Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran

diewlasing sends this excerpt from the NY Times: "From his first months in office, President Obama secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran's main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America's first sustained use of cyberweapons, according to participants in the program. Mr. Obama decided to accelerate the attacks — begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games — even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran's Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet. Computer security experts who began studying the worm, which had been developed by the United States and Israel, gave it a name: Stuxnet."

Comments

Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran?

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess this means we're officially at war with Iran since it was declared that acts of cyberterrorism would be considered acts of war, right?

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran?

[Extremus]

Which brings up a interesting question: can a cyberwar escalate to a real war? If so, what would provoke that transition?

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran?

[joebagodonuts]

Wrong. It takes an act of congress to declare war.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran?

[Skarecrow77]

No it's not offical. this is just a reporter's opinion sourced from conversations with people whose names he won't reveal at times he won't reveal, who know things that nobody should know. for instance, he details the exact contents of a meeting that consisted of 3 people, president Obama, vice president Biden, and (At the time) CIA director Leon Panetta. For him to have this conversation, it means he has interviewed either the president, the vice president, or Panetta on this. Fat fucking chance.

It's probably true, but no it's no way in hell close to "offical".

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran?

[Skarecrow77]

I'd guess non-negligable damage to economic interests, or more likely physical damage to material assets... like say using a virus to cause physical damage to a nuclear weapons production facil...oh shit.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran?

[Skarecrow77]

Exactly, that's why the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the War in the Gulf, the War in Iraq, and the War in Afghanistan all never happened.

they were "police actions" goddamit.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran?

[camperdave]

Exactly, that's why the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the War in the Gulf, the War in Iraq, and the War in Afghanistan all never happened.

they were "police actions" goddamit.

So, because they "never happened" , they don't count as losses on America's war scorecard?

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran?

[crazyjj]

I know what happened in a lot of meetings I never personally attended. Participants talk, transcripts are shared, etc. I suspect this info came second or third-hand from the people under Panetta.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran?

[isorox]

acts of cyberterrorism would be considered acts of war, right?

Only when perpetrated by the bad guys

Remember the invasion of Afghanistan was a Police action, but Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was an invasion

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran?

[Skarecrow77]

I like that line of thinking.
We're still undefeated!

well, I guess that whole war of 1812 thing is still debatable...

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran?

[crazyjj]

The U.S. has a remarkable history of fighting people that we ourselves have trained and armed in some earlier coup. That may have something to do with the fact that meddling in other country's interest may have short-term benefit, but it can (and frequently does) backfire and produce long-term problems. Iran is a great example. We overthrow their democratically-elected government to put in our figurehead so we can get their oil. Worked great until 1979. Now we've spent the last 30 years with a country that despises us.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran?

[ArcherB]

I'd guess non-negligable damage to economic interests, or more likely physical damage to material assets... like say using a virus to cause physical damage to a nuclear weapons production facil...oh shit.

Yes, but there are no nuclear weapons production facilities, according to Iran. It's hard to go to war over damage to facilities that don't exist.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran?

[Skarecrow77]

that's exactly why this isn't anything even close to offical. even assuming Panetta told his underlings what "really happened" (which itself sounds a bit dodgy for the director of the freakin CIA), second-hand or third-hand info is suspect as hell.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran?

[crazyjj]

this isn't anything even close to offical

You waiting for the CIA to issue a formal press release on one of its secret wars? Good luck with that.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he got a transcript of the meeting from the Chinese?

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran?

[krammit]

The late, great Bill Hicks said it best: I'm so sick of arming the world and then sending troops over to destroy the fucking arms, you know what I mean? We keep arming these little countries, then we go and blow the shit out of them. We're like the bullies of the world, you know. We're like Jack Palance in the movie Shane, throwing the pistol at the sheep herder's feet: "Pick it up."
"I don't wanna pick it up mister, you'll shoot me."
"Pick up the gun."
"Mister, I don't want no trouble, huh. I just came down town here to get some hard rock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about 10 rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble, mister."
"Pick up the gun."

Boom, boom.

"You all saw him. He had a gun."

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran?

[Nidi62]

Only when perpetrated by the bad guys

Remember the invasion of Afghanistan was a Police action, but Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was an invasion

Apples and oranges. Iraq invaded Kuwait for 2 reasons: their oil, and they wanted better access to the Gulf. The US invaded Afghanistan in response to an attack that was made possible through the materiel and other support of the Taliban government. Iraq went into Kuwait to steal oil. What did the US go in to Afghanistan to take? Bases? We didn't need bases in Afghanistan. They have negligible amounts of oil, we don't need their poppy and marijuana, nor their natural gas. You're comparing 2 different actions with 2 completely different motivations and justifications.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also note that said reporter is trying to sell a new book.

Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power, by David E. Sanger. Hardcover on Sale: June 05, 2012.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran?

[Darth Snowshoe]

Not ever from there, but I want to object to the way the city of Chicago has been turned into political invective. If I said "Everybody from Dallas is a jackass", that would be just plain wrong. But somehow NYC and now Chicago are always fair targets. And if the next Democratic president were from, say, Toledo, then I'm sure suddenly being from the Toledo would be a tremendous mark against him.

I'm pretty certain Mr. Obama did not learn any political tricks from Richard Daley, who died in 1976 and is the only mayor of Chicago most people can name besides the current one. I think it's fair to let the president be defined by his own actions rather than geographic location.

When you refuse, in an argument, to let the other side describe themselves in a term that is neutral and descriptive, you remove yourself from the group of civil and persuadable actors.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran?

[cdrguru]

The problem with this kind of journalism is that we can sit back and say that of course this guy doesn't have the real scoop. But why wouldn't someone high up in Iran not take this to his boss and say "See, they admit it!" The logical followup from Iran is to step up actions, unleash the dogs of war and start preparing to take out Tel Aviv.

Sure it is nice the people in the US are free to come up with stuff like this and "theorize" about it. The problem is that the separation between the journalist and reality may not be quite so apparent to those on the other side of this. This is actually an extremely provocative statement, supposedly from informed sources in the US government. So provocative in fact as to pretty much dare Iran to do something about it.

It doesn't matter that we can laugh and say it is all BS. It might not appear that way in Iran. And it isn't going to be a subject of humor to them, ever.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran?

[dkleinsc]

No, you don't understand the rules: It's not an act of war when we do it to them, only when they do it to us.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran?

[OrangeTide]

"why we Americans can have nuclear power and nuclear weapons but other countries can't?"

1. we have the bombs, so we get to make the rules.
2. it is believed that widely available nuclear weapons in the hands of despots will result in them being used against civilian again.
3. being a superpower is a relative thing, if everyone has the same capabilities then you're no longer a superpower.

I realize 1 and 3 aren't nice, but I assume they enter into the equation. 2 is why your average American voters tends to support our government's attempts to limit access to nuclear weapons.

Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran?

[SomePgmr]

As someone that's lived in the area his whole life, we all know, and sadly accept, that our politicians are degenerate criminals. The political history of the city and state are an ongoing joke for a reason... we've earned it. I couldn't even guess how many are currently in prison or have done time.

Also, when you say Mayor Daley, most of us think of the more recent Richard M. Daley, who is very much alive and avoided prison (though many of his people didn't).

You can start here and just keep reading down, though there are fun bits before it too...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_M._Daley#Daley_orders_demolition_of_Meigs_Field

We have always been at war with Eastarabia!

[Anonymous Coward]

We have always been at war with Iran, citizen.

We have always been at war with Afghanistan. Even in the 1980s, when Saint Reagan gave vast funds to our allies, the Russians, to defeat Osama Bin Laden.

Not news

[betterunixthanunix]

I believe the old joke was, "In Russia, you can only choose the communist party. In America, you can choose the capitalist party, or the other capitalist party!"

hypocrisy

[joe545]

With one hand, attack the nuclear computer systems of another country and with the other hand, demand extradition and decades of imprisonment for those who break into your systems to have a look around.

Re:hypocrisy

[Nidi62]

You do realize pretty much every country both commits espionage and has laws against espionage against itself, right?

Ask yourself "In whose interest is this story?"

[Anonymous Coward]

A story like this doesn't just magically happen. It's not wikileaked. So why would someone want this story in the public? Could it be so that tension between the USA and Iran ratchets up? Because that could induce a whole lot more spending on the military. And all those people who aren't going to be making buckets of money from Iraq and Afghanistan will either need to adjust their standard of living downwards, or find new sources of income. Getting military with China is a bad idea, North Korea is too close to China - look what happened last time - it's the only reason there is a North Korea. Nope: better to pick on a country more isolated.

Re:Ask yourself "In whose interest is this story?"

[kilfarsnar]

A story like this doesn't just magically happen. It's not wikileaked. So why would someone want this story in the public? Could it be so that tension between the USA and Iran ratchets up? Because that could induce a whole lot more spending on the military. And all those people who aren't going to be making buckets of money from Iraq and Afghanistan will either need to adjust their standard of living downwards, or find new sources of income. Getting military with China is a bad idea, North Korea is too close to China - look what happened last time - it's the only reason there is a North Korea. Nope: better to pick on a country more isolated.

Thank you for providing an example of how people should interpret the news. Many still think the news is there to inform them, when in actuality it is there to tell them what to think. "Why would somebody want this story public?" is always the right question to ask when dealing with any spokesperson or press agent, corporate or government.

Unnamed Sources?

[Post-O-Matron]

I don't understand one thing - all of this is based on David Sanger's book, which in turn is based on "unnamed US, European and Israeli sources".

Other than the author's reputation, do we have anything resembling evidence that this isn't just a science fiction book being sold?

Re:Unnamed Sources?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand one thing - all of this is based on David Sanger's book, which in turn is based on "unnamed US, European and Israeli sources".

Other than the author's reputation, do we have anything resembling evidence that this isn't just a science fiction book being sold?

The NYTimes is a reliable source, with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Re:Unnamed Sources?

[DerekLyons]

Other than the author's reputation, do we have anything resembling evidence that this isn't just a science fiction book being sold?

This is Slashdot. We don't need evidence if the story confirms our prejudices.

Why This Misconception of Obama?

[eldavojohn]

First thought: Who's the source on this? Everybody suspected it was the US or the Israelis, but is this reliable?

Well, let's see ... would Obama be the kind of person to do this? His track record so far:

Mr. Obama decimated Al Qaeda’s leadership. He overthrew the Libyan dictator. He ramped up drone attacks in Pakistan, waged effective covert wars in Yemen and Somalia and authorized a threefold increase in the number of American troops in Afghanistan. He became the first president to authorize the assassination of a United States citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and played an operational role in Al Qaeda, and was killed in an American drone strike in Yemen. And, of course, Mr. Obama ordered and oversaw the Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

Now considering all that, um, I think ordering a speed up of cyberattacks on Iran where no one dies might be something he does on a whim over coffee on a given morning.

Second thought, while reading through the article: Wow, that's pretty badass.

That's what I don't understand. Everyone has this notion that Obama is some peace loving hippie. At his Nobel Prize announcement, he basically justified going to war with anyone who gave USA the stink eye. He has been more aggressive (albeit more subtle) than George W. Bush and will probably cause problems for Romney who wants to paint him as an indecisive leader that let Libya and Syria happen. But the funny thing is that for all everyone sees him as a harbinger of peace, he sure hasn't been acting like it. And it's probably going to be obvious come this next election when people start looking at his track record ...

Re:Why This Misconception of Obama?

[iserlohn]

In a way you are right - perception trumps reality. However, Obama's also chose his targets well. Unlike Bush which steamrolled his way into a bad situation with Iraq, Obama actually put some thought into the exit scenarios before pushing ahead with his agenda covertly. That contributes to the efficacy in these relatively low-key operations.

Re:Why This Misconception of Obama?

[Nidi62]

He became the first president to authorize the assassination of a United States citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and played an operational role in Al Qaeda, and was killed in an American drone strike in Yemen. .

Now, I am admittedly not an Obama fan, never have been. But I have a hard time calling the al-Awlaki incident an assassination. The man declared war on the US and was leadership in an organization actively targeting and fighting the US. Now, to make a comparison, back during World War II Germany tried to get a lot of Germans living abroad to come back to Germany. Some of these were people living and born in the United States, and some of them joined the German military. You cannot call it an assassination if they were killed fighting the US. To me what happened with al-Awlaki is no different. This is among one of the few things he's done that I can support and get behind.

Where are all the naysayers

[crazyjj]

When Stuxnet came out, every time someone posted that it was likely the creation of Israel and/or the U.S., they were greeted by a surprising number of deniers who were trying to claim it was Russia or Saudi Arabia, or maybe that Iran *themselves* created it, etc. Of course, this was insane. But there seem to be a LOT of people out there who have their head buried in the sand when it comes to U.S./Israeli intelligence activities in Iran. I bet even now if I were to say that Mossad had assassinated all those Iranian nuclear scientists, there would be several idiots who would jump up and claim it was someone else, or that Iran had just staged the assassinations.

Re:Where are all the naysayers

[Anonymous Coward]

The people you talk about are probably on the payroll, we had some forums once and every time we got a little anti American or anti Isreal two posters would always pop up and defend them. It seemed it was their only posts ever. Now eventually me and a friend did some research and found out there are large numbers of people employed to just give Isreal and the USA good press on the net.

"Gutsy" Move

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see a campaign commercial now.

Obama single handily Killed Osama, wrote stuxnet AND snuck it into Iran on a USB key.

I am ashamed to be an american

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax

Every single thing that we complain about Iran being is our fucking fault and now we blatantly continue with our evil foreign policy.

Every single thing that I was told this country stood for is a lie.

Re:Why would anyone .....

[Anonymous Coward]

Just goes to show that an air gap isn't going to save you, if your attacker is keen.

Re:Oh great

[Gordonjcp]

Every time you go to use the word "muzzie" like that, replace "Muslim" with "Jew" and run the sentence through your head before you say it.

Does it still sound like a clever thing to say?

Re:Why would anyone .....

[buchner.johannes]

Why would anyone place critical hardware on the internet? I'm going to assume by now that Iran has figured out that the US is trying to sabotage their equipment. You would think that Iran would take any sensitive equipment offline and avoid applying any patches from foreign sources.

Have you been sleeping during the past coverage of Stuxnet, and the analysis by researchers? Stuxnet was introduced using infected USB sticks.

Someone selling book + NY Times = Non-Story

[Anonymous Coward]

The only fact I see in all this is: The USA has not officially taken responsibility for an international incident.

This story is by someone making sensationalist claims to sell a book, and the NY Times is helping promote it.

As usual, the NY Times reporter relies on anonymous sources. No one knows how reliable they are. No one knows who they are.

The NY Times and their anonymous sources are known to be wrong, like the WMD in Iraq. So we trust them now?

The NY Times is known to make up news, such as Jason Blair. Can anything they say about Stuxnet be independently verified as being correct? No?

The U.S. government is corrupt.

[Anonymous Coward]

Any government that holds secret wars is extremely corrupt. That taxpayer pays for tinkering that almost always causes more trouble, giving the secret agencies more work and more demands on the taxpayers.

Re:The U.S. government is corrupt.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, every major government in human history. Got it.

In love with the unaccountable power of technology

[anti-pop-frustration]

Got to love how Obama went from "Blackberry Candidate" to "Cyber Sabotage & Drone 'Secret Kill List' President". He's clearly in love with the unaccountable power that technology offers.

It's sickening to see how everyone in the US political establishment (Democrats, Republicans ie. all "respectable" people) cheer when the executive branch orders drone assassinations abroad. And boy do they love how "clean" and "efficient" those are. Hey, no Americans were hurt, the public loves to hear about the military killing bad guys and since these are conducted in remote areas, the US government doesn't even have to deal with the bad PR of "weeping widows" videos. It's all good! Who needs to seek Congress approval for declaring war, when technology allows you to wage a permanent and global secret war?

It is believed that having more democracies around will ultimately increase world stability because democracies loath going to war and the voting public sees it as a last resort solution. Well, so far the biggest democracy in the west seems to have a giant boner for secret drone wars. Well, its executive branch at least, the public doesn't need to hear know about it in details, those informations are classified you see, national security and all.

Don't these people realize the real damage caused by drones strikes? They are breeding generations of new enemies. The next time terrorists successfully blow up Americans or Americans allies, ask yourself: how would you react if people from your home town/area/country were droned in the night by a foreign power?

And if you were Iranian and you heard that the US is actively trying to sabotage your country's nuclear program, wouldn't that increase your support for the Iranian government and its policy to get nuclear technology, even when you actually loath Ahmadinejad and his authoritarian regime?