This is interesting because it is much less subtle than stuxnet. One of the core features of stuxnet was that it broke centrifuges in a way that looked like (I think) manufacturering faults. That's why it went on so long and did so much damage: no one thought to look for it. It even faked logs I believe.
This incident seems to be the opposite: a big one day event timed to make a splash and be quite obvious...
Most countries, if they could, would like to advance one narrative on the world stage and a separate one to their citizens.
Perhaps this isn't aimed at us westerners - and instead it's aimed at Iranians.
The message being "Yet more evidence that our country is under constant assault by the forces of evil who are threatened by our growing strength. They are the cause of any problems you see, support our homeland security and military"
There's also a message for possible allies in the region: "As you can see, Western countries don't respect our sovereignty, any respect they claim to have for yours is an illusion, show solidarity with us fellow autocratic religious oil-producing countries"
I mean, the "growing strength" part and the "cause of any problems" part would be pretty farfetched in any serious conversation. Iran has been on its back foot ever since Obama left the picture because US policy got far more hawkish, and the fact that Iran shot down a passenger plane and tried to lie about it was a self-own. The Iranian people don't seem to blame foreign governments, they blame the Islamic regime. Oil prices have bumped back up but their crash was damaging to Iran's revenue expectations. The country was hit very hard by the virus and it's hard to blame the West for something that came from Wuhan.
The government there doesn't choose its narrative based on what's true or believable. When you think of it as a mafia that controls the country and presents a caricature of representative government while stealing and killing, things start to make more sense.
And "evil" is entirely subjective, one can easily say that Israel is evil for human rights and international law violations, and a similar argument can easily be made against the US, Turkey, UK, France, Saudi Arabia Iran as well.
At the end of the day the would like to have their sanctions removed in exchange for shutting down their nuclear program.
And it also feeds the narrative of beeing the victim of the other states beeing the aggressors.
Stupid question, but why isn’t it bombed (or all trucks coming/leaving targeted)? As far as I know, it is “illegal” (whatever the international equivalent is) to attempt to acquire the nuclear bomb.
Which triggers the question, how did France obtain leniency from international powers when it gave the nuclear bomb to Israel in the 1960ies? Who decides what is legal? And who decides that Iran’s facility is not “slated for immediate removal”, given it seems USA is down to targeting cigarette smugglers with drones in other countries, and nuclear bomb seems a bit more threatening?
It isn't bombed because it's not that easy, as Iran has sophisticated anti aircraft capabilities like the S-300. And as the area is already a powder keg there is no deniability with aircrafts or cruise missiles flying across closely monitored borders.
WMD was the casus belli for the Iraq War, and look how that worked out. Israel has performed one-off airstrikes in the past (look up the Osirak reactor project).
Its like Iraq, Israel sends the Americans to die en masse for their geopolitical goals. Iran is a formidable enemy and would be able to do significant damage with their missiles. Why risk it when your AIPAC buddies will get Americans to die for you?
Nothing I said is controversial, if you want to read about Israel’s strong influence on US middle east policy, I suggest the seminal work by Meatsheimer and Walt.
You have to start earlier than that. In the 1950s, Iran became a brutal dictatorship under their Shah ( who got there with an Allied-sponsored coup during WW2) via a CIA and MI6 sponsored coup against the democratically elected PM, who wanted to nationalise British oil interests to fund social programs and improve Iran. The Shah brutally supresed opposition, until one day it became too much and in the 1970s a revolution by a communist and Islamist coalition overthrew the old regime ( the islamists came up ahead and Iran became an Islamic Republic). The US has been against them from that moment on, and Iran has hated them for enabling the Shah, and continuing meddling ever since. ( Bar a small and very illegal episode known as the Iran-Contra affair, where the US sold weapons and spare parts to Iran in exchange for off-books cash, which was funneled into the terrorist Contras in Nicaragua, to circumvent US Congress restrictions on help to the latter)
It's fascinating reading, i encourage you to look up the details yourself.
D) They refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist, and keep vowing to wipe it and its citizens off the map. Hopefully it's mostly rhetoric, but...
E) Their Revolutionary Guard is extremely powerful politically. It's not clear the civilian government is capable of fully reigning in the Revolutionary Guard, and the Revolutionary Guard's political power is propped up by the prospect of war.
The geography is really good to defend the country.
It's not like iraq where you can drive your tank to the capital in 48 hours.
Also they can easily close the street of hormus, shutting down the oil supply from the region.
Nuclear weapons have been proofen to work as a deterrent for meddling super powers.
What i do not understand is why the capability to build them has to be developed locally?
Buy in bulk in north korea..
seems to me that whenever iran is getting closer to some favorable deal with the west there is some attack. pretty sure it's a provocation so Iran counter attacks and loses the deal.
how can any american or israeli support saying "stuxnet" in a normal way of conversation when it is a weapon used against another country with disastrous effects all the while latching on to "wiping israel off the map" which is something i'm told the guy didn't say.
For starters, because it's "might makes right" and double blatant standards all the way down.
Nothing particularly unique, for almost any empire in history has operated worked that way. Just as almost any empire eventually had to resort to increasingly more covert, corrupt and criminal enterprises to support itself. At some point, it inevitably will all come crashing down.
In the case of America, several generation will ask themselves how they could have been so dumb to let it get that far. No entirely fair, because their parents didn't really have the power to influence (let alone stop) any of it. Not without completely destroying the same system that also supported their way of life. Many people in the Soviet Union at some point knew at some point that the system was doomed, but nobody know how to change that reality for the better.
A lot can be learned from reading books written by Russians, about the collapse of the Soviet Union. Or books by Germans, after the end of World War II.
In fairness, it's hard to blame current day Americans for not clearly seeing what's going on, considering the level of cultural, institutionalized and commercial brainwashing (including deliberate division and diversion) that has been part of every aspect of life there, for decades (if not a century).
Still, there will come a day that Americans will have a rude awakening about reality and how those who run their country (be that government or private interests) have ruined their future and well being for a long time to come, just as the Russians and Germans once had.
"Few nations like the idea of Iran enhancing its nuclear capabilities"
Lol. No nation in over a decade likes this idea except for maybe North Korea. Sure Israel has always been the most vocal, but Iran having the bomb is an international liability.
Even the Sunni Arabs stripes have changed. Common enemies make strange bedfellows. Also, the Iranians have been willing to flex against their neighbors more recently. See the 2019 Abqaiq–Khurais attack.
My bet is that there's likely been a lot of international cooperation behind this and every other attempt. The Israelis likely take the blame to help others save face.
Consider the US/EU/Russians/Turks have called out Israelis after umpteen assassinations. No punitive actions have materialize.
Instead, trade has flourished with the aforementioned parties, and now we have the Abraham Accords, and the Saudi's might even open their door.
It's particularly interesting considering Israel's ambiguous nuclear capabilities for which international entities have more than simply closed an eye; let alone the shallow, steady claims Iran would be in possession of nuclear weapons "within few years" since 1980s. Needless to say, it is within everyone's interests to keep another player from joining the nuclear club so that they will continue to have the advantage in negotiations, understandably so. This is not the first time and presumably not the last: when will Iran break?
It is entitled to nuclear power (and indeed help from nuclear weapons states in developing that technology) under the terms of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (to which it is a signatory). That is the same reason it is not entitled to nuclear weapons.
Iran voluntarily signed up to the treaty and received various benefits for doing so in return for agreeing not to pursuing nuclear weapons capability (same as every other non-nuclear weapons state signatory).
That is of course true, but also a legalistic take, as Iran not signing on to the NPT, or indeed leaving it, would not make Western powers go "oh ok, so it's fine now".
The reality is that most of the non-nuclear states are largely happy with the arrangement of living within the US nuclear umbrella and acknowledge that more nuclear weapon states do not benefit the common good, the nuclear weapon states have no interest in losing their monopoly (and are arguably breaking the treaty by failing to pursue disarmament).
The difference between Iran and North Korea is that the political system in Iran is much more nuanced, and makes it much harder for them to pursue a "lets acquire a nuke at all costs" policy, so they have to play it smart, and acquire the ability to build a weapon without actually doing it.
The difference between Iran and say India is that both the US and Israel justifiably see Iran as an antagonist, and in addition Israel is able to command significant political capital in Washington.
- Israel justifiably sees Iran as an antagonist, and they have a significant influen
As far as I know, India recognizes Pakistan's right to exist, and doesn't regularly threaten to wipe Pakistan off the map / drive all of its citizens into the sea.
Disclaimer: this is not an endorsement but a statement of fact.
There is no should or shouldn't. This is power, and those with power make, change, and break the rules as they wish.
Just consider that the US flagrantly violated the Iran deal, and nothing punitive happened.
Sure, there's an NPT on paper, and yes we have a far smaller stock pile of 4k nukes... but how can the US get away running nuclear tests in 1992, 30 years after an NPT which "obligates the nuclear weapons states to liquidate their nuclear stockpiles and pursue complete disarmament." How did the US pull off nuke research in 2003 or actually building new bombs in 2007? Why did no one else start pounding their chests demanding sanctions or IAEA inspectors?
Simple: The "rules" don't apply to the US or most major powers.
Its actually quite weird. Israel, France, the UK, and the USA all saying Iran cannot have nuclear weapons while all having nuclear weapons themselves (and the USA having used it on two civilian populations).
So the US also signed the NPT where all the nuclear states also pledged to eliminate their arsenals... But we built a few more in '07. We also didn't sign the '17 treaty on prohibiting nuclear weapons.
Only one nation has ever demonstrated and itchy trigger finger when it comes to these weapons.
Maybe you could make a case that having these weapons would make them more hostile/expansionist/aggressive. It certainly has merit considering what the US has been up to since 1945.
Some people and country may hate America for its foreign policy but underlying principle of America is liberty and democracy. Its for this reason other countries willingly at best or grudgingly approve the status of America as super power.
But Iran or any other middle east countries are too religious and follow Islam which is violent in its fundamental principle. Even if exceptional leaders emerge and manage to make progress in women rights, individual libery etc(Example saudi arabia for providing driving license to women) it will short lived as in the case of Turkey. The reason is state can not be separated from the religion according to Islam. For this fundamental reason Islamic countries possessing nuclear weapons is very dangerous to entire world and non muslim country should approve.
It's dangerous for countries that are run by demagogues to have nukes. Pakistan is a muslim country, but they've had nukes since 1998 without much fanfare. On the flip side, North Korea has nukes, and that's far more unsettling.
Imran Khan who is the current prime minister of pakistan was pro women rights and individual liberty but as soon as he came to power, he was forced to let go of his ideas and stick to religious preaching to stay in power. This is the state of Islam. No change is possible.
Even more outrageous is when well read muslims migrate to other countries they expect their religious rights to be respected. This is very sad state.
The Israelis have pretty much come out and said that they were responsible. They’re trying to sabatoge talks because Israel would collapse if it didn’t have an external enemy.
You have a bunch of overworked underpaid and under qualified engineers in charge of deploying a nuclear facility with a ton of political pressure, and some crazy ass deadline.
On day one, your systems compeletley fold... Because of reasons. Do you admit fault and face political regime consequences?
Or... Do you blame it on a "system fault caused by hackers"
This incident seems to be the opposite: a big one day event timed to make a splash and be quite obvious...