Iran Admits Stuxnet Affected Their Nuclear Program

plover writes "According to this article in the Guardian, 'Ahmadinejad admitted the [Stuxnet] worm had affected Iran's uranium enrichment. "They succeeded in creating problems for a limited number of our centrifuges with the software they had installed in electronic parts," the president said. "They did a bad thing. Fortunately our experts discovered that, and today they are not able [to do that] anymore."'"

Comments

One thing has changed

[khallow]

Two weeks ago, people talked about the diplomatic problems this worm attack would cause for Israel. There was even a few people that didn't think Iran was trying to make a nuclear bomb. What a difference two weeks makes. It turns out (from the Wikileaks release a couple of days ago) that the entire Middle East (except for the usual suspects like Hamas and Hezbollah) thinks Iran's nuclear bomb program is far more worrisome than Israel. The King of Saudi Arabia asked the US in April 2008 for military strikes against Iran's nuclear program. The UAE stated in the beginning of 2010 that it is expecting some sort of war involving the US or Israel against Iran.

From an analysis of the Stuxnet worm, it turns out to target a frequency converter made by a Iranian company that the Iranians kept secret from the IAEA. That's the agency which is supposed to be inspecting Iran's nuclear facilities and which should have been informed of this technology.

Finally, we have assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists. If you think putting a worm into a uranium enrichment plant is diplomatically upsetting how about killing people? Also, there's a lot more players who can kill people than who can write sophisticated worms that only target particular systems.

I think this is going beyond diplomacy. A lot of governments agree that Iran is working on a nuclear bomb. The clever finesse moves, such as fancy computer worms, are probably exhausted. Trade blockades probably won't work (especially with China having special deals with Iran). But what will still work is destruction of the facilities and killing of the staff who work there. To be blunt, I favor this approach.

My view however is that Obama won't do it. That means then that we'll have a nuclear Iran, then nuclear Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Even if you don't give a hoot about the Middle East, it'll worry Europe and Turkey. I see expansion of nuclear forces in the EU as a distinct possibility. Turkey is one of many tricky spots. Russia will freak out if Turkey gets nukes. But how will Turkey defend itself, if a major war with a nuclear armed Iran occurs?

This is the thing that people don't get about proliferation of nuclear weapons. The fewer countries that have nuclear weapons, the easier they are to control. Conversely, once a dangerous country like Iran gets them, then all of their neighbors are going to want them as well for self-defense. Israel has been nuclear armed for perhaps forty years, but the Middle East is worried about Iran.

Re:One thing has changed

[Dachannien]

It's quite absurd for you to call Iran dangerous; they haven't been at war for years.

Neither has North Korea, but I hope you'd agree that North Korea is extremely dangerous.

Yes, Iran hasn't been at war (overtly) since they were at war with Iraq. Likely the only reason there wasn't an encore performance is because Saddam went to great lengths to make the world believe that he still had WMDs even though he didn't. But Iran has been relentless in its funding of terrorist organizations throughout the region.

The danger inside Iraq and Afghanistan is completely internal. Neither country has the armed forces required to threaten their neighbors. In fact, Iran is a threat to both of these countries because of their funding of terrorists in both places.

Iran's worries about US invasion are not borne out by their actions. If they really wanted to guarantee their safety, they would abandon their WMD programs, allow full international inspections, and stop sponsoring terrorism abroad. Libya did this and was rewarded by the US despite its human rights problems, and it's reasonable to assume that the US would be willing to overlook quite a lot from Iran while still welcoming them back into the international community.

Instead, Iran is working on nuclear weapons, and it's quite likely that once they amass a sufficient stockpile, they will use that as leverage against the Arab nations, which is why the Arab nations are panicked by the thought. Iran's ties to Hamas and Hezbollah makes it reasonable to think that they would supply WMDs to one of those terrorist groups for use against Israel. The only way to prevent destabilization of the entire region and/or the deaths of possibly millions of people is to prevent Iran from creating a WMD arsenal, even if that requires military action.

Re:One thing has changed

[Clandestine_Blaze]

I have mixed feelings about this.

I honestly believe that a safeguard against preemptive aggression is a fundamental right that every sovereign nation should have. It's why any country has a standing military. The fact that Iran should even feel threatened by the US justifies this safeguard, not the other way around. Just like how America did not need permission to arm themselves with nuclear weapons, and actually used a couple when it felt necessary to win WWII, proves this. Do you honestly believe that any amount of UN treaties or protocols would actually prevent the United States from ever using a nuclear weapon if it ever felt the need to in the future? U.N. treaties certainly did not stop France from allegedly helping Israel develop their nuclear program.

America's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was a giant kick in Iran's butt. With US troops operating within two bordering countries, Iran felt it was necessary to hasten their nuclear ambitions. Why did the U.S. invade two nations that had virtually no real military, but continues to avoid North Korea, who even shelled South Korea? The biggest response that could be mustered by South Korea and the US were war games? Seriously? That's precisely why Iran feels the need to develop their nuclear program. Also, the fact that Iranian scientists are getting assassinated (a very disgusting, cowardly move) shows that this safeguard is necessary. I consider assassinating scientists and civilians as terrorism. I would be equally appalled if contractors for Northrop Grumman or Lockheed Martin were to be killed using that same logic.

I do agree with you though that Iran is not a democracy. Every election that they've had has been a sham. The last leader that they democratically elected was over 50 years ago, and he was overthrown and replaced with a dictator. Their government kills and maims more of their own citizens in political prisons than you could ever imagine. While I wholeheartedly agree that the world would be a better place if the current Iranian government was not in power, I do not agree with assassinating scientists, especially since many of them have no choice but to either work on government-sponsored projects or to try to defect, but risk getting their families that they leave behind killed if they manage to escape. Some of the scientists actually support opposition movements, and are stuck in a really bad situation.

I hope that you can understand my position. I dislike the government of Iran since it's my relatives over there that are always at risk of getting killed if they speak out, but am also disgusted by US aggression and double-standards, which I also see as a threat to my relatives over there. It was bad enough wondering if each missile lobbed by Iraq in the 1980s would actually hit one of my relatives' residence. Now I have to worry the same about an Israeli strike or a U.S. invasion.