How a Secret Dutch Mole Aided the US-Israeli Stuxnet Cyberattack on Iran (yahoo.com) 138
For years, an enduring mystery has surrounded the Stuxnet virus attack that targeted Iran's nuclear program: How did the U.S. and Israel get their malware onto computer systems at the highly secured uranium-enrichment plant? From a report: The first-of-its-kind virus, designed to sabotage Iran's nuclear program, effectively launched the era of digital warfare and was unleashed some time in 2007, after Iran began installing its first batch of centrifuges at a controversial enrichment plant near the village of Natanz. The courier behind that intrusion, whose existence and role has not been previously reported, was an inside mole recruited by Dutch intelligence agents at the behest of the CIA and the Israeli intelligence agency, the Mossad, according to sources who spoke with Yahoo News.
An Iranian engineer recruited by the Dutch intelligence agency AIVD provided critical data that helped the U.S. developers target their code to the systems at Natanz, according to four intelligence sources. That mole then provided much-needed inside access when it came time to slip Stuxnet onto those systems using a USB flash drive. The Dutch were asked in 2004 to help the CIA and Mossad get access to the plant, but it wasn't until three years later that the mole, who posed as a mechanic working for a front company doing work at Natanz, delivered the digital weapon to the targeted systems. "[T]he Dutch mole was the most important way of getting the virus into Natanz," one of the sources told Yahoo.
An Iranian engineer recruited by the Dutch intelligence agency AIVD provided critical data that helped the U.S. developers target their code to the systems at Natanz, according to four intelligence sources. That mole then provided much-needed inside access when it came time to slip Stuxnet onto those systems using a USB flash drive. The Dutch were asked in 2004 to help the CIA and Mossad get access to the plant, but it wasn't until three years later that the mole, who posed as a mechanic working for a front company doing work at Natanz, delivered the digital weapon to the targeted systems. "[T]he Dutch mole was the most important way of getting the virus into Natanz," one of the sources told Yahoo.
Iranian Facilities Are Safe Now... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
...because they now run the latest build of Windows 10, which auto-updates itself for total safety. (Sound of centrifuges flying apart)
In Iran, 2019 is the year of Linux on the centrifuge!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, what a warmongerer.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/1... [nytimes.com]
He didn't even want to stay in Syria, so the left wing went hawkish instead.
Now we're supposed to stick around and defend our interests, but remember the hate Bush got for going and staying in Iraq.
Why are we hearing about this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Iran and Holland aren't going to be on the closest of terms after that little revelation. Was it done deliberately for that reason?
Re:Why are we hearing about this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Another problem with blabbing and bragging, is that it endangers people still in Iran who worked with either the Dutch agent or the Iranian mole. TFA doesn't make it clear if the mole is still in Iran, but likely provides enough information for Iran's counter-intel to identify him.
Next time we try to recruit an Iranian national, he will point to this betrayal to justify his refusal to cooperate.
Re:Why are we hearing about this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, just whack any Dutch guy they happen to find. They are psychotic monsters who think God supports their bloody rampages. People should keep their damn mouths shut.
They are psychotic monsters (Score:2, Insightful)
USA or Iran or both?
Re: (Score:2)
Trump made a hell of a deal, living in your head rent free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They are psychotic monsters (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, just whack any Dutch guy they happen to find. They are psychotic monsters who think God supports their bloody rampages.
Come on, I don't think the Dutch are that bad.. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
They are psychotic monsters who think God supports their bloody rampages.
Most of them really aren't though.
That's why IS is generally seen as much worse than people like the Taliban etc. They actually are religious fanatics who do things because they think god wants them to. In Iran it's mostly politics driving things.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, just whack any Dutch guy they happen to find. They are psychotic monsters who think God supports their bloody rampages. People should keep their damn mouths shut.
The mole was an Iranian, not a Dutchman and unlike some Americans I'm pretty sure the Iranians are smart enough to be able tell the two a part..
Re: Why are we hearing about this? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like this hate is coming from you at the moment.
Re: (Score:2)
It's as if you actually believe the government is responsible for creating Homer Simpson and Al Bundy.
Homer Simpson and Al Bundy are proudly brought to us by the Fox Corporation! That's the fourth branch of government, right?
Next time we try to recruit an Iranian... (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe he'd point out that the USA would regard it as an act of war if Iran tried to sabotage a US centrifuge.
Re: Next time we try to recruit an Iranian... (Score:2)
The way "acts of war" work is you either go to war over them or they're not.
They're not diplomatic cards you can save for later, because if you declare war later, other countries will judge your reasoning at that time, and "they did that thing to us two years ago, we're going to play this card before it expires" doesn't carry any weight. Nobody will buy your backdated reasons for going to war, and so you have to make up more current ones, or just do it anyway, for reasons, just because you can.
Your scaries
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is that the US can invent whatever evidence it likes to justify attacking Iran. After Iraq it's clear that having actual proof is not necessary.
That's why Iran is trying to stay on good terms with Russia. As long as they have Russia on their side it's difficult for the US to attack Iran without it turning into another proxy war with Russia. Russian weapons are pretty good too, so US losses in such a war would be much higher than in Iraq.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he'd point out that the USA would regard it as an act of war if Iran tried to sabotage a US centrifuge.
The USA is entitled to do an awful lot of things other countries are not entitled to do, like for example treat US special forces or contractor/mercenaries like Gitmo detainees.
Re: (Score:3)
It's quite possible that alcon are safely out of the country, or have died (perhaps from natural causes, perhaps not). It's also possible (as pointed out in other postings here) that the leaked story is not the truth at all--or more likely, that it's close enough to the truth to send the Iranians on a wild goose chase, but far enough from the truth to protect the real mole and whatever agent from whatever country he might have worked for. Sort of like the Man Who Never Was.
Re: (Score:3)
If you read the article, it's pretty clear that the cover of the operation would have been blown wide open once it was clear that target of Stuxnet was the uranium centrifuges.
Unless the Iranians are incredibly stupid, which they're not, they'd start looking at people and companies who had information about those centrifuges, and who had physical access to the Nanantz facility. That would lead them pretty quickly to the false paper trails concocted buy the mole in establishing his front companies' cover st
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Dutch Amateurism and bureaucrats. (Score:4, Interesting)
The AIVD is a bunch of amateurs who can't keep their mouths shut.
Someone in there bragged about this fact and a writer put it in his book.
The Dutch people are much more sympathetic to Iran but the government/secret service are just a lap dog of the US/Israel.
Just like in most countries, politicians and high ranking goverment officials are only thinking about their next career move and are willing to sacrifice everything for that.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has been attacking The Netherlands too, so maybe whoever leaked this info doesn't feel like they are a very good ally.
GCHQ, working for the NSA, hacked a Dutch telecom company in order to get the master keys for their SIM cards and p0wn their network. It was part of the Snowden leaks.
Re: Why are we hearing about this? (Score:3)
If an intelligence agency tells you how they did it, you can be fairly sure that's not how they did it.
Re: (Score:2)
More like the whole three years thing. Government does indeed think long term.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a very important piece of information (Score:2)
We definitely know now that the mole had nothing to do with the Dutch. Classic misinformation. Maybe the Iranians are getting too close to the real mole and this is Mossad's way of trying to throw them off the scent.
Sure. (Score:2)
...and if you believe this "somehow leaked into the wild" story, I also have a bridge to sell you.
First rule of competent intelligence organizations: whatever you hear in the public MUST be a narrative provided by the organization. It isn't necessarily a lie, in fact the closer to truth it is, the better. But guaranteed whatever we see in the news is spun/twisted/malformed just enough to deceive in some critical necessary detail. Ideally, it will direct defenses/responses against another credible target t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
First rule of competent intelligence organizations:
That rule may have applied in the past, but it's a new era, friend -- the orange, moron tweeted a classified intelligence surveillance photo just days ago. It doesn't matter how competent the intelligence organizations are if the Executive in charge of those organizations is incompetent.
It's a new era, and the Five Eyes can no longer count on one of their members from tweeting out intelligence that completely jeopardizes their operations. We're all fucked.
Re: (Score:3)
The President has ultimate classification authority. If he releases something then by definition it is no longer classified.
Re: Sure. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The President has ultimate classification authority. If he releases something then by definition it is no longer classified.
There was endless whining when Clinton did it too. That, at least, is consistent. Though Clinton didn't do it with a photo, just named names.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that Yahoo news broke the story should be a clear sign...
Why does Iran want a nuclear reactor? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone still believe in the fantasy that Iran wants a nuclear reactor for the purpose of reducing it's reliance on oil for electricity? Is there any doubt that they only want a reactor for the purpose of developing nuclear weapons?
I keep reading about how nuclear power is supposedly very expensive, far too dangerous, and produces waste that cannot be disposed of in any feasible manner. Why would Iran want this kind of energy? They have all kinds of sun for solar power. They have lots of hydroelectric power now and it appears they have opportunities for more. There's also plenty of land for wind and biomass energy. Not only is there a question on why would Iran want nuclear energy but why would any nation allow them to have it? Not just because they are Iran as this threat of a nuclear reactor meltdown should not be unique to them, if there was an accident there then this would have an effect throughout the region and potentially all over the world.
Here's what my question boils down to, if nuclear power is good for the goose in Iran then it should be good for the gander anywhere else in the world, if nuclear power is safe and inexpensive enough for Iran then why is that not also true in places like France, Germany, UK, and the USA?
So, tell me how this works. Are we going to live with this fantasy that Iran is seeking a peaceful application for these reactors? If that's the case then every nation should seek to get more nuclear power. Iran is not in any way lacking in access to inexpensive zero carbon energy. That is assuming that they give a shit about global warming or air pollution. If we do live with this fantasy then I want to see the USA, and the rest of the world, get what Iran wants. A nation with such ample access to solar, wind, hydro, and biomass should not in any way want to have access to expensive and dangerous nuclear power.
If these nuclear power reactors in Iran are not a threat to world peace or safety then everyone in the world should be falling over themselves like Iran to get them.
If nuclear power is the bogeyman everyone claims it to be then every nation in the world should be very upset about Iran building nuclear power reactors. If it's not this dangerous bogeyman then everyone should be seeking a nuclear power reactor, as that is apparently cheaper than solar power in a nation that gets sun for more than 300 days per year.
Re: (Score:1)
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!
Re:Why does Iran want a nuclear reactor? (Score:5, Informative)
If nuclear power is the bogeyman everyone claims it to be then every nation in the world should be very upset about Iran building nuclear power reactors.
Iran is a signatory to the NNPT, which prohibits it from building nuclear weapons. Your non sequitur "argument" fails to recognise that you can't strap rockets to the basements of a nuclear reactor and expect it to fly. The IAEA itself said thet Iran was in compliance with the deal as recently as May this year.
If it's not this dangerous bogeyman then everyone should be seeking a nuclear power reactor, as that is apparently cheaper than solar power in a nation that gets sun for more than 300 days per year.
Well Isreal, on the other hand, is not a signatory to the NNPT so its motive for building reators is clearly aggressive whilst being a leader in deploying solar power for about 50 years.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Iran is a signatory to the NNPT, which prohibits it from building nuclear weapons. Your non sequitur "argument" fails to recognise that you can't strap rockets to the basements of a nuclear reactor and expect it to fly. The IAEA itself said thet Iran was in compliance with the deal as recently as May this year.
My argument is why would a nation so rich in sun, wind, water, and fertile land want nuclear power? Why turn to nuclear power when they have such an opportunity for solar, wind, hydro, and biomass energy? Is it because nuclear power is safer and cheaper? That must be it.
Okay, fine, Iran is a signatory to the NNPT. They have been deemed fully compliant with that treaty. They have no intention to develop nuclear weapons. Therefore in a sunny nation like Iran then only reason they want nuclear power is b
Re: (Score:2)
Iran is a signatory to the NNPT, which prohibits it from building nuclear weapons. Your non sequitur "argument" fails to recognise that you can't strap rockets to the basements of a nuclear reactor and expect it to fly. The IAEA itself said thet Iran was in compliance with the deal as recently as May this year.
My argument is why would a nation so rich in sun, wind, water, and fertile land want nuclear power?
Iran has one (1) nuclear power plant at Bushehr [wikipedia.org] which is a Russian VVER (WWER) [wikipedia.org] which is the latest generation of the reactors installed at Chernobyl.
Why turn to nuclear power when they have such an opportunity for solar, wind, hydro, and biomass energy?
For the exact same reason Israel wants access to fissile materials. The only problem for Iran is they are a signatory to the NNPT. More than likely the US didn't get her way with JCPoA to reveal Iran's nuclear ambitions or past programs because Iranians obviously aren't stupid and saw what the US did to Iraq when they abandoned their weapons programs. The v
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't - the VVER is a water-moderated, pressurised water reactor, where the water in the primary coolant loop isn't allowed to boil (heat is transferred to water in the secondary loop, which is allowed to boil and then used to drive turbines). It's a lot like what's called a PWR in the west. Chernobyl was an RBMK, which is graphite-moder
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't - the VVER is a water-moderated, pressurised water reactor.
Indeed, thanks for pointing that out. Tired posting.
I didn't read the rest of your comment given you didn't even get a basic fact right at the start.
You seem unable to invalidate the remaining information presented.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Apart for aspie retards, as you have been told many times, nobody wants nukes.
Iran does.
Iran has every right to have nuclear weapons, and their history does not show them constantly interfering in other countries unlike the US.
Iran has shot down US drones flying over international waters. There are videos of Iranian government officials shouting, "Death to America!"
Iran declared war on the USA a very long time ago. Iran has been interfering with US affairs which means the US can interfere with their affairs. If you believe that the USA started this all, and is in fact the aggressor, then why hasn't the USA just bombed them into oblivion? Do you believe the USA is incapable of doing so? Do you believe that the USA w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, plus as 9/11 should have demonstrated, Iranians do live OVER HERE. Killing lots of their countrymen would be a very bad idea (in general a bad idea, but when all one has is a hammer...)
Re: (Score:2)
Apart for aspie retards, as you have been told many times, nobody wants nukes.
Iran does.
Maybe Iran has no choice due to the actions of the Saudis and their ambitions for Nuclear weapons.
Iran has every right to have nuclear weapons, and their history does not show them constantly interfering in other countries unlike the US.
Iran has shot down US drones flying over international waters.
Oh really. You expect any rational person on earth to believe that the US carrier group parked, somewhat provocatively, in the Persian gulf were taking photos of the water?
There are videos of Iranian government officials shouting, "Death to America!"
Iran declared war on the USA a very long time ago. Iran has been interfering with US affairs which means the US can interfere with their affairs. If you believe that the USA started this all, and is in fact the aggressor, then why hasn't the USA just bombed them into oblivion?
Perhaps it has something to do with the Iranian Coup [wikipedia.org] where the US assisted overthrowing the then democratically elected government of Iran for attempting to nationalize their oil industry?
Do you believe the USA is incapable of doing so? Do you believe that the USA would in any way receive retaliation for obliterating Iran? I'm thinking that much of the world would thank us for performing such a service. The rest of the world would then keep quiet to avoid the same fate.
But the USA is not the aggressor here. I can say that because Iran still exists.
Everyone here knows exactly how the US would react if
Re: (Score:2)
Oh really. You expect any rational person on earth to believe that the US carrier group parked, somewhat provocatively, in the Persian gulf were taking photos of the water?
How does someone "park provocatively? I suppose the Iranian air force pilot was just "flying casually" when it encountered the drone and the drone was "provocative" in how it was taking pictures.
Everyone here knows exactly how the US would react if Russia or China sailed their Navy into the International waters in the Gulf of Mexico and started flying drones around.
We should know why the US Navy is sailing ships in the area around Iran, they are protecting trade and it's allies in the area. There should not be anything about being "parked provocatively" there unless there is a reason for the US Navy to be "provocative". If the Russian or Chinese navy have reason to protect
Re: (Score:2)
We should know why the US Navy is sailing ships in the area around Iran, they are protecting trade and it's allies in the area.
Sure. A land assault capable carrier group isn't provocative at all, in your delusion.
If the Russian or Chinese navy have reason to protect trade or protect allies then why would the USA care if they are in the Gulf of Mexico?
And what do you mean "if"? Russia has been sending ships to Cuba for a very long time.
The port of Havana is not the Gulf of Mexico.
I would assume China has as well.
They had a "good will" visit to Havana, not the Gulf of Mexico.
It looks like Iran sent ships to the Gulf of Mexico too. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/i... [cbsnews.com]
Had you read the article you posted you would have seen the quote from the Iranian "Navy chief": Our fleet of warships will be sent to the Atlantic Ocean in the near future and will visit one of the friendly states in South America and the Gulf of Mexico," . In other words, as usual, you're bullshitting again.
Tell me, how "exactly" has the US responded to these ships entering the Gulf of Mexico?
By sh [usni.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Why the hell is the US *still* in Iraq for 2 decades
Why does the USA still have military bases in Germany and Japan?
oh oil
Japan and Germany have oil?
same reason your going after Iran.
If we wanted Iran's oil then we'd just buy it. They want to sell it to us but we refuse. If we wanted the oil that badly, to the point we didn't want to buy it, then why hasn't the USA invaded already?
Again, if we wanted Iran's oil then we'd buy it from them. We don't want it bad enough to deal with a bunch of murderous thugs that want to kill us and our friends in the region. If the USA was in fact willing to tak
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone still believe in the fantasy that Iran wants a nuclear reactor for the purpose of reducing it's reliance on oil for electricity? Is there any doubt that they only want a reactor for the purpose of developing nuclear weapons?
Your reasoning fails because it is far too simplistic. Creating more electricity has value. Creating electricity that does not contribute to Iran's terrible air pollution has value.
There are actually two nuclear reactor sites in Iran.
Bushehr contains normal commercial design reactors. No one who knows anything about nuclear science or nuclear weapons worries about that -- the danger is greater than zero but it would be pretty easy to keep track of the problematic material. Commercial design reactors for
Re: (Score:2)
Lets says it doesn't. Or lets have a show of hands. How many people are willing to die for Israel?
Let's turn that question around... How many people are willing to die for Iran? What allies does Iran have and what kind of military capability do they have? Compare this with the military capability of Israel and its allies. Would Iran really have any chance to survive?
What does Iran even want? Do they want to be left alone? They seem to have got their wish then. The USA does no trade with them. There's no foreign military bases there, unlike a handful of other nations in the region. What do they w
I think I have seen the mole (Score:3)
Is that Penfold, the mole who works with Danger Mouse? I suppose he could be of Dutch heritage.
Nuclear power must be cheaper than solar power (Score:3, Insightful)
Iran has access to all kinds of solar power, doesn't it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
ran's unique geographical position means 90% of the country has enough sun to generate solar power 300 days a year. According to PressTV Iran has 520 watts per hour per square meter of solar radiation every day.[39] Other sources give an average of 2,200 kilowatt-hour solar radiation per square meter.[40]
If Iran is working so hard on getting a nuclear power program then they must believe that solar power, and other renewable energy sources, would be too expensive. Presumably they must know that their reserves of cheap petroleum energy will run out and even their ample access to solar, wind, hydro, and biomass will be insufficient.
If people want to still make the argument that solar is cheaper and safer than nuclear power then please explain to me why Iran is investing so much time, money, and effort into a civilian nuclear power program. If nuclear power is safer and cheaper than solar power then the USA would be well served to work as diligently on its own nuclear power program as Iran. If nuclear power is not cheaper and safer then solar power then what is Iran planning to do with all those reactors?
Re: (Score:2)
How well so solar cells work when they keep getting covered by the sand blowing around you retard?
Um, why did you feel the need to end with an insult? I agree, solar cells don't work so well when covered in sand but that doesn't change that Iran has an estimated 300 days per year of sunshine. I assume this includes cases of sandstorms blocking out the sun. Even so Iran appears to believe that solar power is insufficient for their needs and they get far more sun than much of the USA or nations farther north such as France, the UK, and Germany. If Iran sees solar power as insufficient for their needs,
Re: (Score:2)
Solar ponds work too and aren't bothered as much by sandstorms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You better alert all those poor folks in the western states that they wasted their money. Never heard of a goddamn broom you dipshit?
Re: (Score:2)
Any non-Oath link for us Europeans? (Score:2)
Re:LOL (Score:5, Informative)
They are still hyping this failed attack on Iran???
The attack was a tactical success but a strategic failure.
The goal of the attack was to delay Iran's nuclear program long enough for sanctions and diplomacy to provide a long term solution. This was a success. Enrichment was set back and Iran agreed to suspend their program in 2015.
But it was a strategic failure because Donald Trump flushed the agreement down the toilet despite having no alternative strategy to deal with Iran.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
But it was a strategic failure because Donald Trump flushed the agreement down the toilet despite having no alternative strategy to deal with Iran.
Ah, but an authoritative source tells us that was the worst agreement in the history of the world - and you’re ignoring the much superior agreement President Trump was then able to negotiate with the Iranians, where they now are paying for the hundreds and hundreds of miles of new wall that’s already been built along the US border with Mexico. Winning!
Re: (Score:2)
But it was a strategic failure because Donald Trump flushed the agreement down the toilet despite having no alternative strategy to deal with Iran.
Ah, but an authoritative source tells us ...!
You mean the chosen one, the second coming of GOD!! ... that's not telling you something, that's gospel.
Re: (Score:2)
But it was a strategic failure because Donald Trump flushed the agreement down the toilet despite having no alternative strategy to deal with Iran.
Which agreement are you referring to? And how did disposing of this agreement mean a failure? I'm a bit foggy on the details on what this agreement was and how this relates to Stuxnet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The agreement allowed Iran to continue working on nuclear weapons — with no sanctions. Trump was absolutely right to flush it down the toilet.
In your follow-up, please, be sure to specify clearly whether you:
or:
Without a clear answer, I will not be able to reply again.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The agreement did NOT allow Iran to continue working on nuclear weapons which was repeatedly verified by UN inspector up until the moment that trump tore it up. In fact it did the opposite. trump claimed he was upset that Iran was able to continue doing other things he did not like that were outside the scope of the agreement. Such as promoting instability in the region and developing missile technology.
As someone pointed out , Iran is now cozying up to Putin, which seems about right considering everythin
Re: (Score:2)
The agreement allowed Iran to continue working on nuclear weapons — with no sanctions. Trump was absolutely right to flush it down the toilet.
Yet no one, including Trump, ever actually says that Iran continued to work on nuclear weapons. The deal was successful in greatly reducing Iranian nuclear activities. Everyone who knows actual facts agrees about that.
Did you have a point that even you actually care about, or are you just mindlessly parroting something your favorite echo chamber fed you?
Trump has to point to other things like support of Assad to demonstrate the deal was wrong. While that issue, at least, is worthy of discussion, it looks
Re: (Score:3)
> Pakistan is evidence that a nuclear program is a necessary deterrent for
> the deadly whims of the U.S.
Because the US would have used nukes on Pakistan? Or because the Pakistani nukes prevented the US from intervening in Afghanistan and killing Osama bin Ladin in Pakistan?
Re: (Score:3)
Either every sovereign state has the right to a nuclear program or no sovereign state has the right to a nuclear program.
Iran has a right to a nuclear program but that doesn't mean they have a right to do trade with the rest of the world. They want it both ways, access to the nuclear technology from the USA and its allies without having to agree to the terms that would prevent them from developing weapons with that technology. If they want this technology then they need to comply with the terms of the NNPT, and that means allowing inspections of all facilities that handle nuclear materials. If they don't want these inspect
Re: (Score:3)
Rather than fight the Iranians on developing nuclear weapons, why not simply directly threaten them with nuclear armageddon if they credibly threaten to use one?
At some point the only deterrent is knowing there is a much larger nuclear power who has the unstoppable ability to wipe your civilization off the map if you get too cute with your nuclear weapons.
Iran isn't really a serious reprisal threat to the US unless they can get their shit together and make a reliable intercontinental delivery vehicle, and n
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it did/does with the Soviets/Russia and China (by now). Mutual assured destruction.
It's not a unilateral risk, because there's an element of retaliation for which there is no escaping.
Mild success, but attacks from the glass house (Score:4, Insightful)
The success was minimal, maybe set back their program 6 months.
The real issue is that they legitimized *destructive* cyber attacks as not being an act of war.
And the USA itself is very vulnerable to such attacks.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why are you blaming Donald Trump? Oh, don't answer, I already know: orange man bad.
Read here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
In addition to the final statement, both the United States and Iran have made public more detailed descriptions of their agreement. Officials of both sides acknowledge that they have different narratives on this draft.[10] The U.S. government has published a fact sheet summarizing the main points of the deal.[12] Shortly after it was published, top Iranian officials, including the Iranian supreme leader and the Iranian minister of defense have disputed the document on key points which remain unresolved.[13][14][15]
On 22 July 2015, Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister who led the negotiations, made an announcement on state-controlled television that the recently reached nuclear deal with the world powers did not include limitations on Iran’s weapons capabilities or missile power and that Tehran would keep arming its regional allies. "We have told them [the P5+1 world powers] in the negotiations that we will supply arms to anyone and anywhere necessary and will import weapons from anywhere we want and we have clarified this during the negotiations," Araghchi said.[16]
In a speech the following Saturday, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei added, "Our policy will not change with regards to the arrogant US government."
Iran never planned on following the agreement. They did what they could to sucker Obama into giving them back their billions of dollars, then publicly abandoned the "deal". Which, by the way, was never ratified or even voted on by Congress. You might want to read the Constitution - that's a pretty important part of the process.
United States – President Barack Obama said a "historic understanding" had been reached with Iran,[5] and pointed out that the deal with Iran is a good deal if the deal could meet core objectives of the United States.[34] 150 Democratic House members signaled that they supported reaching a deal, enough to sustain a Presidential Veto. A majority of Congress including all Republicans and some Democrats opposed the deal.[35]
Iran pulled out of the deal as soon as they got the
Re:LOL (Score:4, Insightful)
While still an interesting point of conflict between the United States and Iran, it's irrelevant because the deal's primary purpose was to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and by official counts it was doing just that.
In a speech the following Saturday, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei added, "Our policy will not change with regards to the arrogant US government."
What policy was that, exactly? You've provided absolutely no context whatsoever. Assuming it means continuing to develop ballistic missiles, that point has already addressed: it was not addressed by the JCPOA because it's entirely different issue. And we can debate the morality of ballistic missile programs, but it would be extremely hypocritical to suggest Iran is in the wrong for having such a problem when any advanced nation on earth does too, and it's extremely misguided to conflate that with a nuclear program.
Iran never planned on following the agreement.
Yet they were by expert accounts, including the highest authority in the land, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) even up until a point after Trump announced that the U.S. was going to abide by the deal.
Which, by the way, was never ratified or even voted on by Congress.
We can debate the domestic political side of the things (if you want my opinion, there are deeper problems like the fact that an agreement that effects the entire globe has as it's arbiter a group of politicians elected by people who face little consequence and even less concern for the region it primarily effects), but the fact remains that according to multiple international experts on the topic, the agreement was effectively doing what it was meant to do: maintain a framework to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Re: (Score:3)
Iran may have pursued a range of very aggressive operations in the Middle East, they test fired missiles and whatnot, but neither activity was covered by the JCPOA. I understand, that the USA was plenty unhappy about Iran's activities, but they should either have included them in the JCPOA, or negotiate a separate deal. The IAEA directly confirmed, that Iran was in strict compliance with JCPOA.
Therefore I have no idea, where you got the notion from, that Iran abandoned the "deal" at the first chance. In fac
Re: (Score:3)
This "orange man bad" thing reminds me of the George Bush era. Every time you'd bring up a new crime, a new lie, a new thing they were doing that was wrong -- the "oh, blame Bush" would come up. As if, mentioning the 2002nd malfeasance was proof that you'd gone to far, so we can now ignore the prior 2001 complaints.
Cancelling the agreement with Iran and then stabbing them in the back really destroys credibility of the US with treaties. It doesn't matter if you think they were breaking the agreement (everyon
Re:LOL (Score:4, Informative)
I think you have hit on the real "Trump Derangement Syndrome". That a large number of Americans are willing to support any crime up to and including outright treason as long as it "owns the libtards".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are still hyping this failed attack on Iran???
The attack was a tactical success but a strategic failure.
The goal of the attack was to delay Iran's nuclear program long enough for sanctions and diplomacy to provide a long term solution. This was a success. Enrichment was set back and Iran agreed to suspend their program in 2015.
Considering that the Iranian enrichment technology revolved around ultra-centrifuge (as opposed to gas centrifuge) the attack destroyed technology that the world's Nuclear nations have been trying to perfect for some time. Iran managed to perfect the technology. For that reason Stuxnet was a disaster for the Nuclear industry because it destroyed technology that was an important step in making it viable.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Informative)
Usually when two parties negotiate, they both give something to arrive at a point both can live with.
Your Mr. Trump doesn't understand that, and has the ability to cancel agreement made by previous administrations because your system of government has become unworkable.
This makes other countries much less likely to want to work with the US, as you cannot be relied upon to keep your word.
Ask yourself: If the Iran deal is so bad, why are the EU so keen on stopping the US tearing it up?
There are several commenters in this thread spouting Fox News talking points as if they're facts. They're not facts, they're the lies told by Mr. Trump who is trying to justify his poor behavior.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
There are several commenters in this thread spouting Fox News talking points as if they're facts. They're not facts, they're the lies told by Mr. Trump who is trying to justify his poor behavior.
You might want to go edit the wikipedia page with your "facts", since it seems to be following the Fox News (and, reality) version of events.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So, what exactly do you think we got for the $130 billion? Paying them even a cent is a federal felony, specifically, the ITSR (Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations),
Section 560.204:
The exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a United States person, wherever located, of any goods, technology, or services to Iran or the Government of Iran is prohibited.
and Section 560.203
Evasions; attempts; causing violatio
Re: (Score:2)
Black-fucking-letter law. Or is your argument that the it's not illegal when the president does it?
Murder is against the law as well. Should we arrest every soldier who kills someone outside a Congressionally declared war? Might as well arrest all the Congressmen for conspiracy to commit murder as well, since they sent the soldiers into a combat situation without declaring war.
Re: (Score:2)
So, what exactly do you think we got for the $130 billion?
I don't know anything about this money, so like any reasonable person I do a search. "$130 billion Iran" gives me this [politifact.com] as the very first link. This isn't hard.
Re: (Score:2)
In a wide ranging phone call to Fox & Friends...
which backs up my previous point about dim-bulb Fox News viewers.
They seem to be happy to be lied to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:LOL (Score:5, Informative)
They are still hyping this failed attack on Iran???
A) The attack was successful at accomplishing it's goal: severely retarding Iran's nuclear ambitions.
B) It's the first public instance of a de facto cyberweapon.
C) Since the virus got out, we are able to study it in detail.
You might as well be complaining about studying the nuclear strike on Hiroshima, Japan.
Need a definition. Plenty of cyberattacks before S (Score:5, Insightful)
> B) It's the first public instance of a de facto cyberweapon.
The summary suggests this as well, but I can't imagine any definition by which Stuxnet was the first - not even close.
It received a lot of media coverage. It was highly targeted. But first? China and Russia have been attacking the United States for decades, with the US responding somewhat with their own attacks.
Stuxnet was a worm. Worms have existed since the 1980s, twenty-five years before Stuxnet. In 2010 I had been working in cyber security for over ten years and my reaction reading about Stuxnet wasn't "this is new", just "that's clever". I didn't see anything new about it then, and don't now.
I suppose one could say:
Stuxnet was the first time there was major media attention on a specific cyber attack carried out by the United States.
APT28 Fancy Bear was operating by 2010, though the West didn't clearly identify them as Russian government until a few years later.
Re: (Score:2)
AIDS Trojan was 1980 (Score:2)
From the AIDS Trojan in 1980 to Archievus in 1996, there was plenty of destruction long before 2010.
Damaging printers was popular in the late 1980s.
How about:
Stuxnet was the first time that there was widespread media attention on a US government cyberattack which caused physical damage.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL again.
Give it a fucking rest...