Target: Iran
- Thread starter QueEx
- Start date
<font size="5"><center>What Would War Look Like?</font size>
<font size="4">A flurry of military maneuvers in the Middle East increases
speculation that conflict with Iran is no longer quite so
unthinkable. Here's how the U.S. would fight such a
war--and the huge price it would have to pay to win it</font size></center>
TIME Magazine
By MICHAEL DUFFY
Posted Sunday, Sep. 17, 2006
The first message was routine enough: a "Prepare to Deploy" order sent through naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters. The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said to be ready to move by Oct. 1. But inside the Navy those messages generated more buzz than usual last week when a second request, from the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), asked for fresh eyes on long-standing U.S. plans to blockade two Iranian oil ports on the Persian Gulf. The CNO had asked for a rundown on how a blockade of those strategic targets might work. When he didn't like the analysis he received, he ordered his troops to work the lash up once again.
What's going on? The two orders offered tantalizing clues. There are only a few places in the world where minesweepers top the list of U.S. naval requirements. And every sailor, petroleum engineer and hedge-fund manager knows the name of the most important: the Strait of Hormuz, the 20-mile-wide bottleneck in the Persian Gulf through which roughly 40% of the world's oil needs to pass each day. Coupled with the CNO's request for a blockade review, a deployment of minesweepers to the west coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed--but until now largely theoretical--prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran.
No one knows whether--let alone when--a military confrontation with Tehran will come to pass. The fact that admirals are reviewing plans for blockades is hardly proof of their intentions. The U.S. military routinely makes plans for scores of scenarios, the vast majority of which will never be put into practice. "Planners always plan," says a Pentagon official. Asked about the orders, a second official said only that the Navy is stepping up its "listening and learning" in the Persian Gulf but nothing more--a prudent step, he added, after Iran tested surface-to-ship missiles there in August during a two-week military exercise. And yet from the State Department to the White House to the highest reaches of the military command, there is a growing sense that a showdown with Iran--over its suspected quest for nuclear weapons, its threats against Israel and its bid for dominance of the world's richest oil region--may be impossible to avoid. The chief of the U.S. Central Command (Centcom), General John Abizaid, has called a commanders conference for later this month in the Persian Gulf--sessions he holds at least quarterly--and Iran is on the agenda.
On its face, of course, the notion of a war with Iran seems absurd. By any rational measure, the last thing the U.S. can afford is another war. Two unfinished wars--one on Iran's eastern border, the other on its western flank--are daily depleting America's treasury and overworked armed forces. Most of Washington's allies in those adventures have made it clear they will not join another gamble overseas. What's more, the Bush team, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has done more diplomatic spadework on Iran than on any other project in its 51/2 years in office. For more than 18 months, Rice has kept the Administration's hard-line faction at bay while leading a coalition that includes four other members of the U.N. Security Council and is trying to force Tehran to halt its suspicious nuclear ambitions. Even Iran's former President, Mohammed Khatami, was in Washington this month calling for a "dialogue" between the two nations.
But superpowers don't always get to choose their enemies or the timing of their confrontations. The fact that all sides would risk losing so much in armed conflict doesn't mean they won't stumble into one anyway. And for all the good arguments against any war now, much less this one, there are just as many indications that a genuine, eyeball-to-eyeball crisis between the U.S. and Iran may be looming, and sooner than many realize. "At the moment," says Ali Ansari, a top Iran authority at London's Chatham House, a foreign-policy think tank, "we are headed for conflict."
So what would it look like? Interviews with dozens of experts and government officials in Washington, Tehran and elsewhere in the Middle East paint a sobering picture: military action against Iran's nuclear facilities would have a decent chance of succeeding, but at a staggering cost. And therein lies the excruciating calculus facing the U.S. and its allies: Is the cost of confronting Iran greater than the dangers of living with a nuclear Iran? And can anything short of war persuade Tehran's fundamentalist regime to give up its dangerous game?
ROAD TO WAR
The crisis with Iran has been years in the making. Over the past decade, Iran has acquired many of the pieces, parts and plants needed to make a nuclear device. Although Iranian officials insist that Iran's ambitions are limited to nuclear energy, the regime has asserted its right to develop nuclear power and enrich uranium that could be used in bombs as an end in itself--a symbol of sovereign pride, not to mention a useful prop for politicking. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has crisscrossed the country in recent months making Iran's right to a nuclear program a national cause and trying to solidify his base of hard-line support in the Revolutionary Guards. The nuclear program is popular with average Iranians and the élites as well. "Iranian leaders have this sense of past glory, this belief that Iran should play a lofty role in the world," says Nasser Hadian, professor of political science at Tehran University.
But the nuclear program isn't Washington's only worry about Iran. While stoking nationalism at home, Tehran has dramatically consolidated its reach in the region. Since the 1979 Islamic revolution, Iran has sponsored terrorist groups in a handful of countries, but its backing of Hizballah, the militant group that took Lebanon to war with Israel this summer, seems to be changing the Middle East balance of power. There is circumstantial evidence that Iran ordered Hizballah to provoke this summer's war, in part to demonstrate that Tehran can stir up big trouble if pushed to the brink. The precise extent of coordination between Hizballah and Tehran is unknown. But no longer in dispute after the standoff in July is Iran's ability to project power right up to the borders of Israel. It is no coincidence that the talk in Washington about what to do with Iran became more focused after Hizballah fought the Israeli army to a virtual standstill this summer.
And yet the West has been unable to compel Iran to comply with its demands. Despite all the work Rice has put into her coalition, diplomatic efforts are moving too slowly, some believe, to stop the Iranians before they acquire the makings of a nuclear device. And Iran has played its hand shrewdly so far. Tehran took weeks to reply to a formal proposal from the U.N. Security Council calling on a halt to uranium enrichment. When it did, its official response was a mosaic of half-steps, conditions and boilerplate that suggested Tehran has little intention of backing down. "The Iranians," says a Western diplomat in Washington, "are very able negotiators."
That doesn't make war inevitable. But at some point the U.S. and its allies may have to confront the ultimate choice. The Bush Administration has said it won't tolerate Iran having a nuclear weapon. Once it does, the regime will have the capacity to carry out Ahmadinejad's threats to eliminate Israel. And in practical terms, the U.S. would have to consider military action long before Iran had an actual bomb. In military circles, there is a debate about where--and when--to draw that line. U.S. intelligence chief John Negroponte told TIME in April that Iran is five years away from having a nuclear weapon. But some nonproliferation experts worry about a different moment: when Iran is able to enrich enough uranium to fuel a bomb--a point that comes well before engineers actually assemble a nuclear device. Many believe that is when a country becomes a nuclear power. That red line, experts say, could be just a year away.
WOULD AN ATTACK WORK?
The answer is yes and no.
No one is talking about a ground invasion of Iran. Too many U.S. troops are tied down elsewhere to make it possible, and besides, it isn't necessary. If the U.S. goal is simply to stunt Iran's nuclear program, it can be done better and more safely by air. An attack limited to Iran's nuclear facilities would nonetheless require a massive campaign. Experts say that Iran has between 18 and 30 nuclear-related facilities. The sites are dispersed around the country--some in the open, some cloaked in the guise of conventional factories, some buried deep underground.
A Pentagon official says that among the known sites there are 1,500 different "aim points," which means the campaign could well require the involvement of almost every type of aircraft in the U.S. arsenal: Stealth bombers and fighters, B-1s and B-2s, as well as F-15s and F-16s operating from land and F-18s from aircraft carriers.
GPS-guided munitions and laser-targeted bombs--sighted by satellite, spotter aircraft and unmanned vehicles--would do most of the bunker busting. But because many of the targets are hardened under several feet of reinforced concrete, most would have to be hit over and over to ensure that they were destroyed or sufficiently damaged. The U.S. would have to mount the usual aerial ballet, refueling tankers as well as search-and-rescue helicopters in case pilots were shot down by Iran's aging but possibly still effective air defenses. U.S. submarines and ships could launch cruise missiles as well, but their warheads are generally too small to do much damage to reinforced concrete--and might be used for secondary targets. An operation of that size would hardly be surgical. Many sites are in highly populated areas, so civilian casualties would be a certainty.
Whatever the order of battle, a U.S. strike would have a lasting impression on Iran's rulers. U.S. officials believe that a campaign of several days, involving hundreds or even thousands of sorties, could set back Iran's nuclear program by two to three years. Hit hard enough, some believe, Iranians might develop second thoughts about their government's designs as a regional nuclear power. Some U.S. foes of Iran's regime believe that the crisis of legitimacy that the ruling clerics would face in the wake of a U.S. attack could trigger their downfall, although others are convinced it would unite the population with the government in anti-American rage.
But it is also likely that the U.S. could carry out a massive attack and still leave Iran with some part of its nuclear program intact. It's possible that U.S. warplanes could destroy every known nuclear site--while Tehran's nuclear wizards, operating at other, undiscovered sites even deeper underground, continued their work. "We don't know where it all is," said a White House official, "so we can't get it all."
WHAT WOULD COME NEXT?
No one who has spent any time thinking about an attack on Iran doubts that a U.S. operation would reap a whirlwind. The only mystery is what kind. "It's not a question of whether we can do a strike or not and whether the strike could be effective," says retired Marine General Anthony Zinni. "It certainly would be, to some degree. But are you prepared for all that follows?"
Retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner, who taught strategy at the National War College, has been conducting a mock U.S.-Iran war game for American policymakers for the past five years. Virtually every time he runs the game, Gardiner says, a similar nightmare scenario unfolds: the U.S. attack, no matter how successful, spawns a variety of asymmetrical retaliations by Tehran. First comes terrorism: Iran's initial reaction to air strikes might be to authorize a Hizballah attack on Israel, in order to draw Israel into the war and rally public support at home.
Next, Iran might try to foment as much mayhem as possible inside the two nations on its flanks, Afghanistan and Iraq, where more than 160,000 U.S. troops hold a tenuous grip on local populations. Iran has already dabbled in partnership with warlords in western Afghanistan, where U.S. military authority has never been strong; it would be a small step to lend aid to Taliban forces gaining strength in the south. Meanwhile, Tehran has links to the main factions in Iraq, which would welcome a boost in money and weapons, if just to strengthen their hand against rivals. Analysts generally believe that Iran could in a short time orchestrate a dramatic increase in the number and severity of attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. As Syed Ayad, a secular Shi'ite cleric and Iraqi Member of Parliament says, "America owns the sky of Iraq with their Apaches, but Iran owns the ground."
Next, there is oil. The Persian Gulf, a traffic jam on good days, would become a parking lot. Iran could plant mines and launch dozens of armed boats into the bottleneck, choking off the shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz and causing a massive disruption of oil-tanker traffic. A low-key Iranian mining operation in 1987 forced the U.S. to reflag Kuwaiti oil tankers and escort them, in slow-moving files of one and two, up and down the Persian Gulf. A more intense operation would probably send oil prices soaring above $100 per bbl.--which may explain why the Navy wants to be sure its small fleet of minesweepers is ready to go into action at a moment's notice. It is unlikely that Iran would turn off its own oil spigot or halt its exports through pipelines overland, but it could direct its proxies in Iraq and Saudi Arabia to attack pipelines, wells and shipment points inside those countries, further choking supply and driving up prices.
That kind of retaliation could quickly transform a relatively limited U.S. mission in Iran into a much more complicated one involving regime change. An Iran determined to use all its available weapons to counterattack the U.S. and its allies would present a challenge to American prestige that no Commander in Chief would be likely to tolerate for long. Zinni, for one, believes an attack on Iran could eventually lead to U.S. troops on the ground. "You've got to be careful with your assumptions," he says. "In Iraq, the assumption was that it would be a liberation, not an occupation. You've got to be prepared for the worst case, and the worst case involving Iran takes you down to boots on the ground." All that, he says, makes an attack on Iran a "dumb idea." Abizaid, the current Centcom boss, chose his words carefully last May. "Look, any war with a country that is as big as Iran, that has a terrorist capability along its borders, that has a missile capability that is external to its own borders and that has the ability to affect the world's oil markets is something that everyone needs to contemplate with a great degree of clarity."
CAN IT BE STOPPED?
Given the chaos that a war might unleash, what options does the world have to avoid it? One approach would be for the U.S. to accept Iran as a nuclear power and learn to live with an Iranian bomb, focusing its efforts on deterrence rather than pre-emption. The risk is that a nuclear-armed Iran would use its regional primacy to become the dominant foreign power in Iraq, threaten Israel and make it harder for Washington to exert its will in the region. And it could provoke Sunni countries in the region, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to start nuclear programs of their own to contain rising Shi'ite power.
Those equally unappetizing prospects--war or a new arms race in the Middle East--explain why the White House is kicking up its efforts to resolve the Iran problem before it gets that far. Washington is doing everything it can to make Iran think twice about its ongoing game of stonewall. It is a measure of the Administration's unity on Iran that confrontationalists like Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have lately not wandered off the rhetorical reservation. Everyone has been careful--for now--to stick to Rice's diplomatic emphasis. "Nobody is considering a military option at this point," says an Administration official. "We're trying to prevent a situation in which the President finds himself having to decide between a nuclear-armed Iran or going to war. The best hope of avoiding that dilemma is hard-nosed diplomacy, one that has serious consequences."
Rice continues to try for that. This week in New York City, she will push her partners to get behind a new sanctions resolution that would ban Iranian imports of dual-use technologies, like parts for its centrifuge cascades for uranium enrichment, and bar travel overseas by certain government officials. The next step would be restrictions on government purchases of computer software and hardware, office supplies, tires and auto parts--steps Russia and China have signaled some reluctance to endorse. But even Rice's advisers don't believe that Iran can be persuaded to completely abandon its ambitions. Instead, they hope to tie Iran up in a series of suspensions, delays and negotiations until a more pragmatic faction of leadership in Tehran gains the upper hand.
At the moment, that sounds as much like a prayer as a strategy. A former CIA director, asked not long ago whether a moderate faction will ever emerge in Tehran, quipped, "I don't think I've ever met an Iranian moderate--not at the top of the government, anyway." But if sanctions don't work, what might? Outside the Administration, a growing group of foreign-policy hands from both parties have called on the U.S. to bring Tehran into direct negotiations in the hope of striking a grand bargain. Under that formula, the U.S. might offer Iran some security guarantees-- such as forswearing efforts to topple Iran's theocratic regime--in exchange for Iran's agreeing to open its facilities to international inspectors and abandon weapons-related projects. It would be painful for any U.S. Administration to recognize the legitimacy of a regime that sponsors terrorism and calls for Israel's destruction--but the time may come when that's the only bargaining chip short of war the U.S. has left. And still that may not be enough. "[The Iranians] would give up nuclear power if they truly believed the U.S. would accept Iran as it is," says a university professor in Tehran who asked not to be identified. "But the mistrust runs too deep for them to believe that is possible."
Such distrust runs both ways and is getting deeper. Unless the U.S., its allies and Iran can find a way to make diplomacy work, the whispers of blockades and minesweepers in the Persian Gulf may soon be drowned out by the cries of war. And if the U.S. has learned anything over the past five years, it's that war in the Middle East rarely goes according to plan.
With reporting by Reported by Brian Bennett/Baghdad, James Graff/Paris, Scott MacLeod/ Cairo, J.F.O. McAllister/ London, Tim McGirk/ Jerusalem, Azadeh Moaveni/ Tehran, Mike Allen, SALLY B. DONNELLY, Elaine Shannon, MARK THOMPSON, DOUGLAS WALLER, MICHAEL WEISSKOPF, Adam Zagorin/ Washington
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1535817-1,00.html
<font size="4">A flurry of military maneuvers in the Middle East increases
speculation that conflict with Iran is no longer quite so
unthinkable. Here's how the U.S. would fight such a
war--and the huge price it would have to pay to win it</font size></center>
TIME Magazine
By MICHAEL DUFFY
Posted Sunday, Sep. 17, 2006
The first message was routine enough: a "Prepare to Deploy" order sent through naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters. The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said to be ready to move by Oct. 1. But inside the Navy those messages generated more buzz than usual last week when a second request, from the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), asked for fresh eyes on long-standing U.S. plans to blockade two Iranian oil ports on the Persian Gulf. The CNO had asked for a rundown on how a blockade of those strategic targets might work. When he didn't like the analysis he received, he ordered his troops to work the lash up once again.
What's going on? The two orders offered tantalizing clues. There are only a few places in the world where minesweepers top the list of U.S. naval requirements. And every sailor, petroleum engineer and hedge-fund manager knows the name of the most important: the Strait of Hormuz, the 20-mile-wide bottleneck in the Persian Gulf through which roughly 40% of the world's oil needs to pass each day. Coupled with the CNO's request for a blockade review, a deployment of minesweepers to the west coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed--but until now largely theoretical--prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran.
No one knows whether--let alone when--a military confrontation with Tehran will come to pass. The fact that admirals are reviewing plans for blockades is hardly proof of their intentions. The U.S. military routinely makes plans for scores of scenarios, the vast majority of which will never be put into practice. "Planners always plan," says a Pentagon official. Asked about the orders, a second official said only that the Navy is stepping up its "listening and learning" in the Persian Gulf but nothing more--a prudent step, he added, after Iran tested surface-to-ship missiles there in August during a two-week military exercise. And yet from the State Department to the White House to the highest reaches of the military command, there is a growing sense that a showdown with Iran--over its suspected quest for nuclear weapons, its threats against Israel and its bid for dominance of the world's richest oil region--may be impossible to avoid. The chief of the U.S. Central Command (Centcom), General John Abizaid, has called a commanders conference for later this month in the Persian Gulf--sessions he holds at least quarterly--and Iran is on the agenda.
On its face, of course, the notion of a war with Iran seems absurd. By any rational measure, the last thing the U.S. can afford is another war. Two unfinished wars--one on Iran's eastern border, the other on its western flank--are daily depleting America's treasury and overworked armed forces. Most of Washington's allies in those adventures have made it clear they will not join another gamble overseas. What's more, the Bush team, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has done more diplomatic spadework on Iran than on any other project in its 51/2 years in office. For more than 18 months, Rice has kept the Administration's hard-line faction at bay while leading a coalition that includes four other members of the U.N. Security Council and is trying to force Tehran to halt its suspicious nuclear ambitions. Even Iran's former President, Mohammed Khatami, was in Washington this month calling for a "dialogue" between the two nations.
But superpowers don't always get to choose their enemies or the timing of their confrontations. The fact that all sides would risk losing so much in armed conflict doesn't mean they won't stumble into one anyway. And for all the good arguments against any war now, much less this one, there are just as many indications that a genuine, eyeball-to-eyeball crisis between the U.S. and Iran may be looming, and sooner than many realize. "At the moment," says Ali Ansari, a top Iran authority at London's Chatham House, a foreign-policy think tank, "we are headed for conflict."
So what would it look like? Interviews with dozens of experts and government officials in Washington, Tehran and elsewhere in the Middle East paint a sobering picture: military action against Iran's nuclear facilities would have a decent chance of succeeding, but at a staggering cost. And therein lies the excruciating calculus facing the U.S. and its allies: Is the cost of confronting Iran greater than the dangers of living with a nuclear Iran? And can anything short of war persuade Tehran's fundamentalist regime to give up its dangerous game?
ROAD TO WAR
The crisis with Iran has been years in the making. Over the past decade, Iran has acquired many of the pieces, parts and plants needed to make a nuclear device. Although Iranian officials insist that Iran's ambitions are limited to nuclear energy, the regime has asserted its right to develop nuclear power and enrich uranium that could be used in bombs as an end in itself--a symbol of sovereign pride, not to mention a useful prop for politicking. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has crisscrossed the country in recent months making Iran's right to a nuclear program a national cause and trying to solidify his base of hard-line support in the Revolutionary Guards. The nuclear program is popular with average Iranians and the élites as well. "Iranian leaders have this sense of past glory, this belief that Iran should play a lofty role in the world," says Nasser Hadian, professor of political science at Tehran University.
But the nuclear program isn't Washington's only worry about Iran. While stoking nationalism at home, Tehran has dramatically consolidated its reach in the region. Since the 1979 Islamic revolution, Iran has sponsored terrorist groups in a handful of countries, but its backing of Hizballah, the militant group that took Lebanon to war with Israel this summer, seems to be changing the Middle East balance of power. There is circumstantial evidence that Iran ordered Hizballah to provoke this summer's war, in part to demonstrate that Tehran can stir up big trouble if pushed to the brink. The precise extent of coordination between Hizballah and Tehran is unknown. But no longer in dispute after the standoff in July is Iran's ability to project power right up to the borders of Israel. It is no coincidence that the talk in Washington about what to do with Iran became more focused after Hizballah fought the Israeli army to a virtual standstill this summer.
And yet the West has been unable to compel Iran to comply with its demands. Despite all the work Rice has put into her coalition, diplomatic efforts are moving too slowly, some believe, to stop the Iranians before they acquire the makings of a nuclear device. And Iran has played its hand shrewdly so far. Tehran took weeks to reply to a formal proposal from the U.N. Security Council calling on a halt to uranium enrichment. When it did, its official response was a mosaic of half-steps, conditions and boilerplate that suggested Tehran has little intention of backing down. "The Iranians," says a Western diplomat in Washington, "are very able negotiators."
That doesn't make war inevitable. But at some point the U.S. and its allies may have to confront the ultimate choice. The Bush Administration has said it won't tolerate Iran having a nuclear weapon. Once it does, the regime will have the capacity to carry out Ahmadinejad's threats to eliminate Israel. And in practical terms, the U.S. would have to consider military action long before Iran had an actual bomb. In military circles, there is a debate about where--and when--to draw that line. U.S. intelligence chief John Negroponte told TIME in April that Iran is five years away from having a nuclear weapon. But some nonproliferation experts worry about a different moment: when Iran is able to enrich enough uranium to fuel a bomb--a point that comes well before engineers actually assemble a nuclear device. Many believe that is when a country becomes a nuclear power. That red line, experts say, could be just a year away.
WOULD AN ATTACK WORK?
The answer is yes and no.
No one is talking about a ground invasion of Iran. Too many U.S. troops are tied down elsewhere to make it possible, and besides, it isn't necessary. If the U.S. goal is simply to stunt Iran's nuclear program, it can be done better and more safely by air. An attack limited to Iran's nuclear facilities would nonetheless require a massive campaign. Experts say that Iran has between 18 and 30 nuclear-related facilities. The sites are dispersed around the country--some in the open, some cloaked in the guise of conventional factories, some buried deep underground.
A Pentagon official says that among the known sites there are 1,500 different "aim points," which means the campaign could well require the involvement of almost every type of aircraft in the U.S. arsenal: Stealth bombers and fighters, B-1s and B-2s, as well as F-15s and F-16s operating from land and F-18s from aircraft carriers.
GPS-guided munitions and laser-targeted bombs--sighted by satellite, spotter aircraft and unmanned vehicles--would do most of the bunker busting. But because many of the targets are hardened under several feet of reinforced concrete, most would have to be hit over and over to ensure that they were destroyed or sufficiently damaged. The U.S. would have to mount the usual aerial ballet, refueling tankers as well as search-and-rescue helicopters in case pilots were shot down by Iran's aging but possibly still effective air defenses. U.S. submarines and ships could launch cruise missiles as well, but their warheads are generally too small to do much damage to reinforced concrete--and might be used for secondary targets. An operation of that size would hardly be surgical. Many sites are in highly populated areas, so civilian casualties would be a certainty.
Whatever the order of battle, a U.S. strike would have a lasting impression on Iran's rulers. U.S. officials believe that a campaign of several days, involving hundreds or even thousands of sorties, could set back Iran's nuclear program by two to three years. Hit hard enough, some believe, Iranians might develop second thoughts about their government's designs as a regional nuclear power. Some U.S. foes of Iran's regime believe that the crisis of legitimacy that the ruling clerics would face in the wake of a U.S. attack could trigger their downfall, although others are convinced it would unite the population with the government in anti-American rage.
But it is also likely that the U.S. could carry out a massive attack and still leave Iran with some part of its nuclear program intact. It's possible that U.S. warplanes could destroy every known nuclear site--while Tehran's nuclear wizards, operating at other, undiscovered sites even deeper underground, continued their work. "We don't know where it all is," said a White House official, "so we can't get it all."
WHAT WOULD COME NEXT?
No one who has spent any time thinking about an attack on Iran doubts that a U.S. operation would reap a whirlwind. The only mystery is what kind. "It's not a question of whether we can do a strike or not and whether the strike could be effective," says retired Marine General Anthony Zinni. "It certainly would be, to some degree. But are you prepared for all that follows?"
Retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner, who taught strategy at the National War College, has been conducting a mock U.S.-Iran war game for American policymakers for the past five years. Virtually every time he runs the game, Gardiner says, a similar nightmare scenario unfolds: the U.S. attack, no matter how successful, spawns a variety of asymmetrical retaliations by Tehran. First comes terrorism: Iran's initial reaction to air strikes might be to authorize a Hizballah attack on Israel, in order to draw Israel into the war and rally public support at home.
Next, Iran might try to foment as much mayhem as possible inside the two nations on its flanks, Afghanistan and Iraq, where more than 160,000 U.S. troops hold a tenuous grip on local populations. Iran has already dabbled in partnership with warlords in western Afghanistan, where U.S. military authority has never been strong; it would be a small step to lend aid to Taliban forces gaining strength in the south. Meanwhile, Tehran has links to the main factions in Iraq, which would welcome a boost in money and weapons, if just to strengthen their hand against rivals. Analysts generally believe that Iran could in a short time orchestrate a dramatic increase in the number and severity of attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. As Syed Ayad, a secular Shi'ite cleric and Iraqi Member of Parliament says, "America owns the sky of Iraq with their Apaches, but Iran owns the ground."
Next, there is oil. The Persian Gulf, a traffic jam on good days, would become a parking lot. Iran could plant mines and launch dozens of armed boats into the bottleneck, choking off the shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz and causing a massive disruption of oil-tanker traffic. A low-key Iranian mining operation in 1987 forced the U.S. to reflag Kuwaiti oil tankers and escort them, in slow-moving files of one and two, up and down the Persian Gulf. A more intense operation would probably send oil prices soaring above $100 per bbl.--which may explain why the Navy wants to be sure its small fleet of minesweepers is ready to go into action at a moment's notice. It is unlikely that Iran would turn off its own oil spigot or halt its exports through pipelines overland, but it could direct its proxies in Iraq and Saudi Arabia to attack pipelines, wells and shipment points inside those countries, further choking supply and driving up prices.
That kind of retaliation could quickly transform a relatively limited U.S. mission in Iran into a much more complicated one involving regime change. An Iran determined to use all its available weapons to counterattack the U.S. and its allies would present a challenge to American prestige that no Commander in Chief would be likely to tolerate for long. Zinni, for one, believes an attack on Iran could eventually lead to U.S. troops on the ground. "You've got to be careful with your assumptions," he says. "In Iraq, the assumption was that it would be a liberation, not an occupation. You've got to be prepared for the worst case, and the worst case involving Iran takes you down to boots on the ground." All that, he says, makes an attack on Iran a "dumb idea." Abizaid, the current Centcom boss, chose his words carefully last May. "Look, any war with a country that is as big as Iran, that has a terrorist capability along its borders, that has a missile capability that is external to its own borders and that has the ability to affect the world's oil markets is something that everyone needs to contemplate with a great degree of clarity."
CAN IT BE STOPPED?
Given the chaos that a war might unleash, what options does the world have to avoid it? One approach would be for the U.S. to accept Iran as a nuclear power and learn to live with an Iranian bomb, focusing its efforts on deterrence rather than pre-emption. The risk is that a nuclear-armed Iran would use its regional primacy to become the dominant foreign power in Iraq, threaten Israel and make it harder for Washington to exert its will in the region. And it could provoke Sunni countries in the region, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to start nuclear programs of their own to contain rising Shi'ite power.
Those equally unappetizing prospects--war or a new arms race in the Middle East--explain why the White House is kicking up its efforts to resolve the Iran problem before it gets that far. Washington is doing everything it can to make Iran think twice about its ongoing game of stonewall. It is a measure of the Administration's unity on Iran that confrontationalists like Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have lately not wandered off the rhetorical reservation. Everyone has been careful--for now--to stick to Rice's diplomatic emphasis. "Nobody is considering a military option at this point," says an Administration official. "We're trying to prevent a situation in which the President finds himself having to decide between a nuclear-armed Iran or going to war. The best hope of avoiding that dilemma is hard-nosed diplomacy, one that has serious consequences."
Rice continues to try for that. This week in New York City, she will push her partners to get behind a new sanctions resolution that would ban Iranian imports of dual-use technologies, like parts for its centrifuge cascades for uranium enrichment, and bar travel overseas by certain government officials. The next step would be restrictions on government purchases of computer software and hardware, office supplies, tires and auto parts--steps Russia and China have signaled some reluctance to endorse. But even Rice's advisers don't believe that Iran can be persuaded to completely abandon its ambitions. Instead, they hope to tie Iran up in a series of suspensions, delays and negotiations until a more pragmatic faction of leadership in Tehran gains the upper hand.
At the moment, that sounds as much like a prayer as a strategy. A former CIA director, asked not long ago whether a moderate faction will ever emerge in Tehran, quipped, "I don't think I've ever met an Iranian moderate--not at the top of the government, anyway." But if sanctions don't work, what might? Outside the Administration, a growing group of foreign-policy hands from both parties have called on the U.S. to bring Tehran into direct negotiations in the hope of striking a grand bargain. Under that formula, the U.S. might offer Iran some security guarantees-- such as forswearing efforts to topple Iran's theocratic regime--in exchange for Iran's agreeing to open its facilities to international inspectors and abandon weapons-related projects. It would be painful for any U.S. Administration to recognize the legitimacy of a regime that sponsors terrorism and calls for Israel's destruction--but the time may come when that's the only bargaining chip short of war the U.S. has left. And still that may not be enough. "[The Iranians] would give up nuclear power if they truly believed the U.S. would accept Iran as it is," says a university professor in Tehran who asked not to be identified. "But the mistrust runs too deep for them to believe that is possible."
Such distrust runs both ways and is getting deeper. Unless the U.S., its allies and Iran can find a way to make diplomacy work, the whispers of blockades and minesweepers in the Persian Gulf may soon be drowned out by the cries of war. And if the U.S. has learned anything over the past five years, it's that war in the Middle East rarely goes according to plan.
With reporting by Reported by Brian Bennett/Baghdad, James Graff/Paris, Scott MacLeod/ Cairo, J.F.O. McAllister/ London, Tim McGirk/ Jerusalem, Azadeh Moaveni/ Tehran, Mike Allen, SALLY B. DONNELLY, Elaine Shannon, MARK THOMPSON, DOUGLAS WALLER, MICHAEL WEISSKOPF, Adam Zagorin/ Washington
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1535817-1,00.html
<font size="6"><center>War Signals? </font size></center>
The Nation
Dave Lindorff
posted September 21, 2006 (web only)
As reports circulate of a sharp debate within the White House over possible US military action against Iran and its nuclear enrichment facilities, The Nation has learned that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have moved up the deployment of a major "strike group" of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast. This information follows a report in the current issue of Time magazine, both online and in print, that a group of ships capable of mining harbors has received orders to be ready to sail for the Persian Gulf by October 1.
As Time writes in its cover story, "What Would War Look Like?," evidence of the forward deployment of minesweepers and word that the chief of naval operations had asked for a reworking of old plans for mining Iranian harbors "suggest that a much discussed--but until now largely theoretical--prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran."
According to Lieut. Mike Kafka, a spokesman at the headquarters of the Second Fleet, based in Norfolk, Virginia, the Eisenhower Strike Group, bristling with Tomahawk cruise missiles, has received orders to depart the United States in a little over a week. Other official sources in the public affairs office of the Navy Department at the Pentagon confirm that this powerful armada is scheduled to arrive off the coast of Iran on or around October 21.
The Eisenhower had been in port at the Naval Station Norfolk for several years for refurbishing and refueling of its nuclear reactor; it had not been scheduled to depart for a new duty station until at least a month later, and possibly not till next spring. Family members, before the orders, had moved into the area and had until then expected to be with their sailor-spouses and parents in Virginia for some time yet. First word of the early dispatch of the "Ike Strike" group to the Persian Gulf region came from several angry officers on the ships involved, who contacted antiwar critics like retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner and complained that they were being sent to attack Iran without any order from the Congress.
"This is very serious," said Ray McGovern, a former CIA threat-assessment analyst who got early word of the Navy officers' complaints about the sudden deployment orders. (McGovern, a twenty-seven-year veteran of the CIA, resigned in 2002 in protest over what he said were Bush Administration pressures to exaggerate the threat posed by Iraq. He and other intelligence agency critics have formed a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.)
Colonel Gardiner, who has taught military strategy at the National War College, says that the carrier deployment and a scheduled Persian Gulf arrival date of October 21 is "very important evidence" of war planning. He says, "I know that some naval forces have already received 'prepare to deploy orders' [PTDOs], which have set the date for being ready to go as October 1. Given that it would take about from October 2 to October 21 to get those forces to the Gulf region, that looks about like the date" of any possible military action against Iran. (A PTDO means that all crews should be at their stations, and ships and planes should be ready to go, by a certain date--in this case, reportedly, October 1.) Gardiner notes, "You cannot issue a PTDO and then stay ready for very long. It's a very significant order, and it's not done as a training exercise." This point was also made in the Time article.
So what is the White House planning?
On Monday President Bush addressed the UN General Assembly at its opening session, and while studiously avoiding even physically meeting Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was also addressing the body, he offered a two-pronged message. Bush told the "people of Iran" that "we're working toward a diplomatic solution to this crisis" and that he looked forward "to the day when you can live in freedom." But he also warned that Iran's leaders were using the nation's resources "to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons." Given the President's assertion that the nation is fighting a "global war on terror" and that he is Commander in Chief of that "war," his prominent linking of the Iran regime with terror has to be seen as a deliberate effort to claim his right to carry the fight there. Bush has repeatedly insisted that the 2001 Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force that preceded the invasion of Afghanistan was also an authorization for an unending "war on terror."
Even as Bush was making not-so-veiled threats at the UN, his former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, a sharp critic of any unilateral US attack on Iran, was in Norfolk, not far from the Eisenhower, advocating further diplomatic efforts to deal with Iran's nuclear program--itself tantalizing evidence of the policy struggle over whether to go to war, and that those favoring an attack may be winning that struggle.
"I think the plan's been picked: bomb the nuclear sites in Iran," says Gardiner. "It's a terrible idea, it's against US law and it's against international law, but I think they've decided to do it." Gardiner says that while the United States has the capability to hit those sites with its cruise missiles, "the Iranians have many more options than we do: They can activate Hezbollah; they can organize riots all over the Islamic world, including Pakistan, which could bring down the Musharraf government, putting nuclear weapons into terrorist hands; they can encourage the Shia militias in Iraq to attack US troops; they can blow up oil pipelines and shut the Persian Gulf." Most of the major oil-producing states in the Middle East have substantial Shiite populations, which has long been a concern of their own Sunni leaders and of Washington policy-makers, given the sometimes close connection of Shiite populations to Iran's religious rulers.
Of course, Gardiner agrees, recent ship movements and other signs of military preparedness could be simply a bluff designed to show toughness in the bargaining with Iran over its nuclear program. But with the Iranian coast reportedly armed to the teeth with Chinese Silkworm antiship missiles, and possibly even more sophisticated Russian antiship weapons, against which the Navy has little reliable defenses, it seems unlikely the Navy would risk high-value assets like aircraft carriers or cruisers with such a tactic. Nor has bluffing been a Bush MO to date.
Commentators and analysts across the political spectrum are focusing on Bush's talk about dialogue, with many claiming that he is climbing down from confrontation. On the right, David Frum, writing on September 20 in his National Review blog, argues that the lack of any attempt to win a UN resolution supporting military action, and rumors of "hushed back doors" being opened in Washington, lead him to expect a diplomatic deal, not a unilateral attack. Writing in the center, Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler saw in Bush's UN speech evidence that "war is no longer a viable option" in Iran. Even on the left, where confidence in the Bush Administration's judgment is abysmally low, commentators like Noam Chomsky and Nation contributor Robert Dreyfuss are skeptical that an attack is being planned. Chomsky has long argued that Washington's leaders aren't crazy, and would not take such a step--though more recently, he has seemed less sanguine about Administration sanity and has suggested that leaks about war plans may be an effort by military leaders--who are almost universally opposed to widening the Mideast war--to arouse opposition to such a move by Bush and war advocates like Cheney. Dreyfuss, meanwhile, in an article for the online journal TomPaine.com, focuses on the talk of diplomacy in Bush's Monday UN speech, not on his threats, and concludes that it means "the realists have won" and that there will be no Iran attack.
But all these war skeptics may be whistling past the graveyard. After all, it must be recalled that Bush also talked about seeking diplomatic solutions the whole time he was dead-set on invading Iraq, and the current situation is increasingly looking like a cheap Hollywood sequel. The United States, according to Gardiner and others, already reportedly has special forces operating in Iran, and now major ship movements are looking ominous.
Representative Maurice Hinchey, a leading Democratic critic of the Iraq War, informed about the Navy PTDOs and about the orders for the full Eisenhower Strike Group to head out to sea, said, "For some time there has been speculation that there could be an attack on Iran prior to November 7, in order to exacerbate the culture of fear that the Administration has cultivated now for over five or six years. But if they attack Iran it will be a very bad mistake, for the Middle East and for the US. It would only make worse the antagonism and fear people feel towards our country. I hope this Administration is not so foolish and irresponsible." He adds, "Military people are deeply concerned about the overtaxing of the military already."
Calls for comment from the White House on Iran war plans and on the order for the Eisenhower Strike Group to deploy were referred to the National Security Council press office, which declined to return this reporter's phone calls.
McGovern, who had first told a group of anti-Iraq War activists Sunday on the National Mall in Washington, DC, during an ongoing action called "Camp Democracy," about his being alerted to the strike group deployment, warned, "We have about seven weeks to try and stop this next war from happening."
One solid indication that the dispatch of the Eisenhower is part of a force buildup would be if the carrier Enterprise--currently in the Arabian Sea, where it has been launching bombing runs against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and which is at the end of its normal six-month sea tour--is kept on station instead of sent back to the United States. Arguing against simple rotation of tours is the fact that the Eisenhower's refurbishing and its dispatch were rushed forward by at least a month. A report from the Enterprise on the Navy's official website referred to its ongoing role in the Afghanistan fighting, and gave no indication of plans to head back to port. The Navy itself has no comment on the ship's future orders.
Jim Webb, Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan Administration and currently a Democratic candidate for Senate in Virginia, expressed some caution about reports of the carrier deployment, saying, "Remember, carrier groups regularly rotate in and out of that region." But he added, "I do not believe that there should be any elective military action taken against Iran without a separate authorization vote by the Congress. In my view, the 2002 authorization which was used for the invasion of Iraq should not extend to Iran."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061009/lindorff
The Nation
Dave Lindorff
posted September 21, 2006 (web only)
As reports circulate of a sharp debate within the White House over possible US military action against Iran and its nuclear enrichment facilities, The Nation has learned that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have moved up the deployment of a major "strike group" of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast. This information follows a report in the current issue of Time magazine, both online and in print, that a group of ships capable of mining harbors has received orders to be ready to sail for the Persian Gulf by October 1.
As Time writes in its cover story, "What Would War Look Like?," evidence of the forward deployment of minesweepers and word that the chief of naval operations had asked for a reworking of old plans for mining Iranian harbors "suggest that a much discussed--but until now largely theoretical--prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran."
According to Lieut. Mike Kafka, a spokesman at the headquarters of the Second Fleet, based in Norfolk, Virginia, the Eisenhower Strike Group, bristling with Tomahawk cruise missiles, has received orders to depart the United States in a little over a week. Other official sources in the public affairs office of the Navy Department at the Pentagon confirm that this powerful armada is scheduled to arrive off the coast of Iran on or around October 21.
The Eisenhower had been in port at the Naval Station Norfolk for several years for refurbishing and refueling of its nuclear reactor; it had not been scheduled to depart for a new duty station until at least a month later, and possibly not till next spring. Family members, before the orders, had moved into the area and had until then expected to be with their sailor-spouses and parents in Virginia for some time yet. First word of the early dispatch of the "Ike Strike" group to the Persian Gulf region came from several angry officers on the ships involved, who contacted antiwar critics like retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner and complained that they were being sent to attack Iran without any order from the Congress.
"This is very serious," said Ray McGovern, a former CIA threat-assessment analyst who got early word of the Navy officers' complaints about the sudden deployment orders. (McGovern, a twenty-seven-year veteran of the CIA, resigned in 2002 in protest over what he said were Bush Administration pressures to exaggerate the threat posed by Iraq. He and other intelligence agency critics have formed a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.)
Colonel Gardiner, who has taught military strategy at the National War College, says that the carrier deployment and a scheduled Persian Gulf arrival date of October 21 is "very important evidence" of war planning. He says, "I know that some naval forces have already received 'prepare to deploy orders' [PTDOs], which have set the date for being ready to go as October 1. Given that it would take about from October 2 to October 21 to get those forces to the Gulf region, that looks about like the date" of any possible military action against Iran. (A PTDO means that all crews should be at their stations, and ships and planes should be ready to go, by a certain date--in this case, reportedly, October 1.) Gardiner notes, "You cannot issue a PTDO and then stay ready for very long. It's a very significant order, and it's not done as a training exercise." This point was also made in the Time article.
So what is the White House planning?
On Monday President Bush addressed the UN General Assembly at its opening session, and while studiously avoiding even physically meeting Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was also addressing the body, he offered a two-pronged message. Bush told the "people of Iran" that "we're working toward a diplomatic solution to this crisis" and that he looked forward "to the day when you can live in freedom." But he also warned that Iran's leaders were using the nation's resources "to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons." Given the President's assertion that the nation is fighting a "global war on terror" and that he is Commander in Chief of that "war," his prominent linking of the Iran regime with terror has to be seen as a deliberate effort to claim his right to carry the fight there. Bush has repeatedly insisted that the 2001 Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force that preceded the invasion of Afghanistan was also an authorization for an unending "war on terror."
Even as Bush was making not-so-veiled threats at the UN, his former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, a sharp critic of any unilateral US attack on Iran, was in Norfolk, not far from the Eisenhower, advocating further diplomatic efforts to deal with Iran's nuclear program--itself tantalizing evidence of the policy struggle over whether to go to war, and that those favoring an attack may be winning that struggle.
"I think the plan's been picked: bomb the nuclear sites in Iran," says Gardiner. "It's a terrible idea, it's against US law and it's against international law, but I think they've decided to do it." Gardiner says that while the United States has the capability to hit those sites with its cruise missiles, "the Iranians have many more options than we do: They can activate Hezbollah; they can organize riots all over the Islamic world, including Pakistan, which could bring down the Musharraf government, putting nuclear weapons into terrorist hands; they can encourage the Shia militias in Iraq to attack US troops; they can blow up oil pipelines and shut the Persian Gulf." Most of the major oil-producing states in the Middle East have substantial Shiite populations, which has long been a concern of their own Sunni leaders and of Washington policy-makers, given the sometimes close connection of Shiite populations to Iran's religious rulers.
Of course, Gardiner agrees, recent ship movements and other signs of military preparedness could be simply a bluff designed to show toughness in the bargaining with Iran over its nuclear program. But with the Iranian coast reportedly armed to the teeth with Chinese Silkworm antiship missiles, and possibly even more sophisticated Russian antiship weapons, against which the Navy has little reliable defenses, it seems unlikely the Navy would risk high-value assets like aircraft carriers or cruisers with such a tactic. Nor has bluffing been a Bush MO to date.
Commentators and analysts across the political spectrum are focusing on Bush's talk about dialogue, with many claiming that he is climbing down from confrontation. On the right, David Frum, writing on September 20 in his National Review blog, argues that the lack of any attempt to win a UN resolution supporting military action, and rumors of "hushed back doors" being opened in Washington, lead him to expect a diplomatic deal, not a unilateral attack. Writing in the center, Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler saw in Bush's UN speech evidence that "war is no longer a viable option" in Iran. Even on the left, where confidence in the Bush Administration's judgment is abysmally low, commentators like Noam Chomsky and Nation contributor Robert Dreyfuss are skeptical that an attack is being planned. Chomsky has long argued that Washington's leaders aren't crazy, and would not take such a step--though more recently, he has seemed less sanguine about Administration sanity and has suggested that leaks about war plans may be an effort by military leaders--who are almost universally opposed to widening the Mideast war--to arouse opposition to such a move by Bush and war advocates like Cheney. Dreyfuss, meanwhile, in an article for the online journal TomPaine.com, focuses on the talk of diplomacy in Bush's Monday UN speech, not on his threats, and concludes that it means "the realists have won" and that there will be no Iran attack.
But all these war skeptics may be whistling past the graveyard. After all, it must be recalled that Bush also talked about seeking diplomatic solutions the whole time he was dead-set on invading Iraq, and the current situation is increasingly looking like a cheap Hollywood sequel. The United States, according to Gardiner and others, already reportedly has special forces operating in Iran, and now major ship movements are looking ominous.
Representative Maurice Hinchey, a leading Democratic critic of the Iraq War, informed about the Navy PTDOs and about the orders for the full Eisenhower Strike Group to head out to sea, said, "For some time there has been speculation that there could be an attack on Iran prior to November 7, in order to exacerbate the culture of fear that the Administration has cultivated now for over five or six years. But if they attack Iran it will be a very bad mistake, for the Middle East and for the US. It would only make worse the antagonism and fear people feel towards our country. I hope this Administration is not so foolish and irresponsible." He adds, "Military people are deeply concerned about the overtaxing of the military already."
Calls for comment from the White House on Iran war plans and on the order for the Eisenhower Strike Group to deploy were referred to the National Security Council press office, which declined to return this reporter's phone calls.
McGovern, who had first told a group of anti-Iraq War activists Sunday on the National Mall in Washington, DC, during an ongoing action called "Camp Democracy," about his being alerted to the strike group deployment, warned, "We have about seven weeks to try and stop this next war from happening."
One solid indication that the dispatch of the Eisenhower is part of a force buildup would be if the carrier Enterprise--currently in the Arabian Sea, where it has been launching bombing runs against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and which is at the end of its normal six-month sea tour--is kept on station instead of sent back to the United States. Arguing against simple rotation of tours is the fact that the Eisenhower's refurbishing and its dispatch were rushed forward by at least a month. A report from the Enterprise on the Navy's official website referred to its ongoing role in the Afghanistan fighting, and gave no indication of plans to head back to port. The Navy itself has no comment on the ship's future orders.
Jim Webb, Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan Administration and currently a Democratic candidate for Senate in Virginia, expressed some caution about reports of the carrier deployment, saying, "Remember, carrier groups regularly rotate in and out of that region." But he added, "I do not believe that there should be any elective military action taken against Iran without a separate authorization vote by the Congress. In my view, the 2002 authorization which was used for the invasion of Iraq should not extend to Iran."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061009/lindorff
looks like bush is planning to invade iran
April 15, 2008
C-SPAN Congress Coverage
April 15, 2008
C-SPAN Congress Coverage
Re: looks like bush is planning to invade iran
Been on Barbara's tip for a while. She is a TRUE patriot. She does not need a F-N pin or a badge to prove it either.
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=195407&highlight=barbara+lee
Been on Barbara's tip for a while. She is a TRUE patriot. She does not need a F-N pin or a badge to prove it either.
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=195407&highlight=barbara+lee
Re: looks like bush is planning to invade iran
Hate to sound like the bad guy but...The congressional black caucus is a joke. Always has been. As long as the continue you to whine over petty shit like memorials for Civil ights heroes it always will be. When is the caucus going to do something, like figureing out how to keep black kids educated and stop the influx of drugs and guns to inner cities. Shit like that has been happening for 30 years and the caucus aint been doing shit but sucking some democrats dick and whining.
Hate to sound like the bad guy but...The congressional black caucus is a joke. Always has been. As long as the continue you to whine over petty shit like memorials for Civil ights heroes it always will be. When is the caucus going to do something, like figureing out how to keep black kids educated and stop the influx of drugs and guns to inner cities. Shit like that has been happening for 30 years and the caucus aint been doing shit but sucking some democrats dick and whining.
Bolton - Will Bush Bomb Iran?: ‘I think so, definitely.’
Thursday, May 8, 2008
In a Fox News interview this afternoon, former UN Ambassador John Bolton discussed his desire to bomb camps inside Iran that are reportedly training and arming Shiite insurgents who fight in Iraq. Fox host Martha McCallum asked, “Can you imagine a scenario where President Bush would do that before the end of his term?” Bolton responded, “I think so, definitely.” He added later, “This is entirely responsible on our part.” Watch it:
Asked by McCallum whether Israel would be supportive of the strikes given the possibility of Iranian retaliation, Bolton responded, “I think they’d be delighted.”
Thursday, May 8, 2008
In a Fox News interview this afternoon, former UN Ambassador John Bolton discussed his desire to bomb camps inside Iran that are reportedly training and arming Shiite insurgents who fight in Iraq. Fox host Martha McCallum asked, “Can you imagine a scenario where President Bush would do that before the end of his term?” Bolton responded, “I think so, definitely.” He added later, “This is entirely responsible on our part.” Watch it:
Asked by McCallum whether Israel would be supportive of the strikes given the possibility of Iranian retaliation, Bolton responded, “I think they’d be delighted.”
<font size="6"><center>Limited US attack </font size><font size="5">
on Iranian Revolutionary Guards bases in sight</font size></center>
DEBKAFile
June 3, 2008, 9:10 PM
Our Washington sources report that president George W. Bush is closer than ever before to ordering a limited missile-air bombardment of the IRGC-al Qods Brigade’s installations in Iran. It is planned to target training camps and the munitions factories pumping fighters, missiles and roadside bombs to the Iraqi insurgency, Lebanese Hizballah and Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza.
Iran is geared up for counteraction.
US intelligence estimates that Tehran’s counteraction will likewise be on a limited scale and therefore any US-Iranian military encounter will not be allowed to explode into a major confrontation. Because this US assault is not planned to extend to Iran’s nuclear installations, Tehran is not expected to hit back at distant American targets in the Persian Gulf or at Israel.
DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources report, however, that Iran’s military preparations for countering an American attack are far broader than envisaged in Washington. Tehran would view a US attack on the IRGC bases as a casus belli and might react in ways and on a scale unanticipated in Washington.
Two days ago, Iran’s defense minister Gen. Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar warned: “Iran’s Armed Forces are fully prepared to counter any military attack with any intensity and to make the enemy regret initiating any such incursions.”
According to DEBKAfile’s Iranian and military sources, the IRGC had by mid-May completed their preparations for a US missile, air or commando assault on their command centers and bases in reprisal for Iranian intervention in Iraq.
These preparations encompass al Qods’ arms, most of them undercover, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Sudan. At home, the Revolutionary Guards have evacuated their key bases together with manpower and equipment to regular army sites or temporary quarters in villages located in remote corners of eastern and northern Iran. Their main headquarters and central training center at the Imam Ali University in northern Tehran are deserted except for sentries on the gates.
Indoctrination seminaries and dormitories hosting fighting strength in the holy town of Qom are empty, as is the Manzariyah training center east of the capital.
Deserted too is the main training camp near Isfahan for insurgents and terrorists from Iraq, Afghanistan, Baluchistan, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. It is here that they take courses from friendly al Qods training staff on how to sabotage strategic targets such as routes, bridges and military installations, and the activation of the extra-powerful roadside bombs (EFPs) which have had such a deadly effect on American troops in Iraq.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm
on Iranian Revolutionary Guards bases in sight</font size></center>
DEBKAFile
June 3, 2008, 9:10 PM
Our Washington sources report that president George W. Bush is closer than ever before to ordering a limited missile-air bombardment of the IRGC-al Qods Brigade’s installations in Iran. It is planned to target training camps and the munitions factories pumping fighters, missiles and roadside bombs to the Iraqi insurgency, Lebanese Hizballah and Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza.
Iran is geared up for counteraction.
US intelligence estimates that Tehran’s counteraction will likewise be on a limited scale and therefore any US-Iranian military encounter will not be allowed to explode into a major confrontation. Because this US assault is not planned to extend to Iran’s nuclear installations, Tehran is not expected to hit back at distant American targets in the Persian Gulf or at Israel.
DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources report, however, that Iran’s military preparations for countering an American attack are far broader than envisaged in Washington. Tehran would view a US attack on the IRGC bases as a casus belli and might react in ways and on a scale unanticipated in Washington.
Two days ago, Iran’s defense minister Gen. Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar warned: “Iran’s Armed Forces are fully prepared to counter any military attack with any intensity and to make the enemy regret initiating any such incursions.”
According to DEBKAfile’s Iranian and military sources, the IRGC had by mid-May completed their preparations for a US missile, air or commando assault on their command centers and bases in reprisal for Iranian intervention in Iraq.
These preparations encompass al Qods’ arms, most of them undercover, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Sudan. At home, the Revolutionary Guards have evacuated their key bases together with manpower and equipment to regular army sites or temporary quarters in villages located in remote corners of eastern and northern Iran. Their main headquarters and central training center at the Imam Ali University in northern Tehran are deserted except for sentries on the gates.
Indoctrination seminaries and dormitories hosting fighting strength in the holy town of Qom are empty, as is the Manzariyah training center east of the capital.
Deserted too is the main training camp near Isfahan for insurgents and terrorists from Iraq, Afghanistan, Baluchistan, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. It is here that they take courses from friendly al Qods training staff on how to sabotage strategic targets such as routes, bridges and military installations, and the activation of the extra-powerful roadside bombs (EFPs) which have had such a deadly effect on American troops in Iraq.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm
sounds like its not a matter of if but when
Wish they would hurry it up and do it so we can get this show on the road.
Attack on Iran seems Imminent
Hard to know what to make of it cause i know the administration is rock hard about fuckin Iran, but i guess we'll know either way in a few weeks or so. maybe sooner
<a href="http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1220186494776&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull">READ ARTICLE</a><br><br>The Dutch intelligence service, the AIVD, has called off an operation aimed at infiltrating and sabotaging Iran's weapons industry due to an assessment that a US attack on the Islamic Republic's nuclear program is imminent, according to a report in the country's De Telegraaf newspaper on Friday.<br><br>Slideshow: Pictures of the week<br><br>The report claimed that the Dutch operation had been "extremely successful," and had been stopped because the US military was planning to hit targets that were "connected with the Dutch espionage action."<br><br>The impending air-strike on Iran was to be carried out by unmanned aircraft "within weeks," the report claimed, quoting "well placed" sources.<br><br>The Jerusalem Post could not confirm the De Telegraaf report.<br>RELATED<br><br> * Biden camp says report on Iran a lie<br> * General: Attack on Iran would cause WWIII<br><br>According to the report, information gleaned from the AIVD's operation in Iran has provided several of the targets that are to be attacked in the strike, including "parts for missiles and launching equipment."<br><br>"Information from the AIVD operation has been shared in recent years with the CIA," the report said.<br><br>On Saturday, Iran's Deputy Chief of Staff General Masoud Jazayeri warned that should the United States or Israel attack Iran, it would be the start of another World War.<br><br>On Friday, Ma'ariv reported that Israel had made a strategic decision to deny Iran military nuclear capability and would not hesitate "to take whatever means necessary" to prevent Teheran from achieving its nuclear goals.<br><br>According to the report, whether the United States and Western countries succeed in thwarting the Islamic Republic's nuclear ambitions diplomatically, through sanctions, or whether a US strike on Iran is eventually decided upon, Jerusalem has begun preparing for a separate, independent military strike.<br>
Hard to know what to make of it cause i know the administration is rock hard about fuckin Iran, but i guess we'll know either way in a few weeks or so. maybe sooner
<a href="http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1220186494776&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull">READ ARTICLE</a><br><br>The Dutch intelligence service, the AIVD, has called off an operation aimed at infiltrating and sabotaging Iran's weapons industry due to an assessment that a US attack on the Islamic Republic's nuclear program is imminent, according to a report in the country's De Telegraaf newspaper on Friday.<br><br>Slideshow: Pictures of the week<br><br>The report claimed that the Dutch operation had been "extremely successful," and had been stopped because the US military was planning to hit targets that were "connected with the Dutch espionage action."<br><br>The impending air-strike on Iran was to be carried out by unmanned aircraft "within weeks," the report claimed, quoting "well placed" sources.<br><br>The Jerusalem Post could not confirm the De Telegraaf report.<br>RELATED<br><br> * Biden camp says report on Iran a lie<br> * General: Attack on Iran would cause WWIII<br><br>According to the report, information gleaned from the AIVD's operation in Iran has provided several of the targets that are to be attacked in the strike, including "parts for missiles and launching equipment."<br><br>"Information from the AIVD operation has been shared in recent years with the CIA," the report said.<br><br>On Saturday, Iran's Deputy Chief of Staff General Masoud Jazayeri warned that should the United States or Israel attack Iran, it would be the start of another World War.<br><br>On Friday, Ma'ariv reported that Israel had made a strategic decision to deny Iran military nuclear capability and would not hesitate "to take whatever means necessary" to prevent Teheran from achieving its nuclear goals.<br><br>According to the report, whether the United States and Western countries succeed in thwarting the Islamic Republic's nuclear ambitions diplomatically, through sanctions, or whether a US strike on Iran is eventually decided upon, Jerusalem has begun preparing for a separate, independent military strike.<br>
Re: Attack on Iran seems Imminent
<font size="3"An Attack Without a Shot Fired ???</font size>
<font size="5"><Center>Stuxnet Computer Worm
Has Vast Repercussions</font size></center>
by Tom Gjelten
October 1, 2010
<font size="3">A powerful new computer worm apparently is capable of causing power plants or pipelines to blow up. It's a cyber superweapon called Stuxnet. Experts suspect it was designed to disable nuclear facilities in Iran but Stuxnet could have consequences its creators did not anticipate.
The Symantec researchers say the Stuxnet worm was designed by a well-funded, well-organized group, perhaps affiliated with a government. They're convinced it was meant to target facilities in Iran. The worm was apparently designed to penetrate and take over the computerized control system used in nuclear plants there.
But it's becoming clear that the repercussions may go far beyond Iran.
</font size>
When cybersecurity experts get together, they usually talk about such things as the latest techniques in credit card fraud. But the big session at the Virus Bulletin conference in Vancouver, Canada, Thursday, was one called Stuxnet: An in depth Look. It was arranged by the Symantec company, whose researchers have been analyzing the computer worm for several weeks.
Eric Chien technical director at Symantec's Security Response Unit, says he and his colleagues have been stunned by what they've found.
"I've been dealing with malicious code threats for 15 to 20 years now, I've seen every large sort of outbreak, and we've never seen anything like this," Chien says. "It's fundamentally changed our job, to be honest."
Because studying a computer worm designed to sabotage a power plant or gas refinery is a far cry from thinking about some virus engineered by a lone hacker.
"It changes the urgency at which we have to analyze these threats and understand them and make sure that people who are affected know they are affected and how to get themselves cleaned up," Chien says.
"Now that it's released, numerous other people will take that and go Aha," says Stephen Spoonamore, a veteran cybersecurity consultant who has spent years pursuing hackers. He thinks some other group may now be able to take the Stuxnet computer code and modify it slightly to create their own cyber superweapon.
Symantec's Chien is not sure it will be all that easy. But if nothing else, he says, other cyberwarriors are likely to be inspired by what Stuxnet has been able to do.
"People have been talking about this in theory for a long time, and we've had movies that have demonstrated this kind of thing, but it's never been done," Chien says. "And now, it's been done."
The Stuxnet story raises the question of what the consequences of using a cyber weapon might be. Maybe Pandora's box has been opened — this weapon or one modeled after it, could soon come back in even more dangerous form. Security experts call this Blowback.
Some experts are convinced the Israeli government developed and used the Stuxnet worm as a weapon, to disable a nuclear plant in Iran.
After all, hitting the nuclear plant with a 500 lbs. bomb would have produced far more collateral damage than attacking it with a cyber weapon, right?
Cybersecurity consultant Spoonamore is not so sure. "Compared to releasing code that controls most of the worlds' hydroelectric dams or many of the world's nuclear plants or many of the world's electrical switching stations? I can think of very few stupider blowback decisions," Spoonamore adds.
Here's the situation: Even as U.S. and other western cybersecurity officers scramble to find new ways to protect industrial facilities from a Stuxnet-like attack, their governments in all likelihood have their own people developing new cyber weapons that are not unlike the Stuxnet worm.
Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn, speaking Thursday night about U.S. cyber war plans at a meeting in New York, said he did not know where Stuxnet came from. Asked about the U.S. military's own offensive cyber arsenal, Lynn refused to comment.
A cyber professional who has worked on both sides says the offensive and defensive players bring different mindsets to their work: Those on the offensive side, tend to focus more narrowly on the accomplishment of their war-fighting mission and may not pay as much attention to the wider consequences.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130260413
<font size="3"An Attack Without a Shot Fired ???</font size>
<font size="5"><Center>Stuxnet Computer Worm
Has Vast Repercussions</font size></center>
by Tom Gjelten
October 1, 2010
<font size="3">A powerful new computer worm apparently is capable of causing power plants or pipelines to blow up. It's a cyber superweapon called Stuxnet. Experts suspect it was designed to disable nuclear facilities in Iran but Stuxnet could have consequences its creators did not anticipate.
The Symantec researchers say the Stuxnet worm was designed by a well-funded, well-organized group, perhaps affiliated with a government. They're convinced it was meant to target facilities in Iran. The worm was apparently designed to penetrate and take over the computerized control system used in nuclear plants there.
But it's becoming clear that the repercussions may go far beyond Iran.
</font size>
When cybersecurity experts get together, they usually talk about such things as the latest techniques in credit card fraud. But the big session at the Virus Bulletin conference in Vancouver, Canada, Thursday, was one called Stuxnet: An in depth Look. It was arranged by the Symantec company, whose researchers have been analyzing the computer worm for several weeks.
Eric Chien technical director at Symantec's Security Response Unit, says he and his colleagues have been stunned by what they've found.
"I've been dealing with malicious code threats for 15 to 20 years now, I've seen every large sort of outbreak, and we've never seen anything like this," Chien says. "It's fundamentally changed our job, to be honest."
Because studying a computer worm designed to sabotage a power plant or gas refinery is a far cry from thinking about some virus engineered by a lone hacker.
"It changes the urgency at which we have to analyze these threats and understand them and make sure that people who are affected know they are affected and how to get themselves cleaned up," Chien says.
"Now that it's released, numerous other people will take that and go Aha," says Stephen Spoonamore, a veteran cybersecurity consultant who has spent years pursuing hackers. He thinks some other group may now be able to take the Stuxnet computer code and modify it slightly to create their own cyber superweapon.
Symantec's Chien is not sure it will be all that easy. But if nothing else, he says, other cyberwarriors are likely to be inspired by what Stuxnet has been able to do.
"People have been talking about this in theory for a long time, and we've had movies that have demonstrated this kind of thing, but it's never been done," Chien says. "And now, it's been done."
The Stuxnet story raises the question of what the consequences of using a cyber weapon might be. Maybe Pandora's box has been opened — this weapon or one modeled after it, could soon come back in even more dangerous form. Security experts call this Blowback.
Some experts are convinced the Israeli government developed and used the Stuxnet worm as a weapon, to disable a nuclear plant in Iran.
After all, hitting the nuclear plant with a 500 lbs. bomb would have produced far more collateral damage than attacking it with a cyber weapon, right?
Cybersecurity consultant Spoonamore is not so sure. "Compared to releasing code that controls most of the worlds' hydroelectric dams or many of the world's nuclear plants or many of the world's electrical switching stations? I can think of very few stupider blowback decisions," Spoonamore adds.
Here's the situation: Even as U.S. and other western cybersecurity officers scramble to find new ways to protect industrial facilities from a Stuxnet-like attack, their governments in all likelihood have their own people developing new cyber weapons that are not unlike the Stuxnet worm.
Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn, speaking Thursday night about U.S. cyber war plans at a meeting in New York, said he did not know where Stuxnet came from. Asked about the U.S. military's own offensive cyber arsenal, Lynn refused to comment.
A cyber professional who has worked on both sides says the offensive and defensive players bring different mindsets to their work: Those on the offensive side, tend to focus more narrowly on the accomplishment of their war-fighting mission and may not pay as much attention to the wider consequences.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130260413
Re: Attack on Iran seems Imminent
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=130260413&m=130258351" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=700>
<A HREF="http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=130260413&m=130258351">link</A>
</IFRAME>
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=130260413&m=130258351" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=700>
<A HREF="http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=130260413&m=130258351">link</A>
</IFRAME>
Re: Attack on Iran seems Imminent
Cyber-terrorism.
Cyber-terrorism.
Re: Attack on Iran seems Imminent
<font size="5">
Ominous signs in Iran under siege</font size>
Asia Times
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
october 2, 2010
<font size="3">Iran is increasingly under siege. From cyber-attacks on its nuclear infrastructure
to biting economic and financial sanctions, to overt support for (armed) opposition
groups, to a military build-up of neighbors, it appears that outside powers are
making a concerted effort at regime change in the Islamic Republic. </font size>
If unchecked, this will likely yield growing regional tensions instead of dialogue that
reduces them. For all practical purposes, United States President Barack Obama's
"Iran engagement" policy has turned into a subversive engagement with pro-
democracy and opposition groups, tantamount to a new level of interference in
Iran's internal affairs under the veneer of democracy and human rights.
By all accounts, in the aftermath of President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's controversial
speech at the United Nations last week eliciting harsh Western responses, the
prospects for dialogue appear to have diminished, replaced by a new, and ominous,
qualitative turn for the worse in the tumultuous US-Iran relations. This in addition
to the new "human rights sanctions" imposed by the US government on a number
of Iranian officials, as well as the new drumbeats of war by various US pundits.
(See New Iran sanctions as war chorus rises Asia Times Online, October 1, 2010.)
Adding new teeth to the harsh jaws of Iran sanctions, the US government has just
announced that four major oil companies are quitting Iran, which, if true, represents
a major blow to the ailing energy sector. It has been forced to shut down several
major projects, such as in Assaluyeh, which is bound to reverberate throughout the
oil-based economy in the near future. United States Deputy Secretary of State
James Steinberg said on Thursday that Royal Dutch Shell, based in Britain and the
Netherlands; France's Total; Eni of Italy; and the Norway-based Statoil had
committed to no further investments in Iran.
Coinciding with Tehran's announcement of a new delay in launching the Bushehr
power plant, widely attributed to the cyber-attack that Tehran say originate from
the US and or Israel, these represent serious setbacks for Iran that the country can
ill-afford.
Simultaneously, neither the US nor its Western allies involved in nuclear negotiation
with Iran have displayed any genuine interest in moving forward with a new round of
negotiation, despite the conciliatory gestures of Ahmadinejad during his New York
visit. There, he repeatedly expressed optimism on new dialogue and even went as
far as declaring Tehran's readiness to halt the 20% uranium enrichment (for the
Tehran reactor) if a proposed nuclear swap deal was accepted by the Vienna Group,
consisting of US, Russia, France and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
According to some Iran experts, Ahmadinejad's 9/11 accusations hurled at the US
government during his UN General Assembly speech served to put Iran on the
offensive in light of all the variegated attacks on Iran, which had put Tehran "on
the defensive". It has also served the president's domestic considerations, given
the solid support by the majority of Iran's parliament (Majlis), many of whom had
been vocally critical of the president prior to his New York visit.
But, as an untimely trade-off between internal gains versus external loss, it is
unclear whether the 9/11 remarks will have a lasting negative impression on Obama,
who lambasted the speech in an interview with the Persian program of the BBC.
That would be unfortunate, given the fact that while in New York Ahmadinejad
revealed the existence of a new letter to Obama, this while praising the US
government for the first time as "an influential world power".
None of those conciliatory gestures seems to matter the least nowadays to
Washington, still angry at Ahmadinejad's audacity in raising the touchy issue of
9/11. This despite the fact that other world leaders such as Venezuela's President
Hugo Chavez have long been making the same allegations of US government
complicity in the 9/11 tragedies, with some help from various US sources. [1]
Ironically, compared to the light reactions in the US media to Chavez's allegations,
Ahmadinejad has been the recipient of the harshest responses, with a Fox news
reporter interviewing him asking him how dare he makes such "stupid and nutty
claims?"
One of his key advisers, who spoke with the author on the condition of anonymity,
maintains that Ahmadinejad's "communicative rationality" is his ace, which disarms
his US media critics who "actually expose their own biases by their rude behavior".
In light of the concerted US-led campaign of destabilization of Iran, the stage is
now set for more ominous developments on the US-Iran front, given the proximity
of US forces to Iranian (land and maritime) territory; in a word, at this point no one
can rule out future triggers such as in the Persian Gulf, scene of potential naval flash
points between US and Iran.
With the risk scenarios many, and a poisoned climate evaporating the chances for
selective cooperation on regional issues such as Ahmadinejad's offer of cooperation
with the US on Afghanistan, the future of US-Iran relations looks hopelessly bleak
at the moment. A familiar story since the onset of the anti-Western Islamist regime
in Iran however, the new level of hostilities between the two countries may be
followed by a cooling off period caused by the mere threat of an unwanted spiral
toward physical confrontation.
According to a Tehran political analyst, the US and Israel have exploited the Iranian
president's 9/11 comments to deflect attention from Israel's total disregard for
Obama's call for extending the moratorium on Jewish settlements in the West Bank,
which he characterized as an impediment to peace process in his UN speech.
Instead of focusing on the Israeli non-response and the mad rush for building
thousands of new housing units in the occupied territories, US Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton, who is reportedly granted the discretion of setting the Iran policy,
has been side-tracked, busy issuing punitive measure after measure on Iran, to
the delight of the pro-Israel lobbyists.
Best described as a Iraq war-in-slow-motion, the current impasse with Iran is
rapidly acquiring all the ingredients of a major international crisis warranting
prudent conflict-management by the world community. The European Union,
which is outsourcing its Iran policy to the Obama administration, requires an
urgent wake-up call before it is too late. But then again who in Europe today
can resist the Obama "charm offensive" even though it may be the Mephisto-
phelean charm of a militarized superpower?
Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's
Foreign Policy (Westview Press) . For his Wikipedia entry, click here. He is
author of Reading In Iran Foreign Policy After September 11 (BookSurge
Publishing , October 23, 2008) and his latest book, Looking for rights at Harvard,
is now available.
(Copyright 2010 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LJ02Ak01.html
<font size="5">
Ominous signs in Iran under siege</font size>
Asia Times
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
october 2, 2010
<font size="3">Iran is increasingly under siege. From cyber-attacks on its nuclear infrastructure
to biting economic and financial sanctions, to overt support for (armed) opposition
groups, to a military build-up of neighbors, it appears that outside powers are
making a concerted effort at regime change in the Islamic Republic. </font size>
If unchecked, this will likely yield growing regional tensions instead of dialogue that
reduces them. For all practical purposes, United States President Barack Obama's
"Iran engagement" policy has turned into a subversive engagement with pro-
democracy and opposition groups, tantamount to a new level of interference in
Iran's internal affairs under the veneer of democracy and human rights.
By all accounts, in the aftermath of President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's controversial
speech at the United Nations last week eliciting harsh Western responses, the
prospects for dialogue appear to have diminished, replaced by a new, and ominous,
qualitative turn for the worse in the tumultuous US-Iran relations. This in addition
to the new "human rights sanctions" imposed by the US government on a number
of Iranian officials, as well as the new drumbeats of war by various US pundits.
(See New Iran sanctions as war chorus rises Asia Times Online, October 1, 2010.)
Adding new teeth to the harsh jaws of Iran sanctions, the US government has just
announced that four major oil companies are quitting Iran, which, if true, represents
a major blow to the ailing energy sector. It has been forced to shut down several
major projects, such as in Assaluyeh, which is bound to reverberate throughout the
oil-based economy in the near future. United States Deputy Secretary of State
James Steinberg said on Thursday that Royal Dutch Shell, based in Britain and the
Netherlands; France's Total; Eni of Italy; and the Norway-based Statoil had
committed to no further investments in Iran.
Coinciding with Tehran's announcement of a new delay in launching the Bushehr
power plant, widely attributed to the cyber-attack that Tehran say originate from
the US and or Israel, these represent serious setbacks for Iran that the country can
ill-afford.
Simultaneously, neither the US nor its Western allies involved in nuclear negotiation
with Iran have displayed any genuine interest in moving forward with a new round of
negotiation, despite the conciliatory gestures of Ahmadinejad during his New York
visit. There, he repeatedly expressed optimism on new dialogue and even went as
far as declaring Tehran's readiness to halt the 20% uranium enrichment (for the
Tehran reactor) if a proposed nuclear swap deal was accepted by the Vienna Group,
consisting of US, Russia, France and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
According to some Iran experts, Ahmadinejad's 9/11 accusations hurled at the US
government during his UN General Assembly speech served to put Iran on the
offensive in light of all the variegated attacks on Iran, which had put Tehran "on
the defensive". It has also served the president's domestic considerations, given
the solid support by the majority of Iran's parliament (Majlis), many of whom had
been vocally critical of the president prior to his New York visit.
But, as an untimely trade-off between internal gains versus external loss, it is
unclear whether the 9/11 remarks will have a lasting negative impression on Obama,
who lambasted the speech in an interview with the Persian program of the BBC.
That would be unfortunate, given the fact that while in New York Ahmadinejad
revealed the existence of a new letter to Obama, this while praising the US
government for the first time as "an influential world power".
None of those conciliatory gestures seems to matter the least nowadays to
Washington, still angry at Ahmadinejad's audacity in raising the touchy issue of
9/11. This despite the fact that other world leaders such as Venezuela's President
Hugo Chavez have long been making the same allegations of US government
complicity in the 9/11 tragedies, with some help from various US sources. [1]
Ironically, compared to the light reactions in the US media to Chavez's allegations,
Ahmadinejad has been the recipient of the harshest responses, with a Fox news
reporter interviewing him asking him how dare he makes such "stupid and nutty
claims?"
One of his key advisers, who spoke with the author on the condition of anonymity,
maintains that Ahmadinejad's "communicative rationality" is his ace, which disarms
his US media critics who "actually expose their own biases by their rude behavior".
In light of the concerted US-led campaign of destabilization of Iran, the stage is
now set for more ominous developments on the US-Iran front, given the proximity
of US forces to Iranian (land and maritime) territory; in a word, at this point no one
can rule out future triggers such as in the Persian Gulf, scene of potential naval flash
points between US and Iran.
With the risk scenarios many, and a poisoned climate evaporating the chances for
selective cooperation on regional issues such as Ahmadinejad's offer of cooperation
with the US on Afghanistan, the future of US-Iran relations looks hopelessly bleak
at the moment. A familiar story since the onset of the anti-Western Islamist regime
in Iran however, the new level of hostilities between the two countries may be
followed by a cooling off period caused by the mere threat of an unwanted spiral
toward physical confrontation.
According to a Tehran political analyst, the US and Israel have exploited the Iranian
president's 9/11 comments to deflect attention from Israel's total disregard for
Obama's call for extending the moratorium on Jewish settlements in the West Bank,
which he characterized as an impediment to peace process in his UN speech.
Instead of focusing on the Israeli non-response and the mad rush for building
thousands of new housing units in the occupied territories, US Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton, who is reportedly granted the discretion of setting the Iran policy,
has been side-tracked, busy issuing punitive measure after measure on Iran, to
the delight of the pro-Israel lobbyists.
Best described as a Iraq war-in-slow-motion, the current impasse with Iran is
rapidly acquiring all the ingredients of a major international crisis warranting
prudent conflict-management by the world community. The European Union,
which is outsourcing its Iran policy to the Obama administration, requires an
urgent wake-up call before it is too late. But then again who in Europe today
can resist the Obama "charm offensive" even though it may be the Mephisto-
phelean charm of a militarized superpower?
Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's
Foreign Policy (Westview Press) . For his Wikipedia entry, click here. He is
author of Reading In Iran Foreign Policy After September 11 (BookSurge
Publishing , October 23, 2008) and his latest book, Looking for rights at Harvard,
is now available.
(Copyright 2010 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LJ02Ak01.html
Re: Attack on Iran seems Imminent
<font size="5"><center>
Stuxnet raises virus stakes</font size></center>
Asia Times
By Martin J Young
Oct 2, 2010
HUA HIN, Thailand - The term "cyber-warfare" has until recently been reserved primarily for spy novels or the corridors of clandestine government security departments. That changed in recent weeks when a nuclear installation in Iran was attacked by a piece of malicious software (malware) called Stuxnet.
The viral code has been circulating since June, but the specific targeting of this particular attack sets a precedent as the first of its kind and a new era of cyber warfare.
Writers and purveyors of malware and viruses have usually been motivated by a desire for notoriety or financial gain. Stuxnet breaks that mould by being malicious code designed as a weapon. It attacks industrial control systems and alters the code in them, allowing hackers to gain control of the physical machinery and manipulate real-world equipment. This makes the threat far more dangerous than a regular virus, which is designed to wreak havoc in cyberspace.
According to online security company Symantec, Stuxnet is sophisticated, well funded and has been created by a highly skilled team over a six-month period.
There are not many groups globally that could have pulled this threat off and fingers are already being pointed:
The digital calling cards in the code could be red herrings designed to flummox investigators or, as many suspect, they could be confirmation of an Israeli effort to thwart Iranian nuclear ambitions.
Israel has never hidden its intentions to undermine the computer systems that manage Iran's large uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, but the malware has also appeared in other countries, including China, India and Indonesia.
It has been reported that Iranian engineers have been struggling to control the huge centrifuges at Natanz that are required for uranium enrichment. The emergence of Stuxnet at another plant only adds to their suspicions.
Israel's secret cyberwar division, Unit 8200, has received huge resources in recent times so<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00"> it is entirely possible that the Stuxnet attack on Bushehr - which does not process uranium - was a warm-up for something bigger</span>.
Cyber warfare stakes have now moved up a level, to one that leaves it highly unlikely Iran will be able to retaliate through USB sticks and computer code.
Martin J Young is an Asia Times Online correspondent based in Thailand.
(Copyright 2010 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
<font size="5"><center>
Stuxnet raises virus stakes</font size></center>
Asia Times
By Martin J Young
Oct 2, 2010
HUA HIN, Thailand - The term "cyber-warfare" has until recently been reserved primarily for spy novels or the corridors of clandestine government security departments. That changed in recent weeks when a nuclear installation in Iran was attacked by a piece of malicious software (malware) called Stuxnet.
The viral code has been circulating since June, but the specific targeting of this particular attack sets a precedent as the first of its kind and a new era of cyber warfare.
- The Bushehr nuclear power plant, on Iran's southwest coastline, was the target of the well-orchestrated digital assault.
- The method of infection would probably have been via a USB memory stick (or sticks), which may have been left in strategic locations to be stumbled upon by employees who would subsequently pocket the device and later plug it into their laptop or workstation.
- Iranian authorities estimated that at least 30,000 computers at the reactor and owned by employees were infected.
- Efforts to remove the viral code were fraught with problems. "The virus is not stable, and since we started the clean-up process three new versions of it have been spreading,” said Hamid Alipour, deputy head of Iran's state run Information Technology Co.
- Industrial control systems made by German company Siemens, which are widely used in Iran, were the targets of the worm, indicating that its creators had advanced knowledge of these types of systems far beyond the scope of a most information technology experts.
- The code is so specialized that it targets only two models of Siemens programmable logic controllers, the S7 300 and S7 400, and will execute only if it finds very specific parameters within the machine. These controllers are usually associated with the management of oil pipeline systems, electrical power grids, and nuclear power plants.
- Alipour went on to state that due to the code's complexity, reach, and huge investment behind its creation it was likely to have originated from a foreign country or organization.
Writers and purveyors of malware and viruses have usually been motivated by a desire for notoriety or financial gain. Stuxnet breaks that mould by being malicious code designed as a weapon. It attacks industrial control systems and alters the code in them, allowing hackers to gain control of the physical machinery and manipulate real-world equipment. This makes the threat far more dangerous than a regular virus, which is designed to wreak havoc in cyberspace.
According to online security company Symantec, Stuxnet is sophisticated, well funded and has been created by a highly skilled team over a six-month period.
There are not many groups globally that could have pulled this threat off and fingers are already being pointed:
- Over the past week, security companies have been dissecting the malware code in an effort to reveal clues about its creators. Feeding conjecture that is spreading across the Internet and media are obscure biblical references discovered hidden in the code.
- The word "Myrtus" offers an ephemeral reference to an Old Testament tale in the Book of Esther, depicting a story about a pre-emptive move by the Jews against a Persian plot to destroy them. The Hebrew word for myrtle, "Hadassah", was the birth name of Esther, a Jewish queen of Persia.
- Other cryptic messages include the date "05091979" which refers to May 9, 1979 - the day Jewish Iranian businessman and philanthropist Habib Elghanian, who played a significant role in bringing Western technology to Iran in the 1960s and 1970s, was executed in Tehran.
The digital calling cards in the code could be red herrings designed to flummox investigators or, as many suspect, they could be confirmation of an Israeli effort to thwart Iranian nuclear ambitions.
Israel has never hidden its intentions to undermine the computer systems that manage Iran's large uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, but the malware has also appeared in other countries, including China, India and Indonesia.
It has been reported that Iranian engineers have been struggling to control the huge centrifuges at Natanz that are required for uranium enrichment. The emergence of Stuxnet at another plant only adds to their suspicions.
Israel's secret cyberwar division, Unit 8200, has received huge resources in recent times so<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00"> it is entirely possible that the Stuxnet attack on Bushehr - which does not process uranium - was a warm-up for something bigger</span>.
Cyber warfare stakes have now moved up a level, to one that leaves it highly unlikely Iran will be able to retaliate through USB sticks and computer code.
Martin J Young is an Asia Times Online correspondent based in Thailand.
(Copyright 2010 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Re: Attack on Iran seems Imminent
<font size="5"><center>
Stuxnet Worm Still Out of Control
at Iran's Nuclear Sites, Experts Say</font size></center>
Iran International Photo Agency, via AFP Aug 21: The first fuel
is loaded into the reactor building at the Russian-built Bushehr
nuclear power plant in Iran
By Ed Barnes
December 09, 2010
FoxNews.com
Iran's nuclear program is still in chaos despite its leaders' adamant claim that they have contained the computer worm that attacked their facilities, cybersecurity experts in the United States and Europe say.
The American and European experts say their security websites, which deal with the computer worm known as Stuxnet, continue to be swamped with traffic from Tehran and other places in the Islamic Republic, an indication that the worm continues to infect the computers at Iran's two nuclear sites.
The Stuxnet worm, named after initials found in its code, is the most sophisticated cyberweapon ever created. Examination of the worm shows it was a cybermissile designed to penetrate advanced security systems. It was equipped with a warhead that targeted and took over the controls of the centrifuge systems at Iran’s uranium processing center in Natanz, and it had a second warhead that targeted the massive turbine at the nuclear reactor in Bashehr.
Stuxnet was designed to take over the control systems and evade detection, and it apparently was very successful. Last week President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, after months of denials, admitted that the worm had penetrated Iran's nuclear sites, but he said it was detected and controlled.
The second part of that claim, experts say, doesn’t ring true.
Eric Byres, a computer expert who has studied the worm, said his site was hit with a surge in traffic from Iran, meaning that efforts to get the two nuclear plants to function normally have failed. The web traffic, he says, shows Iran still hasn’t come to grips with the complexity of the malware that appears to be still infecting the systems at both Bashehr and Natanz.
“The effort has been stunning," Byres said. "Two years ago American users on my site outnumbered Iranians by 100 to 1. Today we are close to a majority of Iranian users.”
He said that while there may be some individual computer owners from Iran looking for information about the virus, it was unlikely that they were responsible for the vast majority of the inquiries because the worm targeted only the two nuclear sites and did no damage to the thousands of other computers it infiltrated.
At one of the larger American web companies offering advice on how to eliminate the worm, traffic from Iran has swamped that of its largest user: the United States.
“Our traffic from Iran has really spiked,” said a corporate officer who asked that neither he nor his company be named. “Iran now represents 14.9 percent of total traffic, surpassing the United States with a total of 12.1 percent. Given the different population sizes, that is a significant number.”
Perhaps more significantly, traffic from Tehran to the company's site is now double that of New York City.
Ron Southworth, who runs the SCADA (the Supervisory Control and Data Access control system that the worm specifically targeted) list server, said that until two years ago he had clearly identified users from Iran, “but they all unsubscribed at about the same time.” Since the announcement of the Stuxnet malware, he said, he has seen a jump in users, but few openly from Iran. He suspects there is a cat-and-mouse game going on that involves hiding the e-mail addresses, but he said it was clear his site was being searched by a number of users who have gone to a great deal of effort to hide their country of origin.
Byres said there are a growing number of impostors signing on to Stuxnet security sites.
“I had one guy sign up who I knew and called him. He said it wasn’t his account. In another case a guy saying he was Israeli tried to sign up. He wasn’t.”
The implication, he says, is that such a massive effort is a sign of a coordinated effort.
Ralph Langner, the German expert who was among the first to study and raise alarms about Stuxnet, said he was not surprised by the development.
“The Iranians don’t have the depth of knowledge to handle the worm or understand its complexity,” he said, raising the possibility that they may never succeed in eliminating it.
“Here is their problem. They should throw out every personal computer involved with the nuclear program and start over, but they can’t do that. Moreover, they are completely dependent on outside companies for the construction and maintenance of their nuclear facilities. They should throw out their computers as well. But they can’t,“ he explained. “They will just continually re-infect themselves.”
“With the best of expertise and equipment it would take another year for the plants to function normally again because it is so hard to get the worm out. It even hides in the back-up systems. But they can’t do it,” he said.
And Iran’s anti-worm effort may have had another setback. In Tehran, men on motorcycles attacked two leading nuclear scientists on their way to work. Using magnetic bombs, the motorcyclists pulled alongside their cars and attached the devices.
One scientist was wounded and the other killed. Confirmed reports say that the murdered scientist was in charge of dealing with the Stuxnet virus at the nuclear plants.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/09/despite-iranian-claims-stuxnet-worm-causing-nuclear-havoc/
<font size="5"><center>
Stuxnet Worm Still Out of Control
at Iran's Nuclear Sites, Experts Say</font size></center>
Iran International Photo Agency, via AFP Aug 21: The first fuel
is loaded into the reactor building at the Russian-built Bushehr
nuclear power plant in Iran
By Ed Barnes
December 09, 2010
FoxNews.com
Iran's nuclear program is still in chaos despite its leaders' adamant claim that they have contained the computer worm that attacked their facilities, cybersecurity experts in the United States and Europe say.
The American and European experts say their security websites, which deal with the computer worm known as Stuxnet, continue to be swamped with traffic from Tehran and other places in the Islamic Republic, an indication that the worm continues to infect the computers at Iran's two nuclear sites.
The Stuxnet worm, named after initials found in its code, is the most sophisticated cyberweapon ever created. Examination of the worm shows it was a cybermissile designed to penetrate advanced security systems. It was equipped with a warhead that targeted and took over the controls of the centrifuge systems at Iran’s uranium processing center in Natanz, and it had a second warhead that targeted the massive turbine at the nuclear reactor in Bashehr.
Stuxnet was designed to take over the control systems and evade detection, and it apparently was very successful. Last week President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, after months of denials, admitted that the worm had penetrated Iran's nuclear sites, but he said it was detected and controlled.
The second part of that claim, experts say, doesn’t ring true.
Eric Byres, a computer expert who has studied the worm, said his site was hit with a surge in traffic from Iran, meaning that efforts to get the two nuclear plants to function normally have failed. The web traffic, he says, shows Iran still hasn’t come to grips with the complexity of the malware that appears to be still infecting the systems at both Bashehr and Natanz.
“The effort has been stunning," Byres said. "Two years ago American users on my site outnumbered Iranians by 100 to 1. Today we are close to a majority of Iranian users.”
He said that while there may be some individual computer owners from Iran looking for information about the virus, it was unlikely that they were responsible for the vast majority of the inquiries because the worm targeted only the two nuclear sites and did no damage to the thousands of other computers it infiltrated.
At one of the larger American web companies offering advice on how to eliminate the worm, traffic from Iran has swamped that of its largest user: the United States.
“Our traffic from Iran has really spiked,” said a corporate officer who asked that neither he nor his company be named. “Iran now represents 14.9 percent of total traffic, surpassing the United States with a total of 12.1 percent. Given the different population sizes, that is a significant number.”
Perhaps more significantly, traffic from Tehran to the company's site is now double that of New York City.
Ron Southworth, who runs the SCADA (the Supervisory Control and Data Access control system that the worm specifically targeted) list server, said that until two years ago he had clearly identified users from Iran, “but they all unsubscribed at about the same time.” Since the announcement of the Stuxnet malware, he said, he has seen a jump in users, but few openly from Iran. He suspects there is a cat-and-mouse game going on that involves hiding the e-mail addresses, but he said it was clear his site was being searched by a number of users who have gone to a great deal of effort to hide their country of origin.
Byres said there are a growing number of impostors signing on to Stuxnet security sites.
“I had one guy sign up who I knew and called him. He said it wasn’t his account. In another case a guy saying he was Israeli tried to sign up. He wasn’t.”
The implication, he says, is that such a massive effort is a sign of a coordinated effort.
Ralph Langner, the German expert who was among the first to study and raise alarms about Stuxnet, said he was not surprised by the development.
“The Iranians don’t have the depth of knowledge to handle the worm or understand its complexity,” he said, raising the possibility that they may never succeed in eliminating it.
“Here is their problem. They should throw out every personal computer involved with the nuclear program and start over, but they can’t do that. Moreover, they are completely dependent on outside companies for the construction and maintenance of their nuclear facilities. They should throw out their computers as well. But they can’t,“ he explained. “They will just continually re-infect themselves.”
“With the best of expertise and equipment it would take another year for the plants to function normally again because it is so hard to get the worm out. It even hides in the back-up systems. But they can’t do it,” he said.
And Iran’s anti-worm effort may have had another setback. In Tehran, men on motorcycles attacked two leading nuclear scientists on their way to work. Using magnetic bombs, the motorcyclists pulled alongside their cars and attached the devices.
One scientist was wounded and the other killed. Confirmed reports say that the murdered scientist was in charge of dealing with the Stuxnet virus at the nuclear plants.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/09/despite-iranian-claims-stuxnet-worm-causing-nuclear-havoc/
source: The Telegraph
Wikileaks: Iran's nuclear technology 'not as advanced as some believe'
China does not believe Iran has advanced nuclear technology or that it is close to making a nuclear weapon, according to diplomatic cables leaked by the whistle-blowing website, Wikileaks.
Chinese government officials played down Iran's nuclear threat and urged the United States to engage with the rogue state.
In one cable from the US Embassy in Beijing, sent on October 22, 2009, Ni Ruchi, the deputy director of the Iran division at the Chinese ministry of Foreign Affairs is quoted dismissing US fears.
"Ni stressed, too, that Iran's nuclear technology was not as advanced 'as some might believe'," the cable recorded. Mr Ni also said that Iran's "overall level of industrial development" was too backward to have created a nuclear weapon.
"He noted that of the 5,000 centrifuges in Iran, less [sic] than half were actually in operation," the cable said.
In all the despatches released on Monday on Wikileaks, Beijing is shown to be playing a mollifying role towards Iran, urging the US towards direct discussions with the Islamic state, even when the situation appears fruitless publicly.
Li Guofu, the director of the Centre for Middle East Studies at the China Institute for International Studies in Beijing, told American diplomats that senior Chinese officials had told him they would do everything possible "to assist communication".
China has staunchly supported Iran, on which it relies for a sizeable portion of its energy needs, but Mr Li disclosed that Tehran still does not fully trust Beijing.
"'Iran trusts nobody'," he told US diplomats. "The Iranian leadership believed that when pushed to make a choice, China would side with the United States over Iran."
The Wikileaks documents also disclosed that the US had requested help from China to prevent Russian-made gyroscopes from reaching Iran through China. In one case, from this February, a Chinese company called Hong Kong 4 Star Electronics was discovered to be about to ship gyroscopes that "potentially could be diverted to missile-related end users".
It is not clear whether Beijing responded favourably to the request for an export ban on the items.
Wikileaks: Iran's nuclear technology 'not as advanced as some believe'
China does not believe Iran has advanced nuclear technology or that it is close to making a nuclear weapon, according to diplomatic cables leaked by the whistle-blowing website, Wikileaks.
Chinese government officials played down Iran's nuclear threat and urged the United States to engage with the rogue state.
In one cable from the US Embassy in Beijing, sent on October 22, 2009, Ni Ruchi, the deputy director of the Iran division at the Chinese ministry of Foreign Affairs is quoted dismissing US fears.
"Ni stressed, too, that Iran's nuclear technology was not as advanced 'as some might believe'," the cable recorded. Mr Ni also said that Iran's "overall level of industrial development" was too backward to have created a nuclear weapon.
"He noted that of the 5,000 centrifuges in Iran, less [sic] than half were actually in operation," the cable said.
In all the despatches released on Monday on Wikileaks, Beijing is shown to be playing a mollifying role towards Iran, urging the US towards direct discussions with the Islamic state, even when the situation appears fruitless publicly.
Li Guofu, the director of the Centre for Middle East Studies at the China Institute for International Studies in Beijing, told American diplomats that senior Chinese officials had told him they would do everything possible "to assist communication".
China has staunchly supported Iran, on which it relies for a sizeable portion of its energy needs, but Mr Li disclosed that Tehran still does not fully trust Beijing.
"'Iran trusts nobody'," he told US diplomats. "The Iranian leadership believed that when pushed to make a choice, China would side with the United States over Iran."
The Wikileaks documents also disclosed that the US had requested help from China to prevent Russian-made gyroscopes from reaching Iran through China. In one case, from this February, a Chinese company called Hong Kong 4 Star Electronics was discovered to be about to ship gyroscopes that "potentially could be diverted to missile-related end users".
It is not clear whether Beijing responded favourably to the request for an export ban on the items.
<FONT SIZE="5">
Israel Tests on Worm Called
Crucial in Iran Nuclear Delay</font size>
New York Times
By WILLIAM J. BROAD,
JOHN MARKOFF and
DAVID E. SANGER
January 15, 2011
The Dimona complex in the Negev desert is famous as the heavily guarded heart of Israel’s never-acknowledged nuclear arms program, where neat rows of factories make atomic fuel for the arsenal.
Over the past two years, according to intelligence and military experts familiar with its operations, Dimona has taken on a new, equally secret role — as a critical testing ground in a joint American and Israeli effort to undermine Iran’s efforts to make a bomb of its own.
Behind Dimona’s barbed wire, the experts say, Israel has spun nuclear centrifuges virtually identical to Iran’s at Natanz, where Iranian scientists are struggling to enrich uranium. They say Dimona tested the effectiveness of the Stuxnet computer worm, a destructive program that appears to have wiped out roughly a fifth of Iran’s nuclear centrifuges and helped delay, though not destroy, Tehran’s ability to make its first nuclear arms.
FULL STORY: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html
`
Israel Tests on Worm Called
Crucial in Iran Nuclear Delay</font size>
New York Times
By WILLIAM J. BROAD,
JOHN MARKOFF and
DAVID E. SANGER
January 15, 2011
The Dimona complex in the Negev desert is famous as the heavily guarded heart of Israel’s never-acknowledged nuclear arms program, where neat rows of factories make atomic fuel for the arsenal.
Over the past two years, according to intelligence and military experts familiar with its operations, Dimona has taken on a new, equally secret role — as a critical testing ground in a joint American and Israeli effort to undermine Iran’s efforts to make a bomb of its own.
Behind Dimona’s barbed wire, the experts say, Israel has spun nuclear centrifuges virtually identical to Iran’s at Natanz, where Iranian scientists are struggling to enrich uranium. They say Dimona tested the effectiveness of the Stuxnet computer worm, a destructive program that appears to have wiped out roughly a fifth of Iran’s nuclear centrifuges and helped delay, though not destroy, Tehran’s ability to make its first nuclear arms.
FULL STORY: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html
`
