US Carried Out Secret Cyber Strike on Iran in Wake of Saudi Oil Attack (reuters.com) 85
The United States carried out a secret cyber operation against Iran in the wake of the Sept. 14 attacks on Saudi Arabia's oil facilities, which Washington and Riyadh blame on Tehran, two U.S. officials have told Reuters. From the report: The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the operation took place in late September and took aim at Tehran's ability to spread "propaganda." One of the officials said the strike affected physical hardware, but did not provide further details. The attack highlights how President Donald Trump's administration has been trying to counter what it sees as Iranian aggression without spiraling into a broader conflict.
Asked about Reuters reporting on Wednesday, Iran's Minister of Communications and Information Technology Mohammad Javad Azari-Jahromi said: "They must have dreamt it," Fars news agency reported. The U.S. strike appears more limited than other such operations against Iran this year after the downing of an American drone in June and an alleged attack by Iran's Revolutionary Guards on oil tankers in the Gulf in May. The United States, Saudi Arabia, Britain, France and Germany have publicly blamed the Sept. 14 attack on Iran, which denied involvement in the strike. The Iran-aligned Houthi militant group in Yemen claimed responsibility. Publicly, the Pentagon has responded by sending thousands of additional troops and equipment to bolster Saudi defenses -- the latest U.S. deployment to the region this year.
Asked about Reuters reporting on Wednesday, Iran's Minister of Communications and Information Technology Mohammad Javad Azari-Jahromi said: "They must have dreamt it," Fars news agency reported. The U.S. strike appears more limited than other such operations against Iran this year after the downing of an American drone in June and an alleged attack by Iran's Revolutionary Guards on oil tankers in the Gulf in May. The United States, Saudi Arabia, Britain, France and Germany have publicly blamed the Sept. 14 attack on Iran, which denied involvement in the strike. The Iran-aligned Houthi militant group in Yemen claimed responsibility. Publicly, the Pentagon has responded by sending thousands of additional troops and equipment to bolster Saudi defenses -- the latest U.S. deployment to the region this year.
It's US agression (Score:1, Troll)
Dropping out of the Iran Nuclear deal was stupid. People don't like to face facts, but the issues in Iran are 100% the fault of the US and UK and what became known as BP.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, if Iran played by the rules of most of the world, they'd have a WONDERFUL live and economy.
If they'd stop supporting terrorist groups directly...if they'd quit acting aggressively, if they would give up making nukes, the world would be their oyster.
Re: (Score:1)
They actually did what you demand here, until suddenly it became illegal to sell them fuel for their nuclear reactors. Now what exactly did you expect them to do? Sit in the dark?
Re: (Score:1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Electricity production by source:
fossil fuel: 93% (75% comes from gas generation, 18% from oil) (2006); 86.2% of total installed capacity (2010 est.)
hydro: 7% (2006); 13.7% of total installed capacity (2010 est.)
Nuclear power: 2.1%
Sit in the dark? Come off it. Iran doesn't need nuclear power to generate electricity, and with its vast gas and oil reserves, it never will.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that the sun doesn't shine in Iran? Or are you suggesting they can't afford solar panels? Are you suggesting perhaps that they couldn't just burn the same oil they sell us, like we do, for some reason? Why, exactly is it that they need the absolutely most dangerous and costly electricity generation tech that just coincidentally puts them one manufacturing step away from weapons-grade plutonium?
Re: (Score:2)
They do burn the same oil that they sell. They'd prefer to sell more, though.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They haven't done anything of the sort, they've been exhibiting this bad behavior ever since the downfall of the Shah and they took the US hostages.
They've been on a terrorist bent and world rogue ever since.
Wrong. (Score:2)
Everything you said is just plain false.
Watch less FOX Nieuwz please.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Wrong. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Where'd they get nuclear plants? Why'd they have the revolution? Aggressively? How many wars have they started in the ME?
Everything you said is propaganda and you should look up the history of Iran.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you talking to yourself?
How about them wanting to completely destroy Israel?
Supporting Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah?
Let's not forget the americans they took hostage in the '70s, and again under Obama, terrorizing the Strait of Hormuz.
They're not stupid nor are they so innocent. They plan to keep working on nukes until they can rule the ME again, like the glory days of Persia.
no, I'm talking to you (Score:2)
Most of that's just political propaganda... and what I'm talking about is how they came to take american hostages. I'm not saying they're totally innocent, I'm saying the stuff you are talking about is not historical, it's not what's going on. What's going on is they had a democratically elected liberal government we deposed, installing the Shah. And they remember all that because many people that lived through that are still alive!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
thing it is DOES make sense what I said (Score:1)
and I don't hate America, I love America. Don't bother arguing it when you won't look up the known history of events.
Look who's talking! (Score:2)
The guys, who, remember, armed Iran until it was the third biggest army in the world, back in the cold war!
The guys who openly support and defend the Saudis. A country that literally has the same laws as the IS.
The guys who currently are the epitome of a crazy leadership sitting on a throne of nukes.
The guys who openy admitted just now, to an act of war against Iran.
I'm no fan of Iran's leadership, so I'm not defending it, but ... let's just say Americans are known for being arrogant like the French, loud-m
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Triggered much? (Score:2)
Screech louder, Nazi. Look who cares:
Re: (Score:2)
lol (Score:1)
Omg... FDR lost the argument!!!
Awe, guess what... (Score:1)
... I'm not going to move there. I like America and I'm not leaving it to degenerates like yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Islam. It's all about Islamic fundamentalism...
No it is not, and it hasn't been since 1953. You should read a history book.
America is the bad guy here and has been since they installed the brutal, murderous Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What rights did anyone in Iran have under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi? You know, the guy who ordered the torture of anyone who criticized him and outlawed all the political parties, except the one he ran?
What rights do women have in Saudi Arabia, you know, that country that sent a bunch of it's people to fly some planes into some buildings in New York that time?
Re: (Score:2)
Liar, liar, pants of fire. That is exactly the correct response to your claims. What to say what Iran did PROVE IT IN FUCKING COURT else you know stfu with you claims, consider this not addresses to you but to the government of the United States of America and it 17(according to HRC, eww) agencies. Stop the lies, want to make a claim, prove it in court, so, so, many lies have blown up in your faces, years, months, weeks and even days after you tell them. We don't believe you any more, prove it, that's it. U
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like back in 1950 when the people voted and the streets of Tehran looked like an American city?
Re: (Score:2)
"If they'd stop supporting terrorist groups directly...if they'd quit acting aggressively, if they would give up making nukes, the world would be their oyster."
Wait, are we critiquing Iranian foreign policy or American?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
What nuclear deal? Was there ever a formal deal with Iran? No treaty or "deal" was ever ratified by the Senate.
Do you mean the agreement that President Obama wanted that his own Administration said was nonbinding [politico.com]? That agreement based on wishes and pallets of dollars?
Using a treaty is the historically correct way [fas.org] to deal with "compacts concerning mutual defense, extradition and mutual legal assistance, human rights, arms control and reduction, environmental protection, taxation, and the final resolution
Re:It's US agression (Score:4, Informative)
you don't know where the dollars came from, do you... that was frozen assets of the Shah's that were already ruled to belong to them, that Obama finally unfroze.
They didn't violate agreement, we ended up violating it. And I'm sure you always believe everything from cbsnews... am I right. But even so, that's them "violating" an agreement after we left the agreement! You think they're bound by agreement with us that we left? TYPICAL.
And he couldn't get it ratified, which would be better, because of our hostile and traitorous republican senate.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, most authorities and all our NATO allies say they were complying, and the example given in the link was about something AFTER we threw out the deal!
What we need to do now is restore the agreement, and ratify it as a treaty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There was a deal, a multiparty deal with NATO allies. Not all deals are ratified treaties... like The Idiots deal to let Turky invade Syria.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm willing to be corrected, but that did not clarify things. Where do you think the funds came from? That article simply implies there are still frozen funds and that the "Iran Nuclear Deal" specified unfreezing some funds. So...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree with your statement other than I think the root of the problem goes back even further than the 1950s. Imperialism at the turn of the last century had Britain and Russia carving up Persia for their own purposes. That's where an attitude against the hegemony of foreign powers (rightly) started to take root. Further, during WWII Britain and Russia occupied the country and forced Reza Shah to abdicate as they feared he might sign with the Germans. They installed Mohammad Reza Shah (son of R
No Doubt (Score:1)
It goes back to The Anglo-Persion Oil company and the discovery of oil in Iran in the early 20'th century, absolutely. The robbery of Iran and essentially wage-enslavement of the Iranian workers... and of course the Anglo-Persion Oil company became BP.
Re: It's US agression (Score:1)
So, no one can... (Score:3)
Geez....
Re:So, no one can... (Score:4, Interesting)
...keep a secret any more?
Geez....
An important part of espionage is disinformation. A lot of times, leaks are intentional and meant to get the adversary chasing their own tails.
If the US had really successfully carried out this attack . . . I don't think we would have heard of it.
When script kiddies hack a system . . . they brag about it on Facebook.
When spook pros hack a system . . . they stay quiet about it. Otherwise the owner of the hacked system will plug the holes, and turn off the flow of intelligence.
Re: (Score:3)
It depends.
A lot of people talk about "cyber" as a new deterrent-level weapon. However, the problem with deterrents is they only work if people know you have them. Nuclear weapons tests, for instance, provide both the real telemetry data necessary to validate a design and implementation, but also are noticeable events that let those who can sense nuclear explosions know you have nuclear weapons.
Cyber tests aren't visible from space. Thus, if you want the cyber capabilities to act like a deterrent then you n
Re: (Score:2)
It's just a story about being tough. The Houthis hit Saudi Arabia really hard , they have been for a while, and there isn't much which can be done about it.
The story about 'it's really the Iranians' is made up. Likely ' we're hitting them back' is also made up.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, it was "hardware". So they probably planted some malware on a low level diplomat's phone and called it good.
Tesla (Score:2)
If people would just buy Teslas we wouldn't need oil.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I'd just ponder if we got the right religion. I mean, what did our god have in mind when he decided to bury all of our oil with the Muslims?
Must be one of those "test" things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, oil is always seems to be with the religious zealots.
Re: (Score:2)
The EIA says no [eia.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
You successfully disproved the parent post, but the effect of me learning that we only import 11% of our oil is almost the same as during the brief 15 seconds where I thought we exported more than we imported. Why are we falling all over ourselves if we produce 86% of our own oil? I bet if 3 people replaced their hummers with Prius's, we'd no longer be dependent on foreign oil. The US should make that a goal because I bet even the Republicans would be for it: Set the gas mileage standards at the point wh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you all for reminding me why I still attend this forum.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure the US 'needs' oil trade to some extent but the argument is misleading. The parent argument in a more general manner is correct, the US doesn't need to control the oil that much for itself.
The US has had a policy of controlling oil resources ever since it won WW2 but absolutely not because it needed it. That has never been the motivation. It could have been self sufficient if it wanted to be, it could still get manage if all import/export were stopped and it is not hard to trade for what it needed. Tha
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I'd just ponder if we got the right religion. I mean, what did our god have in mind when he decided to bury all of our oil with the Muslims?
Must be one of those "test" things.
Hey, the Christians had their shot. They were there too but most of them decided to leave. They tried to come back 3 or so times, but none of those really ended too well.
Nuclear (Score:1)
What a silly species. Nuclear is safer than oil and almost free if you don't need a reactor that makes plutonium for bombs. And carbon free. And makes electricity so we can drive our electric cars.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet that if we could see nuclear radiation with our eyes, we would fear it less.
Yep (Score:1)
I totally agree. But the funny thing is... you can see it with a Geiger counter... it's way easier to know somewhere is poisoned with radioactive material than say the lead in the soil.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I did that last week. I went to an 'open house' day at ESTEC (part of the European Space Agency), and among many other exhibits, they had a cloud chamber running, so we could see the tracks left by individual particles. Quite an amazing sight.
Re: (Score:2)
My house runs on a Tesla.
Unauthorized act of war. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The US jas perpetually been at "not-war" since WW2 (Score:2)
Somehow, they found a wording that makes them convince themselves it is "not war".
And the enemies are too weak agains the world's biggest bully, to declare that it was an act of war, and fight back. As they'd lose even more.
This won't be the case for much longer though. There are other large countries and unions with nukes, standing in line to finally punch the big bully.
And I'm sorry guys, for talking like that, as I have no interest in harming anyone, including Americans. I just don't associate you with t
Paper Terrorism! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, they gave away copies of Windows 10.
Re: (Score:2)
Why report this? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So people will know what their country is doing in their name?
Re: (Score:2)
This kind of US ability should have only been hinted at in 50 years in some history book under a project name.
Now two U.S. "officials" talk to the media within months about secret US methods
1. It was done as cover ie distant network vs direct human access.
2. The US wants Iran to call in a lot of experts to look over all its network, further opening network to direct actions by the NSA and G
Why does the NSA exist except to spend our money (Score:3)
Defending the Saudis, of all people! (Score:2)
The Saudis have the same laws as the IS!
The US definding them, shows their morals very well.
Also, how convenient, when you just say you "reacted" and "defended" when doing an offensive attack. ^^ Reminds me of that South Park scene where they yell "They're coming right at us!", before shooting an animal. ^^
I'm not pro anyone, by the way. I think all humans are equally cunts, and extinction cannot come early enough.