Iran Steps Up Cyberattacks Against America (marketwatch.com) 216
An anonymous reader quotes MarketWatch:
Iran has increased its offensive cyberattacks against the U.S. government and critical infrastructure as tensions have grown between the two nations, cybersecurity firms say.
In recent weeks, hackers believed to be working for the Iranian government have targeted U.S. government agencies, as well as sectors of the economy, including oil and gas, sending waves of spear-phishing emails, according to representatives of cybersecurity companies CrowdStrike and FireEye, which regularly track such activity. It was not known if any of the hackers managed to gain access to the targeted networks...
"Both sides are desperate to know what the other side is thinking," said John Hultquist, director of intelligence analysis at FireEye. "You can absolutely expect the regime to be leveraging every tool they have available to reduce the uncertainty about what's going to happen next, about what the U.S.'s next move will be...."
According to the article, one of the phishing emails "appeared to come from the Executive Office of the President and seemed to be trying to recruit people for an economic adviser position.
"Another email was more generic and appeared to include details on updating Microsoft Outlook's global address book."
In recent weeks, hackers believed to be working for the Iranian government have targeted U.S. government agencies, as well as sectors of the economy, including oil and gas, sending waves of spear-phishing emails, according to representatives of cybersecurity companies CrowdStrike and FireEye, which regularly track such activity. It was not known if any of the hackers managed to gain access to the targeted networks...
"Both sides are desperate to know what the other side is thinking," said John Hultquist, director of intelligence analysis at FireEye. "You can absolutely expect the regime to be leveraging every tool they have available to reduce the uncertainty about what's going to happen next, about what the U.S.'s next move will be...."
According to the article, one of the phishing emails "appeared to come from the Executive Office of the President and seemed to be trying to recruit people for an economic adviser position.
"Another email was more generic and appeared to include details on updating Microsoft Outlook's global address book."
Time for OpenBSD and Rust (Score:2, Interesting)
When security is the most important aspect of a software system, I think that OpenBSD and Rust are exactly what are needed. OpenBSD gives an ultra secure OS. Rust gives an ultra secure programming language. Security + Security = More Security. As cyber attacks become more of an issue, I predict we will see a lot more use of OpenBSD and Rust together.
Re: Time for OpenBSD and Rust (Score:1)
It's sad how the only comment so far (out of 14) that actually has something to do with computing is at -1.
It just goes to show how far /. has fallen. Comments that are on-topic and polite are at -1, while comments calling for war and riddled with petty insults are modded up.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it was modded down because it's wrong and trendy.
Nothing "ultra secure" about either. They both solve only one security problem while causing many more problems in great variety from maintenance costs to increased attack surface by having to use wrappers both for critical more efficient code and to get services people actually want to run on BSD.
Both OpenBSD and Rust are niche and will continue to be niche.
How about the GP's point that it was the only post on topic (i.e. related to computing, which is what /. was originally ostensibly about, unless they've changed their mission statement along w/ their ownership). Like the previous thread was about digging up the president's tax returns, which have nothing to do w/ this story at all!
Re: (Score:2)
That is terrible. America would never do that. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh wait, Stuxnet.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't want to see something silly like Stuxnet or the Gulf of Tonkin derail the opportunity for freedom for Iranian Kurdistan.
Re: (Score:2)
No worries, Turkey will handle that for you - and their NATO allies will let them.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, are they still in NATO?
OTOH, drawing those lines will take a couple years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait, Stuxnet.
You misspelled 'Israel'. Also, targeting one country's nuclear weapons program is pretty different from attacking its electricity grid. Nothing that Israel did caused Iranians to go w/o power
Re: (Score:2)
It was both the US and Israel. And if Obama wasn't murdering Iran's nuclear scientists, he knows if it was Mossad or someone else.
Iran hasn't had a nuclear weapons program. That's why this whole thing is a farce, including Obama's supposed great accomplishment of the 'Iran Deal' which came after years of illegal threats of military force and crashing their economy with sanc
Re: (Score:2)
You really fell for the notion that one of the biggest exporters of oil has a problem w/ energy? I have a bridge in Teheran that I'd like to sell you
The real issue is Iran possessing nuclear weapons. Now, Iran does have geopolitical ambitions: in places where ethnicity helps spread its influence, like Afghanistan and Tajikistan, it uses that, but in the Arab world, since they're not Farsi, the only other tool of influence Iran can use is religious sect. Since Islam, apart from being intolerant of non-I
Re: (Score:2)
You really went with that straw man? Who said Iran has an energy shortage? They want nuclear power for the same reason the Shah started to get it from the United States: they are an oil producing nation, and having nuclear power allows them to export more oil. That and it's a matter of pride for Iran that they can have the same sort of nuclear power plants u
Track such Activity? (Score:3, Insightful)
And how, pray tell, do they "track such activity"? It would seem to me that in order to do so they would have to be malicious dirty hackers themselves, intercepting and tapping communications that belong to third-parties and thus dirty criminals in need of imprisonment and/or castration themselves ...
More likely it is an American TLA (Three Letter Agency) and this is just propaganda ...
Re: (Score:2)
Router logs.
Re: (Score:2)
And America steps up excuses to go to war (Score:1, Insightful)
And no, we won't pay for it with the oil because that money won't go anywhere near gov't coffers.
Re:And America steps up excuses to go to war (Score:4, Interesting)
In case you haven't noticed,
The US is a war perpetuation machine. It goes to war constantly, and never wins or loses them. It just stays forever and continues to make a mess of things just enough so they can justify staying longer.
Why? Because some politicians, and "defense" contractors, got really drunk on the profits from WWII and have tried to keep the party going ever since. Despite the fact that the circumstances that made those profits possible no longer exist. Unfortunately the drunk politicians still refuse to realize that, and think that if they sink enough of the country's economy into it, those conditions will return.
That, or they're just warmongers for the sake of being warmongers.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Did they? Or did the Saudis attack the tanker. The US withdrew from the treaty, why should they follow it? If they get nukes then Trump will be best buddies wth them, like he is with Kim. If they really want to know the next move of the US all they have to do is watch FOX and Friends.
Re: (Score:2)
Another Russian AC trying to influence us. Good job comrade.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh brother! You're one of those people! Oy!
And you're just an idiot.
You mean paid with their own money? (Score:2)
It was Iran's cash in the first place, Slick. And:
1) Iran has the right under the NPT to enrich uranium to any level they want
2) Iran has not had a nuclear weapons program. They have a nuclear energy program.
Re:And America steps up excuses to go to war (Score:5, Interesting)
The blew up a tanker and shot down a US drone that was over international waters. They're threatening to start building an atomic bomb, a clear violation of international agreements.
It won't be America's fault when this war breaks out. It's clear Iran wants it, and it's well past time we put them in their place.
Iran was following the nuclear deal [politifact.com] they made with Obama until Trump backed out of it because of his ego.
Where the drone was shot down is in dispute however; it's just a fucking drone - not worth going to war over.
The tankers (if it's true that Iran mined them - the Japanese ship owner's have placed doubt on that) - well, it's more of a message that if we do go to war, Iran will disrupt trade and the World's economy. Now adding in Trump's idiotic trade war with just about everyone, we little people will pay for it all.
Now let's do some deductive reasoning.
Who has the most to gain if the USA takes Iran out? (Israel and Saudi Arabia)
What country(ies) has the means and the direct line to Trump to manipulate him (easily done with narcissists)?
(Israel and Saudi Arabia and Russia)
Who will be harmed? (USA)
Who would benefit from that? (Russia; China; N. Korea - Kim is Trump's buddy)
Because taking Iran out is not in the best interests of the USA; which as we have observed, the POTUS takes the sides of governments that our hostile to us over our own people. And the shear incompetence our POTUS is showing in international affairs is just embarassing.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't wait for that $10/gallon gas!
Re: (Score:2)
1) We don't buy oil from Iran
2) They would only be able to threaten shipping for a few days or weeks.
3) The producers of oil for US gas are US, Canada, Mexico
I doubt gas would get over $5.50
Re: (Score:2)
2) They would only be able to threaten shipping for a few days or weeks.
A minefield in the narrow parts of the straight will be easy to establish. Ditto for regular long-distance artillery - it can easily cover the straight from deep within Iran's territory. And Iran also has guided missiles.
The US will have to establish a beachhead and advance deep within Iran's territory, holding the ground. This will not be fast or easy.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't just wave your hands and have a completed minefield appear, you'd have to pilot ships out there to drop the mines off.
Artillery can stay hidden until it fires. Then it goes "boom," because airplanes.
Re: (Score:2)
The US will have to establish a beachhead and advance deep within Iran's territory, holding the ground. This will not be fast or easy.
Iraq to the west, Afghanistan to the east, the Gulf of Oman to the south, Turkey is certainly going to allow support from the northwest, and probably Saudi Arabia as well for the southwest. Pakistan is the only wildcard that requires significant bribery. We could ignore their mines in the Strait of Hormuz for the few weeks it might take for our minesweepers to clear them.
Both Iraq and Afghanistan are too caught up in their recovery - Afghanistan busy trying to sign a deal w/ the Taliban, which would preclude cooperation w/ the US on this, and Iraq pretty dominated by Shi'ites, so that they'd either be pro Iran, or at best, neutral.
Turkey's relations w/ both the US and Russia have soured. W/ US over the S-400s, and Russia over Idlib (where Russia is trying to upstage both Iran and Turkey for control of Syria [albawaba.com]). As for Pakistan, it's new government has been trying to put t
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot that much of the border between Iran and Iraq is really between Iran and Iraqi Kurdistan. You don't have to rely on Turkey for access. But Turkey would have to play the role of ally, or lose their position as an ally. They can't have it both ways, and they understand that. So far they've avoided having to decide.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure why there would be any need to "take" Tehran, it would make more sense to occupy Persepolis and Iranian Kurdistan and just bomb Tehran. Even if you wanted to occupy the country, you might want to move the capital.
In the North and East the local population would support the current regime for sure.
But a more likely scenario would be an air and sea war to destroy their nuclear facilities and degrade their conventional threat.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like they have been too subtle with Trump. Same with China, everyone else recognized the threat to cut off the US supply of rare earths, except Trump who doubled down on the trade war.
This is worrying because these not-so-subtle hints are what keep us just short of a hot war.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The blew up a tanker and shot down a US drone that was over international waters. They're threatening to start building an atomic bomb, a clear violation of international agreements.
It won't be America's fault when this war breaks out. It's clear Iran wants it, and it's well past time we put them in their place.
It's clear you're buying all the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
Re: (Score:3)
Who blew up "the tanker"? Have we seen any shred of evidence, except noises from the US and its dictatorial, inhuman Sharia-law loving allies in the Middle East?
What would happen to an Iranian drone in US airspace?
You Russian trolls are desperate sawing divide and fake news here.
Guruevi is uninformed. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only were you misinformed about the default state of AWS firewall database ports, you're basically whitewashing all details from something you have not studied here. It's shameful. Iran's government has theocratic elements, sure.
So does Israel and America and Saudi Arabia and even France. Go fuck yourself apologist with blinders. Iran is in a defensive position since the US overthrew their government and destabilized every aspect of their statehood. Since ww2.
Still they persist. Now like NK, thing
Re: And America steps up excuses to go to war (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or it could be that Libya was invaded by clueless people whose minds were stuck in the 80s - just like they today are on Russia. Libya had done everything right that the West wanted - ended its WMD program, owned responsibility for Lockerbie and compensated the victims, restored diplomatic relations w/ Western countries including the US and UK. There was no reason to turn on Gaddaffi when the Arab Spring started: the correct course would have been to let the Libyans sort it out. Instead, the US - w/ both
Re: (Score:2)
Which was a direct response to the US shooting down Iran Air Flight 655, which murdered a few hundred people. The US never accepted responsibility and only paid a settlement to resolve an ICC suit.
Gaddafi's real sins were selling oil in currencies other than dollars, and planning to make a gold-backed currency to rival the Franc. Neither the US or France could have that, so Gaddafi would have been gone under Tru
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Israel is not really a theocracy and they most certainly don't have delusions of Armageddon, for two reasons:
the main reason is that they own the actual Armageddon, it's not far from Nazareth.
The other reason is that the whole battle of Armageddon stuff is purely a christian thing, mainly in the USA. For the jews it is just a historical site.
Re: (Score:2)
Please Iran, here's another $150B and another pallet with $2B in cash, please let us know if Allah changes his mind about all this.
AFAIK, the cash was not in US Dollars, but Swiss Francs. And I thought it was only about 1.3B.
It was so much that there was an actual shortage of 1000 CHF notes (which is the largest denomination) for a while after this.
100 USD being the largest US Dollar denomination, it would have taken a lot more space...
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, it was their money, not some sort of gift.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a "settlement", IIRC.
Ah, here it is.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog... [brookings.edu]
About 1.73 metric tons in Swiss Francs at the time.
Over 17t in US 100 Dollar bills.
The Swiss are the masters of efficiency ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody using the word "settlement" means nothing. It wasn't a "settlement." It was their money, and it was returned to them.
Calling that some sort of "settlement" as if it had been to resolve a disputed claim is just a dishonest word game.
It was their money. They paid it to buy weapons from the US. Then they had a change of government, and the US didn't want to finish the sale. Or give the money back yet, in the hopes that they would have a counter-revolution or something. But that never happened. It was
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, it was their money, not some sort of gift.
It belonged to Iranians who had fled that country, not those who still lived there and supported the regime. So there's no reason that the US owed it to them
Re: (Score:3)
What money have we poured into Iran since the 1980s? Identify it.
It certainly wasn't that money [apnews.com], because "we" can't pour money into Iran that was already theirs to begin with.
You know we "funded" them after overthrowing (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Your sarcasm doesn't make your statement accurate in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait? That unmanned shitty drone costs $110m?
Shit, I know the US defence industry is inefficient but that's fucking asinine. I'm not saying I could make for for $110k but I bet I could get closer to that than $110m.
Re: (Score:2)
a war between US and Iran would be horrendous for everyone involved
Not least because unlike Iraq I'd expect Iran to retaliate beyond its own borders.
Iran should be our ally (Score:5, Insightful)
Iran was an ally of the US before we started fucking around with their government to secure oil. If you know any Iranians, you know what I mean. We should be natural allies.
Here's a thought: Let's trade our "friendship" with Israel and Saudi Arabia for one with Iran. It'll be better for us, for them, and for the world.
Re: (Score:2)
"each side is desperate to know what the other side is thinking", or in Iran's case, to know if the USA is actually thinking at all, especially the incumbent president.
Re: (Score:3)
A nice woman from Persepolis gave a cultural presentation I attended, and she said the same thing; Persians and Americans are natural allies.
Unfortunately, when the Ottoman Empire fell they ended up being ruled by these people from the north and east.
And about half of Kurdistan, too, another natural ally.
If Persia and Kurdistan were independent, it would change the whole balance of power in the region. For the better, IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
They thought Khomeini was a mellow, old man sitting under an apple-tree.
Like Ghandi, with a beard.
Might want to read the article you linked (Score:2)
It might be helpful to read at least the first half or first 2/3rds of the article you linked.
As explained in the article, what the US administration did was recognize that the popular opposition to the shah had become too strong - it was a lost cause.
When Kohmeni reached out to the Carter administration saying he's be friendly after his (unavoidable) return, the administration tried to keep him away behind his back, while playing friendly to his face.
It's all in the article you linked, but apparently forgo
Re: (Score:2)
US government approved the overthrow of the Shah.
Pretty much wagging the dog, so is the link.
The shah was sick and going to die. They pulled Khomeini out of moth balls to keep the Russians out, same bullshit they were pulling in Afghanistan [arizona.edu]. "What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?". He always was an asset to the very end.
Re: (Score:2)
It's time to ask the Iranian people for their forgiveness and be friends again.
They're probably not stupid enough for that shit. We're going to have to prove that we're trustworthy somewhere else first. And that's not going to happen under 45.
Starving IT Workers (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe instead of spending hundreds of $billions on missiles and planes each year, our national defense budget would be better spent funding security improvements for small IT departments responsible for various local government departments and strategic industries, that're likely to be attacked. The NSA could go back to helping fix bugs rather than hoard them in case they ever need to use them against 'the enemy.' R&D could be done on developing more secure programming languages and bug detection/prevention technologies. This has the upside of protecting against ransomware attacks, too.
If 'hacking software' which automates the task of finding new exploits, and even new classes of exploits, is produced and deployed against us before the countermeasure is developed, then we could be in for a world of hurt.
Re: (Score:2)
I had to double check the headline because today the BBC is reporting that the US is ramping up cyber attacks on Iran [bbc.com].
The US started the cyber cold war years ago with Struxnet, so naturally it's going to get retaliatory hacks from Iran.
Re: (Score:2)
I read that article too. Seems strange to me that the US would reveal beforehand their ability to electronically disrupt Iranian anti-air systems.
I can only assume they launched a minor attack using a subset of their attack vectors to either lull Iran into complacency or to trick Iran into changing protocols in the hopes of introducing new vulnerabilities.
Not that this explains why the fuck AA missiles are attached to the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of Iranian equipment is Russian, so doubtless any malware samples will be shared with them too. It does seem odd.
Re: (Score:2)
Having local IT departments responsible for securing critical infrastructure is where it all went wrong in the first place. There needs to be separate network for all utilities, completely disconnected from the internet. It shouldn't even be compatible at the physical layer and all attempts to route traffic to from that network should immediately raise alarms.
Or we could, ya know stop with regime change wars (Score:2)
And don't tell me that's not what it's for, both Trump on John Bolton are on record saying they want the oil and we only ever get on the case of dictators when they've got something we want (Iraq, Libya, "Banana" Republics and now Venezuela and Iran).
Re: (Score:2)
Wow.
I lost IQ points reading that.
'MERICA!!!
Ever wonder why the USA has enemies? Maybe it is because they stick their noses into everything and make things worse. By noses, I mean missiles and guns. When was the last time 'Merica WON a war? Not in recent history. When was the last time an installed dictator worked out well for 'Merica? Never.
History is for noobs.
More like US warmongers step up PR (Score:5, Insightful)
More like US warmongers step up PR to force Trump to order an escalation. It's pretty clear dude doesn't want war. So let's create a narrative to force him to have it. Bad news, media owners: he's not the kind of guy who gives a shit about the press.
Re:More like US warmongers step up PR (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad news, media owners: he's not the kind of guy who gives a shit about the press.
You are incorrect. As a narcissist, he cares deeply about the press... but only how he is perceived. He doesn't really care if we go to war or not but he does care if he seems weak or not.
If people on Fox News Channel started saying that he's a very weak president then I have no doubt that he would attack a nation in an attempt to dispel that image.
You need to realize that full-blown narcissists like Trump are both deeply insecure and only interested in finding ways to receive praise and accolades.
Re: (Score:2)
Terrifying and true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
More like US warmongers step up PR to force Trump to order an escalation. It's pretty clear dude doesn't want war. So let's create a narrative to force him to have it.
He doesn't know what the hell he wants.
He understands another war in the Middle East is a bad thing so he wants to avoid that, but he also needs some way to "win" the whole Iranian storyline.
The problem is the Nuclear deal was already a huge win and there's isn't a better deal to be had. He was maybe hoping he could just "NAFTA it", ie change a couple semi-colons and claim he's replaced the worst deal ever with the best deal ever. But that only worked with NAFTA because no one serious actually wanted NAFTA
Re: (Score:2)
Oh you mean nuclear "deal" under which Iran will be able to obtain nukes is somehow a "good" deal? Do explain.
Sure.
The Nuclear did not in any form allow Iran to obtain nukes.
Though I'm quite curious to see how you justify your statement (ie do you not understand the deal or are you playing some rhetorical trick).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Iran lied, and Israel has abundant evidence: https://time.com/5262607/netan... [time.com]
So Iran was secretly pursuing a Nuclear weapon, signed the deal, then stopped pursing a Nuclear weapons.
And this somehow translates into the deal allowing Iran to obtain Nuclear Weapons?
Re: (Score:2)
No, Iran lied then, and Iran is lying now. You don't build and test ballistic missiles if you don't intend to create warheads. Particularly not if your country is in the shitter economically. Iran has a rather substantial ballistic missile program, and tests rockets regularly. It's a big country. Just because they let IAEA inspectors inspect two of their facilities doesn't mean they don't have a dozen more.
I'll save you some time and explain why this is a big deal: the country is run by a cleric whose law,
Re: (Score:2)
No, Iran lied then,
Of course they did, that's why there were sanctions.
and Iran is lying now.
Who cares? The whole point of the deal is no one had to trust Iran because there were inspections.
You don't build and test ballistic missiles if you don't intend to create warheads.
You build missiles if you're being belligerent and am trying to save face after signing a really harsh deal that won't let you build warheads.
Just because they let IAEA inspectors inspect two of their facilities doesn't mean they don't have a dozen more.
Which can be inspected, as per the Nuclear deal.
I'll save you some time and explain why this is a big deal: the country is run by a cleric whose law, Islam, requires to conquer and kill the infidels.
Oh give me a break. I'm here to disprove your bizarre Trump-worship and your Iran paranoia. I'll leave your Islamophobia for another thread.
Re: (Score:2)
First off, the "deal" Obama agreed to was only a TEMPORARY delay in Iran's nuclear weapons program. Even if Iran had followed the terms 100% (which they didn't, and even the suckers that love them admit it) it would have done nothing by delay Iran's nuclear program by a decade.
10 years.
Actually they were restricted to a single Uranium enrichment facility for 10 years, but they were limited in the degree to which they could enrich uranium for the full 15 years.
Perhaps you could argue for a deal that lasts FOREVER but no county would ever sign a deal like that, including Iran and the US.
After 15 years if it looked like Iran could be trusted with the standard UN rules against pursuing Nukes they'd do that (it would be a new generation of leadership under 15 years of marginally less hostile r
Re: (Score:2)
It seems he was ready to start a war until one of his friends at Fox called up and talked him out of it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Those are Trump's "bad cops". It's a great negotiating tactic to keep those on staff. But this PR shit isn't coming from them.
New script (Score:4, Informative)
At least they're being a little more creative with their manufactured pretext. For a long time they were recycling the script they used for Iraq with just the one letter changed.
Share the e-mail! (Score:2, Funny)
According to the article, one of the phishing emails "appeared to come from the Executive Office of the President and seemed to be trying to recruit people for an economic adviser position.
This e-mail was just posted online for everyone to watch out for. Here's a copy. Give it a read, and be sure to pass it on to whomever you know! Let's stay vigilant against the common enemy!
-----
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OF IMPERIAL REPUBLIC OF THE AMERICAS
WHITE HOUSE
USA
Dear worker
May the glory of our nation be
Re:Share the e-mail! (Score:4, Insightful)
So obviously fake, the Spelling, Grammar, and Vocabulary are too good to be Trump.
Remember, 17 US intelligence agencies agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Skepticism is "undermining the intelligence community."
Pushing back against claims made by officials is "attacking the intelligence community."
Remember everything that the media and anti-Trump commenters said was "helping Russia"? How do you like your own trap? All skepticism will be deemed "helping Iran" now.
SEVENTEEN AGENCIES
LMAO
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think the intelligence community will release another PDF document with vague wording and generic diagrams of what a computer network looks like? Will the journalists who ate that up also eat this one up? Oh man oh man I hope it's sourced from some GOP equivalent of CrowdStrike. The contortions that the media will be forced to go through... I can't wait.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't trust whoever is responsible for oversight over intelligence (senate intelligence committee? ahh, "U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence", so yeah) that's a problem. The US intelligence community is not spectacularly credible, it's true, but Trump is even less credible than that.
Re: (Score:2)
What evidence? For Iraq, they went through all the trouble of presenting evidence at the UN. It was all fake, but evidence was presented. This time they didn't bother, making mostly anonymous claims to the media, and people just ate that shit up. With a spoon.
Trump has been vastly more hostile to Russia and Russia's interests than any president in decades. Do you meet with Birthers and Chem Trailers to
No diplomatic relations (Score:2)
Since there are no diplomatic relations between Iran and the U.S., this is simply the best way for the governments of the two nations to communicate effectively. Drop a bit of classified info here and there meant to de-escalate/escalate as desired.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Given his threat to Ukraine to force them to remove their special prosecutor investigating the company his son worked in, one hardly needs a hypothetical to contemplate what would happen
Re: (Score:3)
'how truly bad he is for our country'
Have you checked your IRA lately? How truly bad is it?
Re:Sweet (Score:4, Informative)
'how truly bad he is for our country'
Have you checked your IRA lately? How truly bad is it?
My 401k has a very large dip around January 2019, coinciding with Trump's escalating trade war and the market downturn that followed. And while the balance has mostly recovered from that dip, I'm only about even to where it was last year -- meaning growth has completely stalled.
So whether Trump is bad for the country depends on subjective opinion. But Trump is objectively bad for my 401k, full stop.
Re: (Score:2)
'In the unlikely event that you end up benefiting somewhat financially'
This country benefits when there's a fair playing field for trade. It's far past time an elected official considers what is financially beneficial for this country before belovenence or a political posture. Quite a difference than the previous administration, especially considering the cost of 'too big to fail' in 2008. Compare that to calling out the NATO members that have been sucking Uncle Sam's tit since 43. We elected this, and asid
Re: Sweet (Score:2)
Re: Time to nuke Iran! (Score:2, Funny)
Absolutely! Let's start WW3 already and annihilate the human race once and for all. The planet will probably recover eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember watching a Japanese American comedian on TV talking about US vs. Japan stereotypes and relations. Part of this routine was a joke I found rather profound.
"When America gets mad at your country, they don't drop a million bombs on you. They drop two."
I think that works both ways. Tossing Molotov cocktails over a wall on the Gaza strip is annoying, potentially deadly, and under certain conditions a lethal response would be appropriate or even necessary. This would be a very limited response thou
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Iran has been threatening to drop a nuclear weapon on the US and/or US allies for a very long time.
Iran has no nuclear weapons. And to my knowledge they have never threatened to use it on Israel or Saudi Arabia, never mind the US. Care to provide links?
Re: (Score:2)
Chelsea Hubbell?
Re: (Score:2)
Some amateur video from "corbettreport" on YouTube is surely going to convince people. How weird that the mainstream media hasn't picked up on this!
Re: (Score:2)
Right now Iran has no reason to attack the USA. Why are you so keen to incentivise them to do so?