "Alarm bells are ringing even in Damascus."
Saudi king urges US strike on Iran [guardian.co.uk] (April 20, 2008):
The King, Foreign Minister, Prince Muqrin, and Prince Nayif all agreed that the Kingdom needs to cooperate with the US on resisting and rolling back Iranian influence and subversion in Iraq. The King was particularly adamant on this point, and it was echoed by the senior princes as well. Al-Jubeir recalled the King's frequent exhortations to the US to attack Iran and so put an end to its nuclear weapons program. "He told you to cut off the head of the snake," he recalled to the Charge', adding that working with the US to roll back Iranian influence in Iraq is a strategic priority for the King and his government.
[...]
The Foreign Minister, on the other hand, called instead for much more severe US and international sanctions on Iran, including a travel ban and further restrictions on bank lending. Prince Muqrin echoed these views, emphasizing that some sanctions could be implemented without UN approval. The Foreign Minister also stated that the use of military pressure against Iran should not be ruled out.
I wouldn't call a military strike against Iran inevitable since some of these parties have been advocating it for several years without apparent result. However, it does strike me that if Iran's nuclear ambitions are not curbed, then we may be f
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Interesting post, but hobbled by a lack of accounting for Syria.
I first heard rumor not about a Syrian program in 1994, it was emphasized by the CIA (2003), and the Israelis (2007).
The reason you aren't hearing about it is because Damascus is not the oldest continually occupied city on earth by chance. Furthermore, their Jordanian counterparts have a penchant for reaffirming covenants with the U.S. & Israel, performing economic due-diligence, sending their children to American Universities (even their
Re: (Score:2)
I first heard rumor not about a Syrian program in 1994, it was emphasized by the CIA (2003), and the Israelis (2007).
Keep in mind that the Israelis bombed it [newyorker.com] in 2007. And they did so by completely compromising one of Russia's most advanced air defense systems. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Syria is still working on its program, but evidence seems to indicate that they suffered a big set back. But yes, you do have a point about Syria being fairly sane by Middle East standards.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)