Slashdot Mirror


Stuxnet Allegedly Loaded By Iranian Double Agents

First time accepted submitter rainbo writes "According to a report from ISSSource, a saboteur who was likely a member of an Iranian dissident group loaded the Stuxnet virus on to a flash drive and infected machines at the Natanz nuclear facility. Iran's intelligence minister, Heydar Moslehi, said that an unspecified amount of 'nuclear spies' were arrested on ties to this attack. Some officials believe these spies belonged to Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), which is used as the assassination arm of the Israeli Mossad."

21 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. Re:from the who's-to-blame dept. by Kreigaffe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The US and Israel aren't the only countries that would rather Iran not be a nuclear power.

    --
    ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
  2. No matter who it was by sqrt(2) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No matter who was responsible, they pushed the world closer to war with that virus.

    I'm not convinced by what we've seen so far, what little evidence there is, that Iran is producing nuclear weapons or wants to. Even if you could prove that to me, it wouldn't change my position that we shouldn't be involved in their affairs and have no right to punish or sanction a nation for doing the same thing we do. It's the US after all with the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, and the only nation to have ever used them (we get sort of a pass since they were unprecedented at the time).

    Iran is a sovereign nation and if they wish to produce nuclear weapons because they feel threatened by their neighbors (Israel, a nuclear power) or as a deterrent then that is their prerogative. Israel claims to feel threatened and vulnerable, that they're being menaced by Iran, yet they're the ones murdering scientists and sabotaging industries of other nations.

    --
    If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    1. Re:No matter who it was by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, maybe. But keep in mind that Ahmadinejad and Khamenei aren't beloved by even a majority of their own people. Look at the reaction to their latest presidential election. It doesn't take a large leap of faith to believe that there are probably a lot of Iranians who don't want this government to succeed. Or have nukes.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:No matter who it was by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's a lot wrong with your remark. First of all, Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons so attempting to research or build nuclear weapons is a direct violation of their treaty obligations.

      Second, the large US stockpile is a concern, and the US is (correctly) taking steps to reduce the size of that stockpile (indeed has been for the last twenty years, in cooperation with Russia which has done the same to their stockpile). But the US weapons (in addition to being under treat compliance) are very tightly guarded and have many safeguards against accidental or malicious use. There's no such guarantee that Iranian weapons would be that way, and likely wouldn't be.

      Third, your remark about Israel doesn't reflect the actual geopolitical situation. Despite Israel and Iran not even sharing a border, Iran is one of the largest funders of Hezbollah and other groups which systematically engage in attacks on Israel. http://www.cfr.org/iran/state-sponsors-iran/p9362. In that context, Israel being afraid of what Iran, or elements in the Iranian government, would do with nuclear weapons makes sense. As for sabotaging industry- it is Iran, not Israel which refuses to recognize Israel's existence. At this point, Israel has peace treaties and functional relations with Egypt and Jordan (and a decent amount of tourism between the countries and commercial exchange). Israel is not on good terms with Syria, but they've at least had limited dialogue. Iran is pretty much the only country in the region which has both continued to sponsor attacks on Israel and has never sat down at the negotiating table. While one can argue that there's a large history of hostility and menacing on both sides, the essential facts are that Israel has sat down and signed treaties with other nations in the area, and Iran has never shown any indication or willingness to ever sit down. Israel is not at all blameless in the current situation, but it is Iran's belicose government that is the essential reason that Israel is concerned, quite legitimately, over Iranian nuclear ambitions.

    3. Re:No matter who it was by sqrt(2) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They are within striking distance of regional weapons. When Israel has nuclear weapons, missiles, and planes to deliver them, they can be considered neighbors.

      Also, Israel seems to think they have a right or responsibility to stop Iran from developing any nuclear technology, peaceful or otherwise. If they were developing nuclear weapons that might even make them justified in certain cases, but so far we have no proof of that. They have absolutely no right to sabotage peaceful nuclear power production, and so far that's all Iran has been doing.

      Israel will have ill-feelings toward Iran regardless of what Iran does because Israel is run by a group with the biggest persecution complex in the world--largely justified. Anything but fawning obsequiousness is taken as hostility. Look at the incredibly small movement away from Israel that the US has made in its foreign policy. The hardliners compare Obama to the appeasers of Hitler for having the audacity not to be completely in lockstep with Israel.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    4. Re:No matter who it was by Tancred · · Score: 4, Insightful

      sqrt(2)'s brought up production of nuclear weapons.
      You (JoshuaZ) had a good point about the NPT in response to that.
      AC had a good point as well that there's no evidence of weapons production, though the charge of trying to confuse the situation falls flat given what you were responding to.

      If the roles were reversed, I think the U.S. would be trying to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Imagine Iran having the huge stockpile of nuclear weapons and being the only country having used them. Imagine Iran having overthrown the U.S. democratically elected government decades earlier. Imagine that over the last decade or so, they've invaded and set up new governments in Canada and Mexico. And finally, over the last few years, the drumbeats of war have been getting louder, with prominent voices calling for bombing the U.S.

    5. Re:No matter who it was by tomhath · · Score: 4, Informative

      Japan's strategy is well known and probably would have succeeded if the US didn't have nukes. They knew a military victory was not going to happen after the Battle of Midway. From then on their goal was to make the war so expensive in terms of men killed that the US would negotiate a ceasefire. 6000 Americans killed on Iwo Jima in a month long battle, 12000 Americans killed on Okinawa in thee months. By then an invasion of the Japanese mainland was unthinkable; the Japanese were waiting for the US to sit down and negotiate when the two nukes were dropped. No US casualties, two cities incinerated; only then were they convinced that total surrender was their only option.

    6. Re:No matter who it was by hrtserpent6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe.

      The Iwo Jima and Okinawa invasions were planned as part of the same campaign. The goal was the airfields within 500 miles of the mainland. Our capture of Guam, Saipan, the Marianas and Tinian gave us long-range heavy bomber capability to carpet bomb Japanese factories, but the B-24s and B-29s had a rough time of it. It was a long flight: 3000 miles round trip, about 16 hours. Tokyo was right at the edge of the B-29s range, so a lot of planes made it back on fumes, or, if they took shrapnel through a fuel line, ditched in the middle of nowhere*. Plus, when they got over Japan, they had to contend with the Japanese air force all by themselves. They had no fighter escorts - the longest range U.S. fighter, the P47-N, only had a range of about 1800 miles (that's with drop tanks). The bomber wings were taking pretty high casualties, losing about 5% of all bombers sent out on each sortie, plus lots of dead gunners. We needed to have airfields much closer so we could have emergency landing places for the B-29s, SAR aircraft for downed crews, and those lovely fighter escorts. Air superiority wins wars, so the U.S. needed to capture islands much closer to the mainland.

      Iwo Jima jumped off first (19 February – 26 March 1945). Iwo Jima had three airfields, but it's only 8 square miles, not a lot of room, and no deep anchorage ports for the Navy. Okinawa (1 April – 21 June 1945) had four existing airfields, plus it's 500 sq. mi. Bonus: it's in the Sea of Japan. This allowed us to attack from two directions and also support some of the Allied forces in China.

      I don't think we realized how costly it was going to be to take the island. Plus we really REALLY wanted/needed those airfields. We thought we had figured out how to deal with the Japanese tunnel problem: flame tanks (M4A3R3 Zippo). We captured two of the four airbases within hours, and within a couple of days we held half of the island. It was taking the rest that was the problem.

      Another aspect to this is the whole world was getting weird while this was going on. We invaded Okinawa Island on April 1. USSR entered the war against Japan on April 6. President Roosevelt died on April 12. Ernie Pyle, the famous and well-loved war correspondent, was killed on April 18th while accompanying a mop-up operation on one of the outlying Okinawan islands. Germany surrendered on May 8, and we hoped Japan might be demoralized and surrender as well. That didn't happen. We needed to end the war, fast. Momentum was on our side, morale was on our side. We had a new, 'unknown' president (Truman). The U.S. was running out of creative ways to raise money. Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt had already met in Yalta to carve up post-war Germany. The world was changing, a new order was arising. We were already looking beyond, and realized that we needed to be done with this whole thing.

      * I highly recommend "Unbroken" by Laura Hillenbrand. True story about a former U.S. Olympic runner who became a B-24 bombardier. Their plane developed serious mechanical problems on a long-range search mission. They ditched in the middle of the ocean, survived in a life raft for 47 days, then were captured by the Japanese and sent to one of the worst POW camps till the end of the war. Amazing story.

  3. MEK by Tancred · · Score: 4, Informative

    The same MEK that's on the U.S. terror list, and yet openly supported by several high ranking figures in national politics.

  4. Re:from the who's-to-blame dept. by demachina · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Saudi Arabia is probably as violently opposed to the Iranian's getting nukes as the Israelis. The Israelis have a large nuclear arsenal as a deterrent to Iran. The Saudi's don't have any deterrent of their own and would have to rely on the U.S. which could prove to be a fickle ally in a crisis, just ask Mubarak in Egypt.

    The Iranians are Shia Muslims, the Saudis are Sunnis, the two hate each other with the passion you often find in long running sectarian conflicts.

    There is a fair chance that if the Iranians get nukes the Saudi's will probably start developing their own to try to maintain the balance of power between Sunnis and Shia in the Middle East. The Saudi's getting nukes will probably not sit well with the Israelis.

    The Middle East will become either more stable thanks to three way MAD or very, very dangerous, thanks to three fanatically religious countries, who really hate each other, are very close together and will have lots of apocalyptic weapons.

    --
    @de_machina
  5. Re:from the who's-to-blame dept. by Xandrax · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The answer to this question will become obvious if Iran gets nukes. If Iran goes nuclear, expect a number of Middle East countries to start taking steps to acquire nuclear weapons themselves, as a deterent to a nuclear Iran. These will be the same counties that didn't have an issue with not having nuclear weapons when Isreal was the only country in the region to have them.

  6. i bet it all started... by alienzed · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...with:"Hey, can I check my email on that centrifuge?" -"Yeah sure!"

    --
    Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
  7. Assassination arm of Mossad? Srsly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    MEK is an organization of militant Islamic, Iranian leftists guerrillas. There are certainly a reasonable number of conspiracy nuts taking a break from their '9/11 was a Zionist Conspiracy using planted charges supplied by aliens' tirades who claim an association between them and Israel. But describing them as the assassination arm of Mossad seems to be a stretch based on the current available facts. If there's a clear tie - is there somewhere we can read about it? The conspiracy bloggers make my head hurt.

  8. Re:from the who's-to-blame dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is believed that Iran is behind Hezbollah which has been attacking Israel for years... there were also the recent attempted killing of embassy staff by what appears to be the Iranians.

    Don't let semantics get in your war, a proxy war is still a war, despite not having actual classical armys on the ground.

    That being said, I am not excusing Israel or America's actions in this situation, but Religious fanatics don't always foliow logic.

    The Iranian people themselves are freaking awesome, I just can't stand their government.... actually, I can't stand most governments.

  9. Re:from the who's-to-blame dept. by Moryath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    By all accounts, sectarian war is also how Saddam Hussein took power and ran his regime. Saddam was a Sunni, as were approximately 20% of the Iraqi population; meanwhile, he gassed the Kurds and engaged in major terror operations against the Shi'a.

    Arab society runs roughly thus: (sorry I can't paste the arabic script, Slashdot doesn't like it much):
    Me against my brothers until a cousin comes;
    Me and my brothers against my cousins until a neighbor comes;
    Me and my brother and my cousins against the neighbor until a foreigner comes;
    all of us against the foreigners.

  10. Re:from the who's-to-blame dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And when was the last time Iran attacked some other country?

    Iranian agents regular attack people around the world, such as in Argentina: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_AMIA_bombing

    Iran has cannon fodder to do their dirty work (like Hizbullah).

    and civilians killed in the process are no problem

    In Iran's case, civilians killed in the process is the desired result.

  11. I pity the Geeks by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a geek myself, there are times I can't help but feel disgusted at the way they treat my fellow geeks

    Who were the ones doing all the new inventions?

    The Geeks

    Who were the ones reaping the benefits of the new inventions?

    The Investors

    On the other hand, whenever things go wrong, who do they blame?

    The investors?

    Don't be silly, nobody will blame those poor investors who have lost their life-savings

    They will of course blame the GEEKS for the failings

    Like in this Iranian case

    Who invented the nuclear thingy? Geeks

    Who use this nuclear thing to blackmail the world? The Politicians

    Who invented the Stuxnet virus?

    The Geeks

    But who order the Geeks to invent the Stuxnet virus?

    The Politicians

    Now, about those "Nuclear Spies" the Iranians rounded up - and we can assume very brutal torture, killing, etc included - because of the Stuxnet virus?

    The Politicians? No, nobody would touch the politicians

    They rounded up and torture the Geeks

    It's the Geeks who are being blamed for everything and anything when things gone south, but yet, never get to reap any benefit when things go north, way up north !

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  12. Re:from the who's-to-blame dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm sorry. You're correct right up to your last sentence where you state that Israel is a "fanatically religious country". You're making intelligent arguments look bad.

    Israel has a population of 25% non-Jewish. They are run by a secular democratically-elected government with an electorate selection skewed "against" the religious majority. They are a very small country which has not only not expanded it's borders through military might since its founding but shrunk it's borders. Their cities are under a near-constant rocket barrage and regularly (more regularly than earthquakes in California) have suicide bombers in their major cities which hold the Sharia brand of Islam in high esteem (the so-called 'radical Islamists').

    They are a nuclear power. they have a conventional military which could take out the combined military force of several other countries in the region and still hold reserves - without touching the nuclear stockpile.

    Calling Israel a 'religious extremist' country has about as much stock in reality as calling Twighlight an epic masterpiece of Kermit the Frog one of the best philosophers of the 18th century.

  13. Re:from the who's-to-blame dept. by demachina · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Their cities are under a near-constant rocket barrage"

    I'll agree it sucks that Hamas lobs rockets in to Israel, no argument. But they are largely crude and ineffective weapons and they get even more so as the expensive, American funded, antimissile systems are deployed.

    You know what probably sucks even worse. Living in Gaza in a walled ghetto with disturbing similarities to the ghettos Jews were forced to live in in Europe before and during World War II. It really sucks to live in a heavily populated urban area where Israel chokes off the most basic supplies and nearly all economic activity so people survive largely on the trickle of supplies from the tunnels. Where Isreale is draining 1.5 million people of all hope of having a life that doesn't suck. It also sucks when Israels military uses tanks, F-16's and attack helicopters to target Gaza because they are vastly more effective at killing people than the crummy rockets Hamas lobs in to Israel.

    I don't condone shooting rockets in to Israel but I do understand how the miserable, desperate people in Gaza would want to strike back in such a totally futile way at the people who've been manning the walls of their ghetto for the last half century, even though its largely ineffective and invites periodic retaliation on the people of Gaza that is usually several orders of magnitude more deadly.

    "has not only not expanded it's borders through military might"

    Only if you choose to pretend that the permenent occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Golan Heights isn't expanding Israel's borders. You might make that case were it not for the massive settlement activity in which Israel is seeking to make the West bank and East Jerusalem a part of Israel in contravention of international law which forbids an occupier from settling in occupied territories. Either Isreal needs to withdraw from the occupied territories or fully annex them in to Israel and give Arabs full citizenship. Permenent occupation, with illegal settlements is purely abusive on the part of Israel.

    Israel is only a "democratically-elected government" because they are actively disenfranchising Arabs. If you count all the disenfranchised Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, Golan and East Jerusalem who are under permanent occupation Arabs are fairly close to become a majority. I think the Arab population is growing faster than Jewish so its a near inevitability that Israel will eventually be a true apartheid state with a Jewish minority electing a government that dominates a largely disenfranchised Arab majority.

    Listen, I know there are a lot of level headed, forward thinking moderate Jews living in Israel, I follow some of their blogs and on Twitter. But the fact is people like Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman are extremists, they dominate the current government's rhetoric, thinking and agenda, and they seem to go out of their way to provoke confrontation after confrontation. They give Israel a bad name and they put Israel in the pretty similar class to Saudi Arabia and Iran as far as the fanaticism and oppression goes.

    --
    @de_machina
  14. Re:from the who's-to-blame dept. by demachina · · Score: 4, Informative

    Lebanon is not "Christian", its currently 60% Muslim, 40% Christian. The Muslim population is evenly split between Shia and Sunni. Syria and Iran are active supporters of Hezbollah, they provide them with most of their weapons and funds. Hezbollah's founders were inspired by Ayatollah Khomeini and Iran's Revolutionary Guard. Hezbollah has a very powerful influence among the Shia community in Lebanon, both militarily and through community activities and charities.

    You totally don't know what you are talking about AC.

    --
    @de_machina
  15. Re:from the who's-to-blame dept. by gtall · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes, and Abbas claimed any peace deal with Israel was only interim until they were powerful enough to take over. When Israel turned Gaza over the Palestinian Authority, the missiles from Gaza soon followed. The Palestinians couldn't even run a strip of ground peacefully without using it to attack Israel. This only confirmed what Israel thinks of the Palestinians in general, i.e., they are incapable of running a peaceful state that is not dedicated to Israel's destruction.

    There's no whitewashing the fact that Muslims hate Jews; the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a Gruppenfuhrer in the Third Reich. He raised his own SS division in the Balkans from Bosnian muslims and rather thought Hitler should get on with job of wiping out the Jews. He also wanted the Third Reich to set up shop in the Middle East, ovens and all. Arafat was his nephew. He idolized the Grand Mufti.