
U.S. carried out secret cyber strike on Iran after Saudi oil attack: officials - el_duderino
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-military-cyber-exclusive-idUSKBN1WV0EK
======
wil421
For the people commenting about leakers and things being secret in the past,
I’ll bet money the government leaked this themselves.

~~~
notlukesky
The more important problem is that we don’t even know if this attack: 1) ever
occurred 2) if it did occur, was it even the US 3) if it was even an attack,
was it in fact a cyberattack at all (you would want to protect actual human
assets who do physical damage in say industrial control systems as an insider
job by saying it was a remote attack using some sort of zero day attack)

Anonymous government sources, especially in cyber security, have a track
record of persistent lying

Remember the China chip hacking story by Bloomberg built on anonymous
government sources. The alleged fake news was never retracted - even though it
was technically not a possible attack if you know how chips are made. (There
are chips that had arguably deliberately installed flaws - the Intel chip with
the OTP generator that was trivially crackable and the RSA keyfob with the
default NSA backdoor).

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-
big-h...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-
china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies)

[https://siliconangle.com/2018/10/22/apple-amazon-super-
micro...](https://siliconangle.com/2018/10/22/apple-amazon-super-micro-call-
bloomberg-retract-china-spy-chip-story/)

[https://www.wired.com/2013/09/rsa-advisory-nsa-
algorithm/](https://www.wired.com/2013/09/rsa-advisory-nsa-algorithm/)

~~~
deepVoid
The China chip hacking story was an invented story by Bloomberg. Everyone else
denied it including Apple as the customer, US government, the supplier of the
chip etc. Bloomberg fabricated the story. Ever since, I do not trust Bloomberg
as a reliable source of information.

------
davidwitt415
Apropos to the Noam Chomsky 'Manufacturing Consent' thread, the USG and
Corporate Media have enshrined the false narrative that this was an Iranian
attack. While Iran is supporting the Yemenis, independent military analysts
agree that Yemen had the capabilities to carry out the attack, and it came
from Yemen. Furthermore, no real evidence has been provided to tie Iran to the
attack.

Also carefully glossed over is that the Saudis started a war of aggression
against Yemen, one of the poorest countries on earth, fully supported by US
arms and military. The claims of Iranian support for Yemen are dwarfed by the
overt support of Saudi Arabia by the USG.

~~~
akvadrako
What's the evidence it came from Yemen? Are they claiming the images released
by SA are faked? What about the claim the attacks came from the North?

So far I haven't seen any evidence from either side.

~~~
davidwitt415
The Houthi claimed responsibility, for starters. Also, as noted by Scott
Ritter, 'there is the largest concentration of modern air defense radars in
the Persian Gulf oriented toward Iran, and not one detected and tracked these
launches?'

The Iran connection was immediately seized by both the USG and SA for their
own purposes before the incident was even investigated. Both sides have
motives that encourage fingering Iran. They promised to reveal the findings,
but as of today, nothing further has been made public. This, despite the fact
that the USG should have readily available sensor data that would show if the
attack were to have originated in Iran, and if it were so, then that would be
a causus belli for direct war on Iran, yet that dog never barked.

------
HenryKissinger
There's not much anyone not in the know can say. We know Cyber Command and the
NSA work together to penetrate adversarial networks. They are also very
reluctant to share anything about their activities. They apparently wiped out
the Iranian computers that were used to target the drone they shot down in the
summer. We don't know how deep Cyber Command has embedded itself in the
Iranian government's digital infrastructure. They have probably gone very,
very far.

~~~
igivanov
Not likely at all. The Iranian defence structure is highly decentralized.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
That does not follow. "Decentralized" is not a defense against "penetrated by
the NSA". It just means that it's more work - one attack doesn't give you the
keys to everything.

On the other side, from the Iranian perspective, it means that systems are
secured by different people from different organizations with different
degrees of training. That's a recipe for a number of attackable systems.

~~~
igivanov
It means they are off the grid and are trained to act independently of the
central command.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I'm pretty sure that there are exactly zero units of the Iranian military that
have independent authority to, for example, start shooting missiles at US Navy
warships. They may be able to act independently once they understand that it's
time to open fire. But to decide to start... that's a central command
decision.

~~~
igivanov
But they will start shooting when they learn that a conflict has started. You
know, if a US attack in the strait begins it will become obvious pretty pretty
soon. Also they don't need a sophisticated link from the top to start an
attack, just a simple command.

------
ape4
Used to be that "secret" things stayed secret for 30 years or so.

~~~
hos234
Probably want Iran to not assume it's coming from Israel/Saudi etc...but then
again these days people are crazy addicted to getting those like/click/view
counts and I wouldn't be the least surprised if the Intel/Military community
isn't immune. Can see two Generals competing for Likes somewhere.

------
resters
To zoom out slightly, consider the famous phrase _war is politics with guns_.

Would it ever be the case that _war is politics with cyber strikes_?

As the article points out, the strikes were politically motivated (against
Iran's regime), but were they an act of war?

Under what circumstances should the American people tolerate an act of war
being carried out on their "behalf"?

In my view, the democratic process should be used to prevent the US from doing
"warmaking" that is not broadly supported by the public.

In fact, as it is well known, the framers required congress to declare war.

So what is the purpose of the US conducting such a strike done without
democratic consent?

My guess is that it was conducted to help nudge the American people into
accepting acts of war by executive fiat against Iran, when the legal
justification for them is at risk of being removed via the democratic process
(1). The house passed a bill requiring congressional authorization, but the
senate did not.

So we can view the cyber strike as the executive branch asserting its power to
make war against Iran without the sort of missiles and bombs that make
Americans easily think of it as war.

1\. [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2019/6/19/18691936/h...](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2019/6/19/18691936/house-democrats-vote-repeal-9-11-aumf-war-iran)

~~~
randomsearch
> war is politics with guns

Never heard that phrase before, but I wouldn't agree with it. Politics is all
about compromise: the art of the possible. It's negotiation. War often happens
when politicians fail to negotiate.

~~~
resters
I think the counterargument would be that politics is the orderly handling of
coercive force and authority.

When this orderly approach isn't sufficient, additional coercive force is
added to the mix. At some point it starts to look like war.

To people on the wrong side of the political hierarchy, every day looks like
war as armed troops (police) occupy neighborhoods seeking to enforce an
externally imposed code that criminalizes normal, consensual behavior,
confiscates wealth and property, and destroys civil society.

> when politicians fail to negotiate

In a sense, yes. If one politician demands that a foreign leader step down or
face a US invasion, one can interpret the foreign leader's failure to step
down as a breakdown in negotiations, but I think that is quite a stretch.

------
everdrive
Was there any measurable effect? I'm not convinced anything was accomplished
here.

------
tracker1
The fact is, it's all complicated... Since (and before) stuxnet, cyber warfare
has escalated and the number of (presumed) state actors is present pretty much
everywhere. The attacks are constant and don't stop. Anyone doing cyber
security in an international or government system experiences this daily.

------
Aperocky
Is it me or does it feel hypocritical of the US government when it constantly
cry about cyber operation from China and Russia while conducting (probably a
lot more than this certain case) and leaking cyber operation of US?

Like, if everyone including yourself is knee deep and slinging mud, don't
accuse other people for being dirty.

~~~
hannasanarion
Responding to a missile attack by screwing with the attacker's missile
targeting systems is not really comparable to attacking an election to put one
of your cronies at the top of another country's government.

~~~
briffle
You should really, really learn about the history of US involvement in the
Iranian government before you state that. Like how we helped overthrow the
democratically elected Prime Minister in 1953, to ensure we put in place a guy
who was friendly to Great Brittan and the US. (Operation AJAX)

Can almost trace a line from that to the 1979 embassy hostage crisis, and the
problems we have with Iran today.

~~~
hannasanarion
Why do you think the CIA kept Operation Ajax a secret from the American public
until 1992?

------
rebuilder
I could swear there was speculation about precisely this just after the
strikes. Anyone remember it?

------
thrower123
Much better than the ill-advised military strike that so many foreign policy
demons were lusting for.

It bothers me a lot that so many foreign policy experts can look at the
unrelieved mess of things that they have made over the past generation, and
think that this time, doing what has failed spectacularly so many times before
is going to work out.

Time to invent some new wheels.

~~~
monocasa
Micheal Hayden said during his Blackhat keynote that the US considers
offensive cyber attacks from nation states to be acts of war, so probably not
that much better.

~~~
freehunter
They say that, but the if the reports of state-sponsored cyber attacks on the
US or US companies over the past 10+ years is any indication, the "war" that's
mentioned in the "acts of war" statement isn't tanks rolling through Beijing,
Tehran, or Moscow.

If a cyber attack leads to war, it seems to lead to cyber war like this
article. Not physical war.

~~~
monocasa
He made it pretty clear that it was a real, dropping bombs, boots on the
ground, cause for war.

I think it's more that the US applies these rules unequally. You execute a
cyber attack on us, we'll overthrow your government and laugh as the rabble
beheads you in the streets. If _we_ execute a cyber attack on you, what are
you going to do? We have nukes.

The framework he laid out is actually pretty interesting because it made it
very clear that espionage is totally on the table, which is as far as the
countries that do have nukes are willing to go here.

~~~
freehunter
Again, that may be what they said but it doesn't match reality. We've been
attacked, the DNI named names, and there are no tanks rolling through Moscow,
Tehran, or Beijing.

[https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/29/china-russia-could-
disrupt-u...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/29/china-russia-could-disrupt-us-
infrastructure-with-cyber-attacks-odni.html)

~~~
monocasa
That doesn't say that we've been attacked by China or Russia, only that they
have the ability to.

The Iranian and North Korean "attacks" here are just laundered transfers on
the swift network.

------
seqastian
And it was kept secret until now? So I guess they haven't told trump about it?

~~~
tupshin
Given their absurdly similar phrasings, I'm pretty certain both of the
responses you got from this were bots. Or else two idiots with their own
version of a copy pasta.

------
parasanti
This "anonymous source" who is disclosing classified information should be
punished. This is not good for anyone.

~~~
situational87
This is half the newspaper nowadays. Every journalist just repeats what some
official with an impressive job title says and nobody gets to question why the
story is being pushed by this person because they are never identified. It's
naive to call for prosecution, this story was almost surely leaked and
approved by the US State Department before it was written.

Journalists should really dig their heels in and start resisting this, but
that will never happen. It's just bad journalism and they keep letting
themselves get manipulated.

I don't even care about the classified information aspect of this, the
classification system in the US is a complete farce and will be reformed soon,
clearly nobody respects it all anymore at any level of the intel community.

~~~
fishtacos
Journalists without a long history of connections and experience, typically
facilitated by the name/history of the "paper" they're working for, don't get
to dig their heels in because they would lose access. Access is paramount, as
is on record/off record confidentiality, and they are dependent on it, else
they be blacklisted by their subjects of interest. All interviews and
information sharing is voluntary, they can't force someone to answer a
question, and they can't force someone to be interviewed, and they definitely
can't force someone to tell the truth.

It is not their fault that they parrot whatever talking points politicians and
their staff members. It's only on those rare occasions where sources are
cultivated through long periods of time and building trust through publishing
meticulously what information has been shared with them via interviews and
documents, most of them being talking points of course, that they can get to
the meat of the subjects. Lifting the veil of the real news stories requires
years and years of trudging through just simply formatting interview
transcripts into something readable and of interest.

I don't blame them one bit. It's a tough job and you're at the mercy of
everyone you attempt to gather information from. It doesn't help that you're
viewed as de-facto suspicious due to journalistic freedoms.

