Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military Security United States Technology

While the U.S. and Iran Negotiate, War Commences In Cyberspace 181

Posted by Soulskill
from the breaking-the-ice dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A series of reports shows that the U.S. and Israel are engaged in a cyber war with Iran to stop it from developing nuclear weapons. Oddly enough, at the same time, the United States and others nations are trying to negotiate with Iran. As America and others start the world's first undeclared cyber-wars, dangerous precedents are being set that this type of warfare is without consequences. Such ideas could not be further from from truth."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

While the U.S. and Iran Negotiate, War Commences In Cyberspace

Comments Filter:
  • Crazy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26, 2012 @06:02PM (#40459061)

    As crazy as this may sound, talking with each other is usually the best option.

    • Re:Crazy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MightyYar (622222) on Tuesday June 26, 2012 @06:11PM (#40459181)

      Exactly. They are negotiating. "War" involves shooting and death. Using it to describe sabotage is just hyperbole.

      • Re:Crazy (Score:4, Insightful)

        by grcumb (781340) on Tuesday June 26, 2012 @06:18PM (#40459281) Homepage Journal

        Exactly. They are negotiating. "War" involves shooting and death. Using it to describe sabotage is just hyperbole.

        Hyperbole, yes, but not without a purpose. You could also call it fund-raising [imagicity.com].

        This is another example of a military-industrial complex ginning up a new theatre of operations in which to spend billions^W^Wdeploy.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by ackthpt (218170)

          Exactly. They are negotiating. "War" involves shooting and death. Using it to describe sabotage is just hyperbole.

          Hyperbole, yes, but not without a purpose. You could also call it fund-raising [imagicity.com].

          This is another example of a military-industrial complex ginning up a new theatre of operations in which to spend billions^W^Wdeploy.

          Which side are you talking about? The military-industrial complex in Iran is easily tighter than in the USA. Besides that, Iran has people in power who are not above releasing election results in a spreadsheet which do not even add up, let alone reflect anything close to reality (I kept a copy after downloading it from the Irandian government site) Really, they have contempt enough for everybody. Negotiation only buys them more time. I think Israel gets this and that's why they're eager to launch an at

          • This doesn't change the fact that in 2 days, we have 2 article using the war hyperbole, when no real weapon have been used. This is fear mongering, nothing else. Writing something like:

            Negotiation only buys them more time.

            is really harmful. As if a real war wasn't avoidable. Truth is, the only country trying to go on war is USA (and probably Israel too, but not openly). Do you work for the NSA?

      • Re:Crazy (Score:4, Insightful)

        by rtb61 (674572) on Tuesday June 26, 2012 @09:53PM (#40461807) Homepage

        Hyperbole, numbnuts. The weapon used in cyber-warfare are not one shot and gone, do not disappear in an explosion are not fired and used. Software weapons last forever, once released, released into the wild, anyone can access them, mutate, edit them for their own purpose. What you have is idiot government agencies basically handing over the tools of crime to criminals. Here's a back doors, here's a hole, here's an exploit, and here is the tool to attack it, go edit it have fun, do as much for profit attack to private sector as possible, "JUSTIFY OUR SECURITY BUDGETS".

        One would have to become deeply suspicious at the real reason behind releasing these attack tools to the wild, where any organised crime gang can access them, where any foreign government can access, where skilled coders can edit them to their own purpose. This is criminal stupidity.

        • by MightyYar (622222)

          Okay, but it's still sabotage. We have a perfectly good word for it and everything... why invent "cyber-war" when it fits the definition of sabotage so perfectly?

      • by mrex (25183)

        I think it is pretty short-sighted to believe that this sort of sabotage will not lead to deaths. But even if it were never to amounts to that in a direct way, enormous amounts of harm can be done to societies.

        Negotiation while committing acts of war against the other party is essentially duress, which is prohibited during international negotiations by international law and which can reasonably be argued to invalidate any agreement made under it, just as it would if someone made you sign over the deed to yo

        • by MightyYar (622222)

          which can reasonably be argued to invalidate any agreement made under it

          Right, but you are already dealing with an entity that is not holding to their agreement (nuclear non-proliferation). Obviously you won't just take their word in any agreement reached, you will also require verification.

          • by mrex (25183)

            I guess my point is that even calling it an agreement is wrong. If I point a gun at you and demand the deed to your house, to then assert that we've come to an agreement about the house's ownership is like something a gangster might say, but not an accurate description of events.

            • by MightyYar (622222)

              If there weren't people with guns to each other's heads, an agreement wouldn't be necessary.

              • by mrex (25183)

                How is Iran pointing a gun at anyone's head? Even assuming that they are fully intending to develop nuclear weapons, which is a point of view that even the US intelligence community does not concur with, that couldn't really be said to be pointing a gun at anyone's head.

                • by MightyYar (622222)

                  Iran has been in almost continuous hostile action with Israel since that country's founding. They actively worked to sabotage American efforts in Iraq, and now Afghanistan. They have been caught recently trying to play CIA in several different countries. The idea that Iran is somehow passive in this whole mess is not very hard to dismiss.

      • by khallow (566160)

        They are negotiating. "War" involves shooting and death.

        I can think of two relevant sayings here:

        "War is the continuation of politics by other means"

        which I believe is attributable to Clausewitz. And there's this infamous saying:

        "You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone."

        which is attributed to Al Capone. The point here is that there are viewpoints out there which have this smooth transition from talking to shooting. Sabotage would naturally fit on this spectrum as a fairly aggressive option.

      • by quenda (644621)

        . "War" involves shooting and death.

        Like murdering Iranian nuclear scientists and engineers with car bombs? If that isn't war, then what is it? Terrorism?
        I'm amazed the Iranians have been so restrained. It is as if we are begging them to car-bomb Tel Aviv and New York. They are smart enough to know it is a trap.

        • I'm amazed the Iranians have been so restrained.

          I'm amazed that anyone would say that they believe that.

          Malaysia court orders extradition of Iranian over bomb plot [telegraph.co.uk]
          Israel says Thai bombs similar to those in India, Georgia [washingtonpost.com]

          Good 'ole peace loving Iran.
          Iran sends troops to Syria [nydailynews.com]

          Tehran, May 30 — Iran has sent its troops to help the regime of embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad fight opposition forces, a senior commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards has said.

          Iran boosts Qods shock troops in Venezuela [washingtontimes.com]

          Iran is increasing its paramilitary

        • by MightyYar (622222)

          Like murdering Iranian nuclear scientists and engineers with car bombs?

          Exactly. Or Iran's long-time support of Hezbollah.

          I'm amazed the Iranians have been so restrained.

          I'm not sure where you get that they are being restrained.

          • by quenda (644621)

            I'm not sure where you get that they are being restrained.

            By not doing tit-for-tat retaliation, ie killing American scientists on US soil, or sabotaging US industrial facilities.
            The US and Israel have taken this way past the cold-war style funding of insurgents.

            • by MightyYar (622222)

              Why would they go tit-for-tat? They may not have the resources to do that easily, at least not immediately. Even if they did, the bang-for-the-buck isn't there. Killing American scientists would do very little to actually harm any program in the US, so it would be simple revenge. Cathartic, but not very strategic and a terrible waste of resources. Sending a boatload of missiles to Hezbollah is something that they can do using established channels, and it commands a huge amount of Israeli resources.

    • Re:Crazy (Score:4, Insightful)

      by buchner.johannes (1139593) on Tuesday June 26, 2012 @06:31PM (#40459443) Homepage Journal

      But the US gave up talking. They cripple the factories as good as they can, on the other hand demand that Iran proves its innocence (which is impossible). They demand Iran give up their sovereignty and let IAEA roam freely around the country, while at the same time IAEA has leakage that gets Iranian scientists murdered.

      If you refer to the US and Iran talking, you are only talking about a charade. The US lost trust by its actions. Like it did with torture, or starting illegal wars, it cancelled diplomacy single-sidedly.

      I think Iran would be reasonable if the negotiators took Iran as an entity and their rights seriously instead of telling them from the distance what to do. Participators need to understand the culture of Iran (a lot of friction is created in the translations [wikipedia.org]). That's why diplomats are so important, presidents aren't enough for the talking.

      If Iran hadn't signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it wouldn't even be bothered by the IAEA. It would be left alone to make nuclear weapons as it wished. I wonder if they could cancel the treaty. There is no real reason for Iran to build nuclear weapons and hide the fact, except now that everyone is making a fuzz to show that they can, then destroy it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ackthpt (218170)

      As crazy as this may sound, talking with each other is usually the best option.

      Problem is, every time USA, France, Germany, anybody, tries to talk to the leadership in Iran they are met with a very disingenuous leadership who will talk round in circles, but never give an inch. Rather like talking to the North Korean Government. They'll concede nothing and take everything they can get.

      Not surprising - Iran's Revolutionary Guard and they aren't about to give up anything. If Grand Ayatollah Khamenei gives them too much trouble they'll just see to it he's replaced. Really is very Krem

      • Re:Crazy (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cpu6502 (1960974) on Tuesday June 26, 2012 @07:06PM (#40459885)

        >>>every time USA, France, Germany, anybody, tries to talk to the leadership in Iran they are met with a very disingenuous leadership who will talk round in circles

        Source?
        Last I heard Iran allowed UN inspection teams to enter the country and look at the labs. ALSO you seem to be unaware that Iran is allowed to develop nuclear capability under the terms of the Nonproliferation Treaty. It's not a crime for them to purify uranium below 29% purity. You appear to hate Iran simply because you were TOLD to hate Iran, without any logical reason for doing so. You're a "useful idiot" of the politicians.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by ToastedRhino (2015614)

          >>>every time USA, France, Germany, anybody, tries to talk to the leadership in Iran they are met with a very disingenuous leadership who will talk round in circles

          Source?
          Last I heard Iran allowed UN inspection teams to enter the country and look at the labs. ALSO you seem to be unaware that Iran is allowed to develop nuclear capability under the terms of the Nonproliferation Treaty. It's not a crime for them to purify uranium below 29% purity. You appear to hate Iran simply because you were TOLD to hate Iran, without any logical reason for doing so. You're a "useful idiot" of the politicians.

          Here's a source [nytimes.com] from only 4 months ago. Wasn't really that hard to find. Iran has often allowed inspection teams into the country, but not into specific labs, plants, etc. that are suspected of being used to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that they are being used for this, but Iran has definitely not allowed inspectors in to look at them.

          The question of whether they should is a bit different.

          Also, it's foolish to think that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Parchin is a military site that is out of the jurisdiction of IAEA. It is the heart of Iran's Missile technology and hosts many production and test facilities. Iran has agreed and allowed inspection of this site twice already (2005 and 2006 IIRC), and says it will allow it again if ALL the complaints were to put on the table, all the evidence provided and the probable cause established, which has never been accepted by IAEA, because of demands of some member countries (which we know who they are).

            Don't kid

        • It's not a crime for them to purify uranium below 29% purity.

          No, it's not a crime... but it's just a teensy weensy bit difficult to explain why a peaceful nuclear program would need to enrich their peaceful uranium to peaceful weapons grade, to peacefully conceal the existence of their peaceful nuclear facilities, and bury these peaceful nuclear facilities hundreds of feet under a peaceful mountain in facilities hardened against bunker-busting bombs. Which is what the Iranian regime has done.

          Seriously, what's with all the love for Iran's totalitarian regime ? Why do

      • by camperslo (704715)

        Where do you get your information? (links?) The local media seem to provide very little detail here, but go heavy on useless opinions. There is more depth elsewhere.

        http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,16006008,00.html [www.dw.de]

    • Usually but not always. There are times when war, cyber or not, is the best option.

    • Star Trek The Origional Series covered this idea.

  • All Iran needs to do to win this cyberwar is just unplug the internet. Problem solved.
    • by MightyYar (622222)

      And not use USB sticks. And not buy computers, peripherals, or other electronics from other countries.

    • Also, maybe let the diplomats of both sides work this out? It worked with the Soviet Union/Russia.

      Just a thought, but what things can pass through a tunnel that is constipated?
      • Also, maybe let the diplomats of both sides work this out? It worked with the Soviet Union/Russia.

        really then whats was Vietnam war, Korean war, Cuban missile crises, and all of the nastiness in eastern Europe? we didn't just talk things out. it was war by proxy

        • Consider some reading on how events came to be? Not only, that they happened.

          As for your being modded up is like when only the criminals have guns.
    • by macraig (621737)

      I'm surprised you're even willing to post that comment without the cloak of anonymity. I hope, for your sake, that you were being sarcastic/facetious. Stuxnet didn't penetrate Iran's facilities via the Internet at all. It escaped to and spread via the Internet after the fact, but that wasn't its delivery vector.

  • Cyberwar (Score:3, Funny)

    by Xarin (320264) on Tuesday June 26, 2012 @06:10PM (#40459151)

    This isn't 'Nam there are rules

  • dangerous precedents are being set that this type of warfare is without consequences

    No one is this world is that stupid who doesn't chose to be. Even a four year old knows that N=1 sets a precedent if your cheeks are chubby and you engage the waterworks.

    • by cpu6502 (1960974)

      I read the article but see nothing about "dangerous precedents". Where did /. get that from?

  • Somebody set us up the Stuxnet!

  • by VortexCortex (1117377) <`VortexCortex' ` ... -retrograde.com'> on Tuesday June 26, 2012 @06:17PM (#40459253) Homepage
    Is it just me or does anyone actually support the actions of our government besides the government?
    • by girlintraining (1395911) on Wednesday June 27, 2012 @12:15AM (#40463163)

      Is it just me or does anyone actually support the actions of our government besides the government?

      Our levels of civic education and the amount of civic responsibility (voting, jury duty, military service, etc.,) are shockingly low compared to other first world countries. Our public education system continues to show a steady downward trend in the diversity and depth of material, fewer graduates are capable of multi-factor analysis, critical thinking... even basic math skills markedly eroded in the 18-25 group. It doesn't matter what our government does; The population has become functionally illiterate. The general population simply lacks the ability to understand government action. If tomorrow CNN reported that we've started carpet bombing say *shakes magic 8 ball* Mauritania because *shakes magic 8 ball* they funded training camps for buddhist suicide bombers... most people would just nod their heads, shrug, and go about their business and in a few months FOX News would be showing us a picture of a buddhist monk setting himself on fire as proof of their radical buddhism, perhaps juxtaposing some people that look vaguely buddhist burning a flag before offering 15 seconds for J. Random College Professor of Sociostrategogamia at Princeton to say "I think we're really mischaracterizing thi--"... and then cut to commercial break with dancing toilet paper.

      That's what America is today. I'm sorry... I can't honestly say anyone really supports or doesn't support the government on anything other than emotive thinking and a vague sense that they shouldn't really question what they're told or Bad Things Will Happen. There is no longer any public discussion of what our government does, there's no real public forum for it: The few that people have attempted to form have been stigmatized by the Department of Homeland Security. It may not be Soviet Russia in the 80s, or East Germany... people aren't exactly disappearing off the street, but there is still a palpable fear in our public places. People just don't talk to each other anymore.

  • An undeclared war (Score:5, Insightful)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Tuesday June 26, 2012 @06:20PM (#40459301)

    "As America and others start the world's first undeclared cyber-wars, dangerous precedents are being set that this type of warfare is without consequences. Such ideas could not be further from from truth."

    Oh please. The French have been doing this kind of thing since before the United States even had a name for it. It's called industrial espionage, and they're so good at it that the executives of major companies are frequently told to never use the fax machines in hotels, or the phones, or the internet (unless it is an encrypted VPN), because the French government aggressively works to steal industrial secrets from other countries and provide it to their own businesses. People think because you add the word "Internet" to a social problem, that suddenly makes it new and special... le sigh.

    All the internet did was make it faster and more efficient; Which is (wait for it) what computers in general do to socioeconomic processes.

    • by alcardil (2574657)
      Not to mention Russia used coordinated cyber attacks against Georgia back during 2008. The only reason this is garnering more attention is because it finally hit American media. Warfare is dynamic anyway, this is just like moving to geurilla warfare from marching in fixed lines. It's sneaky and means minimal casualties to the offensive faction. It's naive to think that the cyber domain wouldn't be used for war sooner or later, especially considering how many things rely on the internet these days.
    • by Jonner (189691)

      "As America and others start the world's first undeclared cyber-wars, dangerous precedents are being set that this type of warfare is without consequences. Such ideas could not be further from from truth."

      Oh please. The French have been doing this kind of thing since before the United States even had a name for it. It's called industrial espionage, and they're so good at it that the executives of major companies are frequently told to never use the fax machines in hotels, or the phones, or the internet (unless it is an encrypted VPN), because the French government aggressively works to steal industrial secrets from other countries and provide it to their own businesses. People think because you add the word "Internet" to a social problem, that suddenly makes it new and special... le sigh.

      All the internet did was make it faster and more efficient; Which is (wait for it) what computers in general do to socioeconomic processes.

      Even if you had anything to back up these claims, a state obtaining information from companies for economic gain would not be anything like a state secretly destroying part of another state's energy infrastructure and/or weapons program. How significant would it be if it was revealed that the French government had destroyed Russian gas drilling equipment or the Japanese government had sabotaged North Korean missiles?

      • by girlintraining (1395911) on Tuesday June 26, 2012 @07:47PM (#40460409)

        a state obtaining information from companies for economic gain would not be anything like a state secretly destroying part of another state's energy infrastructure and/or weapons program

        The end result remains the same: Your adversary loses an asset. That loss can be quantified in monentary terms. How you get there and the morality, ethics, legality, etc., are logistical matters, not strategic.

        How significant would it be if it was revealed that the French government had destroyed Russian gas drilling equipment or the Japanese government had sabotaged North Korean missiles?

        Is now a bad time to point out the very word saboteur is French? They are so famous for just such things that we have named the act itself after them. Is every reported case of an industrial "accident" really an accident? Even Hollywood joked about it in Iron Man, "Call it a training accident." I'm not sure whether you're naive or arrogant to say that such a revelation about state-assisted sabotage would ever be revealed to the general public. Regardless, what you're demanding nobody here will give you: Anyone with proof of state-assisted industrial espionage is not going to hand it out on the demands of some guy on the internet who fancies himself an intellectual. Offer me a few million dollars and I'll consider it though. Offer me a few million more, and it might even be true.

        • by Alex Belits (437) *

          And yet industrial (or any other) espionage is not an act of war while sabotage definitely is. There is a reason why there was no sabotage between countries that already have nuclear weapons (tall tales about gas pipelines notwithstanding).

    • People think because you add the word "Internet" to a social problem, that suddenly makes it new and special... le sigh.

      No shit. And it's hardly unheard of for two countries to be engaged in some form of conflict (open or covert, economic or armed) while also being at the conference table. The anonymous reader/submitter needs to study his history.

  • by evanism (600676) on Tuesday June 26, 2012 @06:21PM (#40459309) Journal

    The USA is beginning to look an awful like an awful country run by despotic psychopaths.

    The complete history of the endless war over the last 60 years has conclusively proven the USA to be quite evil.

    Each action is seemingly taken as a response to provocation, but it is very clear that it openly engages in hostilities well and truly before any open warfare. Being the bully and then pretending the victim is the reson d'être. Pearl harbour, Vietnam, desert storm, 911 and now this. The USA had very deliberately stuck its dick in another counties ass, claims to be the wronged when the victim retaliates, then mobilises the very next week. It is prepared for war instantly. it is premeditated and very deliberately provocative.

    The school bully uses this same method. They invariably go to jail or end up in a shit job. Soon, perhaps, the world will react against this menace.

    • by Jonner (189691)

      The school bully uses this same method. They invariably go to jail or end up in a shit job. Soon, perhaps, the world will react against this menace.

      "The world" is not a unified entity and will not react against injustice any more than it has in the past. However, as a US citizen, I am quite concerned that this will be one of the things that provokes Iran to retaliate against Israel or some other ally and suck us into yet another stupid war.

    • by Stickerboy (61554)

      The USA is beginning to look an awful like an awful country run by despotic psychopaths.

      The complete history of the endless war over the last 60 years has conclusively proven the USA to be quite evil.

      Each action is seemingly taken as a response to provocation, but it is very clear that it openly engages in hostilities well and truly before any open warfare. Being the bully and then pretending the victim is the reson d'être. Pearl harbour, Vietnam, desert storm, 911 and now this. The USA had very deliberately stuck its dick in another counties ass, claims to be the wronged when the victim retaliates, then mobilises the very next week. It is prepared for war instantly. it is premeditated and very deliberately provocative.

      The school bully uses this same method. They invariably go to jail or end up in a shit job. Soon, perhaps, the world will react against this menace.

      I have to say, you get originality points for being the first I've seen to label the US as "quite evil" for surreptitiously fighting against Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany before Pearl Harbor and, uh, I guess the "official" start of hostilities? Maybe if you took your naivete-colored glasses off you'd realize maybe it isn't such a bad thing.

      Seriously? Desert Storm (and the 1991 Persian Gulf War) was evil? I suppose you think Kuwait deserved to be invaded?

      There's not a big evil conspiracy here - despite wh

    • Sigh.

      And yet not a comment out of you that China, North Korea, Russia, AND YES, IRAN, has been doing this for the last decade.
      Yet, twits like you scream bloody murder when the west finally sits up and says that we need to KNOW what is going on, rather than go in with guns blazing.
      So, let me guess. You are working for the Chinese MSS?
  • Iranian President Ahmadinejad found playing FarmVille.

    Ayatollah Khamenei utters, "Bastards!!"

  • The statement "America and others start the world's first undeclared cyber-wars, dangerous precedents are being set that this type of warfare is without consequences." is absurd. Iran can't do anything about it because they're Iran, not because it's a cyber attack. They already have made threats to other countries, they have been building weapons, so there's not much left to do. They can't outright attack us in the "real world" because they don't have an army capable of it and we'd fuck them up. Just be
  • "Cyber-war" relies on the victim deliberately choosing to connect systems to the internet which should not be connected.

    Fuck shit up and build some "herd immunity".

    • by Jonner (189691)

      "Cyber-war" relies on the victim deliberately choosing to connect systems to the internet which should not be connected.

      Fuck shit up and build some "herd immunity".

      You seem to have missed the part where Stuxnet was planted on site at Natanz. None of the critical systems were connected to the Internet.

  • by nimbius (983462) on Tuesday June 26, 2012 @06:53PM (#40459723) Homepage
    a scientific approach to why we keep doing this "lets fight a war every 4 years in the middle east" baloney. Some have speculated its a doctrine incepted by the former president carter, others say its driven simply by the military industrial complex, but im really curious to see if anyone can come up with a reason why we have to erect a punching bag like clockwork each presidency. both sides might bicker on finances and the budget, but both bob their heads in agreeance each time an expensive protracted excursion into war comes along without much dissonance.

    The fact that the united states needlessly and violently attacks the middle east whenever it sees fit was something that Osama Bin Laden and Anwar al Awlaki touched upon. OBL actually had the nerve to insist we stop doing it as a condition upon which he would stop attacking america. It was a very reasonable request; a negotiated ceasefire.

    Nothing doing so it seems. We partner up with the only nation in the region that seems to vitriolically hate iran and start coming up with the same clever chicanery we used to sabotage gas well computer control systems in soviet russia. Israel is a state sponsor of terrorism and hasnt signed any of the nuclear treaties we're shoving toward iran, but they havent made it into anyones axis of evil. Why do they get to have nuclear power and iran, a much larger state by population alone, doesnt?
    • by Jonner (189691)

      a scientific approach to why we keep doing this "lets fight a war every 4 years in the middle east" baloney. Some have speculated its a doctrine incepted by the former president carter, others say its driven simply by the military industrial complex, but im really curious to see if anyone can come up with a reason why we have to erect a punching bag like clockwork each presidency. both sides might bicker on finances and the budget, but both bob their heads in agreeance each time an expensive protracted excursion into war comes along without much dissonance.

      The fact that the united states needlessly and violently attacks the middle east whenever it sees fit was something that Osama Bin Laden and Anwar al Awlaki touched upon. OBL actually had the nerve to insist we stop doing it as a condition upon which he would stop attacking america. It was a very reasonable request; a negotiated ceasefire.

      Nothing doing so it seems. We partner up with the only nation in the region that seems to vitriolically hate iran and start coming up with the same clever chicanery we used to sabotage gas well computer control systems in soviet russia. Israel is a state sponsor of terrorism and hasnt signed any of the nuclear treaties we're shoving toward iran, but they havent made it into anyones axis of evil. Why do they get to have nuclear power and iran, a much larger state by population alone, doesnt?

      You sounded halfway reasonable until the third paragraph. To say that Israel is "the only nation in the region that seems to vitriolically hate iran" is hilariously lazy revisionist history. Are you forgetting the Iran-Iraq war? How about the fact that Iranian leaders frequently call for the destruction of Israel and actively support groups that were created for this goal. The Saudis fear Iranian power almost as much as the Israelis.

      Of course it's not fair that some states are allowed to have nuclear power

      • What most Americans seem to not realize is that the various owners of the 'Middle East' has been chomping at each other for at least the past 8 centuries. This is not new. The various religious / tribal conflicts coupled with a fairly inhospitable landscape that makes many resources scare seems to create tensions that no one has been able to quench for any length of time. Since the 1400's the other major source of tension has been the "Western" world (various Christian sects) versus Islamic religions.

        The

  • by nedlohs (1335013) on Tuesday June 26, 2012 @07:08PM (#40459903)

    Which isn't exactly a new idea - both stealing secrets and sabotage.

    • by fa2k (881632)

      Which isn't exactly a new idea - both stealing secrets and sabotage.

      Indeed, the NY Times (?) article that started this "exposure" of the cyber stuff casually mentioned that US arranged to ship faulty components to Iran that would explode. If it's a war or not depends on what the victim does.. It's arguably more direct involvement than the Afghan government had with the 9/11 attacks.

    • It is the weapons, not the intended effects that are somewhat new. The US and Israel have essentially admitted that they did this, which implies that they do not think such an attack is a violation of international law. (They had the option of declaring that the attack was not authorized, firing a few people etc - it wouldn't be believed, but it would show that we do not consider this a legal act). I think this is an unfortunate choice for several reasons:

      The US currently is in a position of unchallenged

  • TFA is nothing but speculation, and quotes from folks that have bones to pick or are outright, simply known liars. (Iran)

    This submission, and green-lighting is more whitewash like we had here last week.

    Move along, nothing to see.

  • Chinese, North Korean, Iranian, and even Russian govs. have been doing this for WELL OVER 10 years. And so far, we have done little.

    So, yes, this is relatively without consequences.

The clearest way into the Universe is through a forest wilderness. -- John Muir

Working...