Iran's High Tech Copycat War Against the West: Drones and Cyberwar

An anonymous reader writes "Iran and its nuclear program seem to be getting all the headlines. Yet, Iran has found a way to respond to western cyber attacks such as Stuxnet, drone surveillance and targeted assassinations; they've decided to respond in kind. Iran has launched its own cyber attacks on U.S. banks via denial-of-service attacks. Iranian drones recently were used to spy on Israeli nuclear facilities. Cyberweapons were also used against Saudi oil facilities. The goal: to make sure the west, specifically the United States, knows that Iran does have the tools to strike back. While Iran does not have a world-class military like the United States, it does have the capabilities to cause damage if it wants to. With Iran taking to cyberspace and drones, it shows such technology is not just under the control of the U.S. Iran has been careful, though, not to escalate the conflict. The risk: what if the plan backfires and goes beyond its intended scope?"

Comments

I have to wonder

[Intrepid imaginaut]

What exactly is the point of this story? Is the subbie afraid of Iran or what? Since the legitimate government of Iran was overthrown and the current cycle of extremist leaders/newly rich plutocrats was engineered by the US and UK in Operation Ajax not so long ago, I can't really find it in me to blame Iran for wanting to maintain some sort of functional military parity with the US.

There is no chance that Iran will ever invade the US, or even engineer a 9-11 style attack. There is every chance that Iran will upset the balance of power in the Middle East, which is what the ageing cold warriors still battling Russia and now China in their own minds truly fear.

My advice would be to leave Iran well enough alone. Once the threat of outside invasion recedes, the population will rise up and overthrow the extremists, as they have already made moves to do. Of course this means leaving a power vacuum for Russia or China to step into, according to some, so the US will never allow it.

This isn't an anti-US comment, this is an anti US politicians and foreign policy comment.

Re:I have to wonder

[mapsjanhere]

Since the legitimate government of Iran was overthrown and the current cycle of extremist leaders/newly rich plutocrats was engineered by the US and UK in Operation Ajax not so long ago

If you define 1953 as not so long ago you must be in it for the long run. Waiting for the return of Zoroaster?

Re:I have to wonder

[redneckmother]

Since the legitimate government of Iran was overthrown and the current cycle of extremist leaders/newly rich plutocrats was engineered by the US and UK in Operation Ajax not so long ago

If you define 1953 as not so long ago you must be in it for the long run. Waiting for the return of Zoroaster?

Great post!

While I agree that 1953 was a "long time ago" for most of "us", please remember that people in the middle east have been fighting among themselves since the beginning of recorded history. It's likely they will continue to fight until the end of recorded history.

With any luck, Zoroaster won't show up any time soon.

Re:I have to wonder

[Sique]

So did the Europeans, and even the inhabitants of North America. The last civil war in the U.S. was not so long ago than the last one lets say in Switzerland (1847) or in Portugal (1828).

Re:I have to wonder

[Shakrai]

There is every chance that Iran will upset the balance of power in the Middle East, which is what the ageing cold warriors still battling Russia and now China in their own minds truly fear.

You don't have to be an "aging cold warrior" to fear the geopolitical consequences of a nuclear armed Iran. One of the biggest fears is that her Sunni neighbors would feel compelled to obtain their own nuclear deterrent. The resulting arms race would further destabilize the region, undermine the NPT, and increase the odds of a nuclear device falling into the hands of non-state actors.

Of course this means leaving a power vacuum for Russia or China to step into, according to some, so the US will never allow it.

China actually likes the status quo, she spends none of her own blood and treasure, yet has full access to the oil she needs to grow her economy. China, Japan, and the EU all rely on Middle Eastern oil to fuel their economies. The power vacuum would be filled by all three of the aforementioned superpowers, with unpredictable geopolitical consequences. A particularly scary scenario is Japan renouncing Article 9 in order to deploy forces to the Middle East. Such a move would inflame passions in China (and other Asian countries), further destabilize an already tenuous relationship between two economic superpowers, and ignite an arms race that ends with a nuclear-armed Japan. India is in there too, they already have nuclear weapons, and a billion people, so that's one hell of a geopolitical wild card to consider.

For the time being at least, the United States remaining engaged in the Middle East is the least lousy of the available options. As an American, I'm not particularly fond of my tax dollars subsidizing the defense of China's oil, but hey, it sure beats the hell out of WW3.

Re:I have to wonder

[Shakrai]

I'm sorry that you are completely blind to the consequences of a nuclear armed Iran. This isn't some neo-con fantasy, virtually the entire world is opposed to the concept of a nuclear armed Iran. The Europeans don't want it -- they are already within range of Iranian missiles. The Chinese and Japanese don't want it -- anything that disrupts the flow of Middle Eastern oil/raises prices will hurt their economies. The prospect of the NPT going down in flames is something that concerns all civilized nations, even those without economic interests in the Middle East.

The only real question at this point is will the Mullahs back down? If they don't, the best they can hope for is to become the North Korea of the Middle East. They'll be completely isolated both economically and diplomatically. War may still come, though I earnestly hope that it doesn't get to that point.

Re:I have to wonder

[hey!]

Well as a result of the '53 coup, the shah reigned as an absolute dictator for the following 26 years. Anybody over the age of 40 or so has memories of the Shah, and that includes the entire current Iranian leadership -- they're the revolutionaries who overthrew the Shah in fact. Just like there are plenty of people alive in the US who remember Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter there are plenty Iranians alive who remember the Shah, his secret police, and his torture chambers. They also remember that he was the closest US ally in the Middle East, after Israel.

So if you're waiting for the Iranian leadership to write off the years '53 to '79 as ancient history, you're going to have to wait at least another generation. That might even be two generations, as you might have to wait for the people who grew up personally knowing people in the revolution pass away. Just because it's ancient history for *you* doesn't mean other people have or should have forgotten the Shah.

And they certainly haven't forgotten George W. Bush. After watching in alarm as US forces toppled in weeks a country they'd fought to a stalemate for eight years at the cost of over half a million lives, the Iranian leadership floated an offer that gave the US everything it said it wanted. They offered complete transparency in their nuclear program and a withdrawal of support from Hezbollah and Hamas, in return for what amounted to a promise not to invade. The Bush administration didn't even bother responding.

Now if you were in the shoes of the Iranian leadership, what do you think would appear to be the rational course to pursue? Diplomacy and disarmament? Or arming yourself to the teeth?

Re:Ok, so...

[Anonymous Coward]

The ability to remote control aircraft from non-trivial distances and keep them out of "pool-skimmer range" of the target under surveillance while returning useful intelligence is somewhat noteworthy.

Re:West == US?

[Doctor_Jest]

Trust me, Iran hates Europe too... just not as much. The "West" to Iran is as much a cultural symbol of the "decadence" of non-muslims and how that is a threat to the Islamist paradise of theocracy and elimination of all non-allah worshiping religions. That said, when I mean "Iran", I'm talking about the ruling group of people rather than the citizens... because we know some (most?) citizens of Iran wouldn't subscribe to that... or at least that's what we've been told.

But make no mistake, those in Iran who call the US "The Great Satan" are not simply talking about the government.

The answer is 9/11

[SmallFurryCreature]

Al Qaeda is not operating as isolated as the Arab world would like, they have powerful sympathizers. And then 9/11 happened and OOPS, we funded the protesters but we did not expect them to succeed.

The same happened with the US and Cuba. Oops, we funded dissidents but they did WHAT? Invade? No way, no support. They were supposed to be a nuisance to our enemy, not trigger WW3. Same thing with assanition of Kennedy, it don't matter if the CIA/FBI did or did not do it, the real shocker (if the American public had a brain) should have been that there were any plans at all. And when the bullet has been fired it is to late to consider whether talks of firing that bullet were just talk or concrete plans.

The bay of pigs was a disaster as the Cubans cleaned them up and Al Qaeda is a shadow of its former self. Presumably those who had entertained plans to kill the president were also dealt with, just in case anyone would ever think that again.

The leadership in Iran know damn well that there is a line between the US basically ignoring them and blowing them from the map. They have been shown enough examples. It ain't nice perhaps but that is the real world. Same with Russian support for Iran btw, Russians like Iran just as long as they are more a nuisance to US then they are to Russia. Iran starts to to openly interfere with Russian interests (look at russia's borders, religion in tjetnia and of high number of terrorist attacks in moskou itself) and that blocking vote will soon disappear. Same with China. It is a balance game. Annoy the US but don't piss them off and if Israel spanks your ass once again (It is widely believed Iran supported what is now north-sudan and Israel south-sudan. South-sudan won, suprise suprise and north-sudan lost all world support for being nasty people), we most certainly are not going to do anything except try to learn how they did it and snicker a bit.

You might note that will all the support Iran has given Hezbollah and Syria, it hasn't actually given either of these group any useful fighting capability? Missiles that don't hit shit and drones that get shot down with ease and never enough money to get the economy going.

This is not the cold war continued, it is still the same cold war. It never went away. And the cold war has the same rules, cause a hassle, cause trouble but do NOT start WW3. If Iran is smart, they know this. If not... they might invade a small nation and think that is going to be ignored like the killing of their own people was... (if you don't get the iraq reference, I feel sorry for you)

Because if they don't... Russia and China loose nothing by seeing some Muslims turned into so much glass and ashes, they both get their own Muslims populations that could do with a message and their are always other proxies through which to keep the their opponents occupied. Or do you think Russia/China really cares about how many civilians are killed in a drone strike in Afghanistan? Russia doesn't like the afghans at all and China just wants to know how they can do the same in Tibet and get away with it) It ain't just the west that wants WW3, the super powers all know that is in nobody elses interest, they just skirmish a bit with the third world nations to keep their reflexes sharp.

Cold war is a game of risk were the players know the only winning game is not to play but their fingers itch. And Iran is NOT a player, it is at best a play piece that might be about to make a very stupid attempt at Independence and find out what happens to play pieces that move on their own.

Re:You know, Iran

[Jeng]

That is actually some good advice.

Building a nuclear bomb is hugely expensive, especially if you have to do it 100 feet underground.

With the money that the Iranian government is using for a bomb they could build a world class well just about anything. Something that the populace of Iran can be proud of, something that when people talk of Iran they talk about that great thing they accomplished. Instead they are trying to build a bomb.

The Iranians could even work on creating a commercial grade thorium reactor that would get them off of petroleum, but nooooo, they want a bomb instead.

The So-Called "West" Perspective

[bill_mcgonigle]

WSJ reports:

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon has concluded that computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war, a finding that for the first time opens the door for the U.S. to respond using traditional military force.

But not if it's STUXNET or FLAME, right?

Similarly, the media would have us believe that if a country in the Middle East refused to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, invaded neighboring countries, ignored condemnation from the UN Security Council of its actions, and repressed its people into poverty and apartheid, while also developing a nuclear weapons program, that the USG should intervene militarily to take out its nuclear program and probably impose new leadership.

But not if it's Israel, right?

But, it's OK, because Iran has such an aggressive history that it's worth the US getting into a war with Russia over. In fact, if the USG needs to kill half a million Iranian children to impose its will, that's just breaking a few eggs, right?

After all, there is no higher concern that the US Petrodollar, right?

The fellow who wrote the Declaration of Independence and our third President described the appropriate role of the United States in the world as:

Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.

But whose interests does that serve, really?

Re:The So-Called "West" Perspective

[interval1066]

AND:

The Pentagon has concluded that computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war...

I guess that doesn't apply to China though.

Re:The So-Called "West" Perspective

[iceperson]

You forgot to use the word "Zionist" in your post. You should fix that.

The United States of Amnesia

[deanklear]

If you define 1953 as not so long ago you must be in it for the long run. Waiting for the return of Zoroaster?

In 1953 we overthrew their democratic government, and then for 26 years we sponsored a puppet government that tortured and killed dissidents. A direct result of that radicalization and suppression is the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Our further interference by arranging loans for Saddam Hussein to punish them with a war cost the lives of one million people, including those who died in the gas attacks at Halabja, in the Iran-Iraq War. That ended in 1988.

This is the problem with stupid, simplistic understandings of history. It has been a policy of the United States for over a century to control and occupy the Middle East with extreme forms of violence that have killed millions, and sanctions that have killed hundreds of thousands more. There is no difference between us and the methods of other colonial powers, except that instead of pretending that natives are savages that are not worthy of consideration, we are pretending that Arabs and Iranians are savages that are not worthy of consideration. We kill them, take control of their oil, and they should just learn to accept that their natural resources may be under their feet, but God has intended them to belong to us as veto power against our enemies, or just so we can burn through it ourselves.

The historical evidence for those facts is overwhelming, and if you think you disagree with the hypothesis of American colonialism, you are either innocently or willfully ignorant.

As proof of this truism, without looking it up, name one nation that does not have a United States military presence inside of their national border, or inside of a neighboring nation. The same cannot be said for any other nation because the fact is and remains that we are a colonial power. That doesn't make us evil because we are America, but it does make us evil because we are an empire. Telling people how to live without giving them the opportunity to decide for themselves is simple tyranny, and it's wrong. It always has been, and it always will be, and there is never a legitimate principled foundation for taking away someone's right to choose their own path, especially when we take that right away from entire nations.

Re:The United States of Amnesia

[Psyborgue]

Empires are not in and of themselves evil, nor is power. We have bases in many countries because of treaties with them. They agree to have us there. Just because we have bases on their soil does not mean somehow we "conquered them". It just means we have some power in their region with which to counterbalance other world powers. I'll tell you what would be dangerous: the resulting power vacuum if we were to withdrawal suddenly from all those countries. And for the last time, we did not get any of Iraq's oil so stop pushing that big lie, or the big lie that Israel recommended it (because they recommended the exact opposite). Iraq was a bad idea without question but not because of the reasons you imply. If anything a motivating factor could have been war profiteering but it was not oil.

Re:The United States of Amnesia

[deanklear]

Who is talking about Israel? They're a military outpost. They do what we tell them.

Western oil firms remain as US exits Iraq

According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), Iraq's oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks second in the world, only behind Saudi Arabia. The EIA also estimates that up to 90 per cent of the country remains unexplored, due to decades of US-led wars and economic sanctions.

"Prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, US and other western oil companies were all but completely shut out of Iraq's oil market," oil industry analyst Antonia Juhasz told Al Jazeera. "But thanks to the invasion and occupation, the companies are now back inside Iraq and producing oil there for the first time since being forced out of the country in 1973."

Juhasz, author of the books The Tyranny of Oil and The Bush Agenda, said that while US and other western oil companies have not yet received all they had hoped the US-led invasion of Iraq would bring them, "They've certainly done quite well for themselves, landing production contracts for some of the world's largest remaining oil fields under some of the world's most lucrative terms."

But don't let reality change your worldview. See if there's any more western friendly propaganda in the rabbit hole you live in.

Re:The United States of Amnesia

[Psyborgue]

If you actually looked at most of those companies -- they are hardly american. Petronas, for example, is Malysian. Russia and China got most everything. I hate to break it to Al Jazeera's worldview, but those are not exactly "Western" countries. US companies got nothing except a few subcontracts contracts to set up and operate pumps (but not to sell the oil). Hey. But don't let facts get in the way of your worldview. Gah! Oil! Rah! Capitalism evil! Bush Satan! Ever stop to think that maybe... just maybe... the simplest explanation is the best and the most likely scenario as to why we went to Iraq is simply because Saddam played chicken with a freight train and got run right over, not because of Oil or anything else. Tell me. Is it beyond the realm of possibility for the government to make a mistake? What's more likely -- that -- or a massive conspiracy that somehow resulted in accomplishing none of the alleged goals save destroying America's reputation worldwide?

Re:The United States of Amnesia

[deanklear]

Dude, it's not my fault you can't read. From the article you linked:

Rather than giving foreign oil companies control over Iraqi reserves, as the U.S. had hoped to do with the Oil Law it failed to get the Iraqi parliament to pass, the oil companies were awarded service contracts lasting 20 years for seven of the 10 oil fields on offer -- the oil will remain the property of the Iraqi state, and the foreign companies will pump it for a fixed price per barrel.

You don't remember Rumsfeld saying that the war would last no longer than five weeks and cost no more than 50 billion? The Iraq War was the result of the dumbest executive branch in world history attempting to continue the policy of occupation in the Middle East. They failed miserably on every goal, and one of those goals was to gain control of oil fields for Western companies.

Their failure to achieve that goal does not mask the goal, or erase it from history. It simply exposes that the plan was doomed from the start, as it always has been. You cannot occupy another nation and take their resources without wiping them out, or eventually being thrown out. That's why we need to invest trillions of dollars on new energy research instead of occupation and nation building.

Huh?

[TheCarp]

"With Iran taking to cyberspace and drones, it shows such technology is not just under the control of the U.S."

Well....lets see....

Remote controlled devices....
Air planes.
rockets
explosives
guidance systems for rockets....

No shit sherlock. Since the very existence of each of these technologies, with, potentially the limited and short term exception of "air planes" right after their invention, the US has NEVER held exclusive control of any of them.

It should be no shock whatsoever that these technologies can be combined by others.

Its funny, I was talking with an Iranian friend about our foriegn policy and Iran. He isn't someone you would EVER expect to talk about fondness for teh Ayatolla (he isn't even really a muslim as far as I can tell).... but he does. I finally hit on why: I pointed out that if the US were smart, and really disliked the people in power in Iran, they would stop opposing them, and lift all sanctions, and let the Iranian people take care of the problem.... and he lit up....

"You know you are right, I hate those towel heads (yes, he, a born and raised Iranian called them towel heads), I hate having to support them, but when all I hear, day after day, is 'War with Iran' and 'More sanctions' that hurt my people, it pisses me off".

No shit, I would feel the same way.

Re:Ok, so...

[DeTech]

So Iran now has the capabilities of an angsty 13yr old script kiddy with a remote control helicopter from the sharper image. OH HIDE YO INTERNETS.

Re: #6

[Psyborgue]

When has Israel ever threatened it's enemies with nuclear weapons? Defamation much?

Did he just say that with a straight face?

[multicoregeneral]

So are we seriously comparing DDOS attacks that any fifteen year old with five minutes and an internet connection can do to Stuxnet, Flame, Duqu, Gauss, and the litany of Isramerica's cyber war arsenal that we haven't even discovered yet? So they can use drones to spy on alleged Israeli nuclear facilities. So what? They wouldn't have drones at all if America didn't accidentally give them one. Point is: To win this, you need brain power. Ever since the Iatolas took power, driving everyone with half a brain into hiding, or exile, they don't have a leg to stand on as far as a "cyber war" goes. And I think it's clear that they understand how paltry their attempts have been.

I don't get it

[Guru80]

What's the point of this story? Rhetorical question, it's blatantly obvious and not sure what makes this newsworthy? The things listed as not being only under U.S. control are things that pretty much every single country in the entire world has within it's reach if it wanted. Try harder Iran.

Our government's shortsightedness.

[GT66]

Did the US government really think that other nations would not simply build their own drones in response to our constant incursions into their sovereignty? Seems to me that whatever opportunity we had in being "first to market" is now over and the drone wars have just begun in earnest.

Re:You know, Iran

[Jeng]

Is North Korea left alone because they have a bomb, or because if the US fucked with them China would come in and put a stop to it?

Personally I think it is because 75% China would step in and 25% because the South Koreans actually would be upset if we killed their relatives in the north.

Or hell, Pakistan has the bomb and we do drone strikes in Pakistan damn near daily.

Having a bomb will not stop the US from driving the Iranian government out of power.

Re:Was this posted by an Iranian shill?

[onyxruby]

I have no doubt that a portion of Iranian citizens prefer a theocracy. However if you recall the crackdowns on protestors a couple years back shows that the theocracy will stop at no bound to stay in power, despite a significant part of the population that wants them out.

Iran chooses to starve and inflict economic hardship on their own people to a near crisis level. Here are several citations and sources on how the Iranian government hurts their own people. The Iranian government chooses to spend billions of dollars on nuclear weapons and supporting terrorism over feeding and providing medicine to their citizens. In my book the government is incorrigibly corrupt and evil.

http://www.rlc.org/irans-economy-on-the-verge-of-collapse-people-suffering-due-to-sanctions-2/

The Iranian people are the ones who feel the brunt of sanctions. In the past year, the value of the rial has fallen more than 75%, and food prices have skyrocketed more than 50%.

Meanwhile, the Iranian people are starving and dying because of lack of medicine.

http://www.economist.com/node/21564229

Despite subsidies intended to help the poor, prices for staples, such as milk, bread, rice, yogurt and vegetables, have at least doubled since the beginning of the year. Chicken has become so scarce that when scant supplies become available they prompt riots. On October 3rd police in Tehran fired tear-gas at people demonstrating over the rialâ(TM)s collapse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/10/sanctions-iran-ordinary-people-target

Activists say that, unlike ordinary people, the regime can find a way out of banking difficulties with help from its proxies.

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/16/158831342/from-all-sides-iran-under-siege

That has brought inflation and unemployment; even some food riots have been reported. The effects of the sanctions have been too apparent to deny, says Vatanka of the Middle East Institute.

"There's no doubt, based on all the figures and even statements coming from Tehran, that they are suffering," he says. "We only have to take the words of the leadership in Tehran. They are saying they are hurting."

Re:Last one from me too

[deanklear]

I read all sorts of sources including AJ. I just don't take it as gospel. My point stands.

No, it doesn't. Your assertion was that the United States did not invade Iraq for oil, but every single internal document is either aimed at excusing the invasion or at overturning the Iraqi constitution in order to open up their oil market. You are fucking wrong, and you're still wrong, despite your feigned ignorance aimed at winning this argument.

Even if that law was passed, it would have given "Western" nations no more of an advantage than the Chinese, Russians, and others who ended up getting the contracts. People like you love to go on about "conspriacies" without ever creating a concrete narrative as to how actions actually benefit the supposed conspirator. The net result of the Iraq was has been absolutely horriffic for the US. Our reputation as a nation is smashed to bits. The region has been destabilized. Iraq is soon to become yet another proxy state of Iran. Nobody will every believe us again about WMDs which gives every dictator with the will carte blanche to say "the US is lying again" while rushing unabated to the nuclear finish line. And on top of all of that we didn't even get any of the oil we supposedly did it all for. Jesus. If the conspirators are that incompetent, you really think it's out of the realm of possibility they were actually stupid enough to believe Saddam, suspicious as he was acting, didn't actually have WMDs.

Just because the conspiracy failed doesn't mean there wasn't a conspiracy. It would be like claiming that Moscow never had any intention of running things in Czechoslovakia if they were kicked out, or failed it any part of their plans. It's a childish way to escape the truth.

It's not like the CIA has a fantastic track record historically on predicting these sorts of things. We've missed the mark on every single nuclear advance of every single enemy without exception.

Holy fuck, are you actually that misinformed?

In the closing years of the cold war, Pakistan was considered to have great strategic importance. It provided Washington with a springboard into neighbouring Afghanistan - a route for passing US weapons and cash to the mujahideen, who were battling to oust the Soviet army that had invaded in 1979. Barlow says, "We had to buddy-up to regimes we didn't see eye-to-eye with, but I could not believe we would actually give Pakistan the bomb.

How could any US administration set such short-term gains against the long-term safety of the world?" Next he discovered that the Pentagon was preparing to sell Pakistan jet fighters that could be used to drop a nuclear bomb.

Barlow was relentless in exposing what he saw as US complicity, and in the end he was sacked and smeared as disloyal, mad, a drunk and a philanderer. If he had been listened to, many believe Pakistan might never have got its nuclear bomb; south Asia might not have been pitched into three near-nuclear conflagrations; and the nuclear weapons programmes of Iran, Libya and North Korea - which British and American intelligence now acknowledge were all secretly enabled by Pakistan - would never have got off the ground. "None of this need have happened," Robert Gallucci, special adviser on WMD to both Clinton and George W Bush, told us. "The vanquishing of Barlow and the erasing of his case kicked off a chain of events that led to all the nuclear-tinged stand-offs we face today. Pakistan is the number one threat to the world, and if it all goes off - a nuclear bomb in a US or European city- I'm sure we will find ourselves looking in Pakistan's direction."

Your really think it's just not possible Iraq is a result of stupidity and not malice? You have a lot more faith in our leadership than I do.

It's a combination of hubris, malice, and stupidity. You seem to live in a fantasy world of false dichotomies.