Report: Desperate Iran seeks outside help in dealing with Stuxnet

A report late last week suggested Iran had successfully gotten the Stuxnet worm under control.  This report, via DEBKafile, suggests otherwise:

---

Tehran this week secretly appealed to a number of computer security experts in West and East Europe with offers of handsome fees for consultations on ways to exorcize the Stuxnet worm spreading havoc through the computer networks and administrative software of its most important industrial complexes and military command centers. debkafile's intelligence and Iranian sources report Iran turned for outside help after local computer experts failed to remove the destructive virus.

None of the foreign experts has so far come forward because Tehran refuses to provide precise information on the sensitive centers and systems under attack and give the visiting specialists the locations where they would need to work. They were not told whether they would be called on to work outside Tehran or given access to affected sites to study how they function and how the malworm managed to disable them. Iran also refuses to give out data on the changes its engineers have made to imported SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) systems, mostly from Germany.

The impression debkafile sources gained Wednesday, Sept. 29 from talking to European computer experts approached for aid was that the Iranians are getting desperate. Not only have their own attempts to defeat the invading worm failed, but they made matters worse: The malworm became more aggressive and returned to the attack on parts of the systems damaged in the initial attack.

One expert said: "The Iranians have been forced to realize that they would be better off not 'irritating' the invader because it hits back with a bigger punch."

---

The official story from Tehran echos the SoftPedia report:  That the Stuxnet infestation is not as bad as reported and that the Bushehr nuclear facility is on schedule.

The spread of the virus, with nearly 60% of reported infections coming out of Iran, strongly suggests that it was indeed the intended target of Stuxnet. Computer and national security experts continue to insist that the complexity of the system and its ability to exploit previously unknown weaknesses in the Microsoft Windows operating system means it was developed with a specific target in mind. It’s unlike anything seen before.

Pure speculation of course, but perhaps the existence of Stuxnet is the reason why Israel allowed the Bushehr facility to be fueled last August. A window of opportunity to launch an air strike on the facility closed when the rods were inserted into the reactor.  An airstrike afterwards would almost certainly result in a release of radioactive material into the environment, a devastating collateral impact.  Perhaps Israel—or one of its allies—developed a quieter, more devious way to prevent Iran from developing its nuclear capability, or destroy the facility in a way that could be blamed on lax Iranian security protocols.

While Obama vacations (again) at Martha’s Vineyard this weekend, Israel faces a difficult choice

President Obama takes a couple of weeks off starting Friday.  He’s going to Martha’s Vineyard to enjoy a cool, North Atlantic sea breeze and some great Atlantic seafood.

---

WASHINGTON -- President Obama is fleeing the heat and headaches of the capital in search of summer's greatest delight: some time to unwind and kiss the office goodbye. Even if it is the Oval Office.

With wife Michelle, daughters Sasha and Malia and pet dog Bo in tow, Obama is hoping for a pleasantly uneventful 10 days as he heads to Martha's Vineyard, Mass., on Thursday.

"Just like a lot of American people, the president is taking a little time with his family to recharge his batteries," deputy press secretary Bill Burton told reporters.

The long-awaited vacation comes after a hectic three-day fundraising and speechmaking sprint across the country and with new poll numbers showing Americans none too pleased with Obama's handling of the economy as crucial midterm elections approach.

---

Meanwhile, the state of Israel has a very difficult choice to make.

August 13:

 

From a Fox News report earlier today:

---

Iran has a uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz and another at Qom, which Western allies blew the whistle on last year. Several facilities critical to the nuclear program are known to be scattered throughout the country, and others are believed to exist in unknown locations. Iran has committed to building more reactors and more enrichment facilities, and as long as it has nuclear physicists, the regime can continue to pursue its goals.

Attacking Iran's nuclear program might be like Mickey Mouse chopping broomsticks in The Sorcerer's Apprentice. The program could be taken down -- but for how long?

Smith, in urging caution toward the idea of a military strike, was echoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who said last year that an attack could buy time, but it would not halt the program.

But that doesn't mean a strike is off the table, from either the United States or Israel. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated plainly in an interview on Aug. 1 that the U.S. military has an attack plan for Iran.

---

Our President, who eschewed both the Boy Scouts Jamboree and the National Day of Prayer; who sued Arizona for daring to pass a law enforcing existing US policy; who stood before Muslim guests at the White House iftar dinner and announced his support for a new mosque at Ground Zero; who called good, ordinary heartland Americans “bitter clingers;” who insulted the Israeli head of state during an official visit, is on vacation.

While Iran shoves fissile material into a new reactor supported by the Russian and Chinese governments, President Barack Hussein Obama is rubbing elbows with elitists on Martha’s Vineyard.  While Israel decides whether to take a drastic step in defending her very existence, our President is livin’ large.

Aloof.  Disconnected.  Uncaring.

Gimme some feedback in the comments.

Would the U.S. Shoot Down an Israeli Jet?

From Wired.com's Danger Room:

In a town hall on the campus of the University of West Virginia, a young airman asked Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen to respond to a “rumor.” If Israel decided to attack Iran, the speculation went, those jet would need to fly through Iraqi airspace to reach their targets. That airspace is considered a “no-fly” zone by the American military. So might U.S. troops shoot down the Israeli jets, the airmen asked the chairman, if they breached that airspace?


Mullen tried to sidestep the question. “We have an exceptionally strong relationship with Israel. I’ve spent a lot of time with my counterpart in Israel. So we also have a very clear understanding of where we are. And beyond that, I just wouldn’t get into the speculation of what might happen and who might do what. I don’t think it serves a purpose, frankly,” he said. “I am hopeful that this will be resolved in a way where we never have to answer a question like that.”

The airmen followed-up: “Would an airmen like me ever be ordered to fire on an Israeli – aircraft or personnel?”


Mullen’s second answer was much the same as his first. “Again, I wouldn’t move out into the future very far from here. They’re an extraordinarily close ally, have been for a long time, and will be in the future,” the admiral said.

Would the U.S. Shoot Down an Israeli Jet? Top Officer Won’t Say | Danger Room | Wired.com

My sense is that by the time US commanders are given orders either way, the aircraft in question would have already completed their mission and returned safely to their own airspace.

From Article 9 of The Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq:

3. Surveillance and control over Iraqi airspace shall transfer to Iraqi authority
immediately upon entry into force of this Agreement.

4. Iraq may request from the United States Forces temporary support for the Iraqi
authorities in the mission of surveillance and control of Iraqi air space.

In reading the full agreement, it's apparent that if Iraq wants U.S. air defense forces to engage foreign aircraft flying through its airspace, the government of Iraq is expected to request assistance. I know of no formal agreement between the two countries that a violation of Iraq's airspace (a technical violation of sovereignty) would immediately place U.S. commanders in the position of having to give the order to repel or destroy the offending aircraft. This means coordination between the two countries at the highest levels of civilian authority.

I don't see any way that a decision to treat Israeli aircraft as hostile could be made by the time the mission is completed. So? Would the U.S. fire on Israeli jet? The question is moot.

Extra Point: The trip over Syria is probably just as quick and I frankly think the Israelis would get a bigger jolly out of flying over Syria (and defeating their air defenses) than a risky trip over Iraq.

Update: Allahpundit has a common sense take on the question, and believes Admiral Mullen's non-answer was the right one.  I agree--either answer would have ignited a firestorm.  But, mad right wing nuts that we are, isn't it fun to speculate just what conniptions Teh One might have?