This is the week where the President, through coordinated leaks at the highest levels, admits to the New York Times to ruthlessness when it comes to “fighting the bad guys.” First it was the drone strikes, and now it’s an excerpt from a forthcoming David Sanger book where we get the first acknowledgement that the President led and ordered cyberwarfare against Iran, in the form of the Stuxnet virus.
From his first months in office, President Obama secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran’s main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America’s first sustained use of cyberweapons, according to participants in the program.
Mr. Obama decided to accelerate the attacks — begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games — even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran’s Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet. Computer security experts who began studying the worm, which had been developed by the United States and Israel, gave it a name: Stuxnet.
Depending on who you talk to, the Stuxnet worm was either very successful in delaying Iran’s nuclear program, not successful at all, or irrelevant because Iran hasn’t made the decision to shift from a nuclear energy proposal to a nuclear weapons one. What is not in dispute is that this represents an escalation of warfare into the digital realm, which even the President recognized:
Mr. Obama, according to participants in the many Situation Room meetings on Olympic Games, was acutely aware that with every attack he was pushing the United States into new territory, much as his predecessors had with the first use of atomic weapons in the 1940s, of intercontinental missiles in the 1950s and of drones in the past decade. He repeatedly expressed concerns that any American acknowledgment that it was using cyberweapons — even under the most careful and limited circumstances — could enable other countries, terrorists or hackers to justify their own attacks.
As Marcy Wheeler writes, this leads us into uncharted territory with another expansion of warfare, even at the same time stressing the need for international cooperation in this arena. Obama rationalizes this by saying that the US had no choice when it came to stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. That will be broadcast widely to hawkish voters in states Obama wants to win in November, that he was willing to make “tough choices” in our national security interests.
But the choices weren’t tough, they were actually short-sighted. They focused on a near-term issue, when the long-term ramifications of engaging in cyberwarfare, especially because of the ease of blowback, are so clear. In fact, this blowback happened almost right away.
An error in the code, they said, had led it to spread to an engineer’s computer when it was hooked up to the centrifuges. When the engineer left Natanz and connected the computer to the Internet, the American- and Israeli-made bug failed to recognize that its environment had changed. It began replicating itself all around the world. Suddenly, the code was exposed, though its intent would not be clear, at least to ordinary computer users.
“We think there was a modification done by the Israelis,” one of the briefers told the president, “and we don’t know if we were part of that activity.”
If anything, there were limited consequences to this coding error, at least for the United States (it may have caused an explosion at an Iranian plant). The threat of escalating cyberwar taking out US weapons systems is pretty clear to see.
There’s also the amazing asymmetry between sanctioned and unsanctioned leaking in this Administration, where your criminalization or embrace depends on whose story you tell. The correlation between Sanger’s piece and James Risen’s reporting on a separate infiltration into the Iranian nuclear program – for which he received a subpoena, and for which the whistleblower who exposed the information to Risen is under prosecution – couldn’t be more stark.
Obviously, there’s a certain electoral frame being sought where the President is seen as a Tough Warrior. Any deviation from that leads to punishment. Some of the better reporters in the media are waking up to this and speaking out, but not enough.




27 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Uncharted and VERY dangerous “territory” as Marcy suggests.
However, you do realize that it is not “nice” to speak as you are about a sitting (and likely to be re-elected) President, David?
Alright, you have been warned.
Thank you for having the courage and the principles to keep on digging.
For all the claims of being such a bold “realist”, Barack Obama is a very unprincipled being whose posturings would be comically pathetic were they not fraught with real and inescapable consequence for all of humanity and whatever future humanity might aspire to …
This “quality” of “ruthlessness” will become widely practiced among the ruling classes and ANY Americans who imagine that there will not be “blow-back”, that others will NOT use drones and cyber attacks against America and American citizens should NEVER be allowed near real power or allowed to cozy up to the money that selfishly and easily, now, in our “money-is-all-that-matters world, buys and controls such power.
How long have we to come to our senses?
Is it already too late?
Any who imagine that America may kill with impunity, may attack the cyber systems of other nations without consequence, have left reason, humanity, understanding, and fundamental civility far behind … for such actions are those of barbarians for whom there is no law nor honor.
There is no honor in these things.
However, there will be horror.
And not just for “them”.
DW
Once again this shows Obama LLC isn’t into the rule of law, but is into privilege.
The Tough Warrior image is not just a electoral guise — it’s what Obama actually pursues. He is a terrorist in his own right (wrong), both foreign and domestic.
I guess Barry got ahold of Al Gore’s copy of “How To Become An Alpha Male.” Killing, hacking — there’s nothing Barry won’t do to Keep Us Safe™.
just following orders.
Stuxnet makes Obama ‘ruthless?’ Come on.
Some would say “ruthless”, while others would use the phrase “criminally incompetent”.
Oh come on, blowback never comes back to haunt the USA. Right, Usama bin Laden?
Hey guys let’s not forget one important fact, This has a lot to do with our (to) close relationship with Israel, they are helping us pull the strings on Iran and it will be us who will have to bear the consequences. Please check out my blog column on why Progressives shouldn’t sit it out in 2012. http://www.ericnewsdaily.blogspot.com
Hey, ya might consider limiting your blog whoring to one a day, rather than the 10 or 12 you’ve posted since first registering this morning…
This is what I keep asking myself: In an age of cyberwarfare, what nation will NOT declare that every single portal to international access — that is, every device with access to the Internet — is like a border that the nation has a right to control, patrol, defend? Indeed, from the way things are going, shouldn’t we expect the U.S. to be among the first to end open access to the web precisely on this pretext?
Stuxnet probably cost $millions to develop, and we gave it away to terrorists who may never have developed anything like it on their own.
I’d say the odds of it blowing back range from high, to guaranteed.
That means Obama is more stupid than ruthless.
“…position Obama as ruthless…”
I had sorta figured that out when Obama had Reid kill the Dorgan amendment that would have provided for the re-importing of cheap foreign drugs. A degree in rocket science is not required to understand that that little act threw a shitload of old and sick people right under the richly appointed Big Pharma bus.
And, for the umpteenth time, a big thank you! to Jon Walker for revisiting that sordid little deal.
(Tbogg, sorry if you’re offended by all the “attaboys” that jon got, and for the ones that Dave Dayen is getting, for this thread. )
:o) )
How nice it would be to have a Ruthless Progressive, instead of the usual Ruthless Neocons in office.
It’s clear the fraud in the WH is incapable of solving the economic problems that besets working and middle class Americans. It’s also clear that if Romney is elected he will completely crash the economy. At that point the “peasants” storm the winter palace and the day of reckoning for the corrupt political, economic and media class arrives.
Terrible, terrible, terrible.
The guy would sell his _______ to get re-elected.
Obysmal appears to be a very troubled individual……. perhaps attempting to ‘identify’ with a father he never knew with all this virtual machismo.
I’m informed that the 1896 election was the most costly [$ per vote spent] election. Campaign contributions having to be ‘repaid’ by the winner. Less than 24 months later a war of aggression for conquest was started by the U.S. on the weakest colonial power of any size [Spain]. I’m wondering if 2012 will be the same. The Supreme Court has now by equating money with speech allowed money to yell fire in the theatre and the lords of war need enemies to make money. Looking back on the end of the Republic/Democracy once known as the U.S. the Supreme Court’s complicity will be noted by its elevating second place [W] to the presidency and allowing non-breathers [corporations] to compete for the vote of breathers.
Oh, REALLY? Gee, I seem to recall our friends in Israel dealing with Saddam Hussein’s (supposed) incipient-nukes program the old-fashioned way…they blew it up with a missile. I’m pretty sure that we still have missiles.
So, no matter what President O’Dahmer says to “rationalize” this, he opened up a whole new area of warfare to deal with a “threat” that conventional means had already proven more than adequate in dealing with.
It’s a replay of the drone-warfare offensive; IF al-Awlaki or whomever “had to die”, there’s no reason that a good old-fashioned CIA operative couldn’t have taken him out, just as the CIA has performed many assassinations in Iraq. But O’Dahmer scorns the conventional because he wants to play with his new toys. They seem “cleaner”…push a button, upload a virus, no need for archaic things like bullets and missiles. Except that the assassin’s bullet doesn’t wipe out a whole compound, and a missile doesn’t infect the entire world’s computer network.
And, because O’Dahmer wants to feel all manly and play with his toys, he uses them whether there’s actually a crisis or not. Nobody can even say if Iran was even starting to build nukes before O’Dahmer let the Stuxnet genie out of the cyberbottle…but he wanted to play with it, and so he was convinced that he “had” to.
Likewise, there was no reason to kill al-Awlaki; the excuse is that he was a “recruiter” for al-Qaeda. Well, So. Fucking. What? As long as al-Qaeda exists, people will try to recruit others to join them. There’s no actual threat to this country until the organization tries to take action, you know, entering the U.S., obtaining explosives, that sort of thing. Unless O’Dahmer was going to order the extermination of every conceivable al-Qaeda member (which he hasn’t) all killing a “recruiter” is going to do is make it easier to recruit more people. We’ve seen this time and time again. The threat is not al-Qaeda’s existence; it’s their actions and their credibility.
(Similarly, 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was supposedly not murdered intentionally, but was a “collateral target” in an attack on an al-Qaeda “media chief”. And why the fuck are we drone-bombing media chiefs exactly? Does O’Dahmer really think that al-Qaeda couldn’t find anyone else who could code a website? No, he just felt like killing someone, and that was the best excuse he could find. And the fact that he killed plenty of people besides the intended target was just gravy, apparently.)
In several of her books, Agatha Christie has characters speak of the necessity of apprehending every murderer, even if it might have been a “good” murder (the victim deserved it, blahblah) because of the corrupting nature of the act; that having gotten away with murder once, the killer will see it as the answer to every problem, real or imagined. The somewhat-formulaic second and third murders in many of her novels happen because the killer is more dangerous now than when he/she committed the initial crime. So, too, it is with O’Dahmer, IMO (for whom my new name reflects my honest belief that he is, essentially, a serial killer); he wants to seem manly, he convinces himself that “limited” warfare from a distance is more “thoughtful” than old-fashioned assassins and missiles…and now he can’t stop lashing out at anything that might “justify” his paranoid fantasies. He “has no choice”!
(“You have a choice. You don’t have a good choice, but you have a choice! You’re opting for mass murder here, and nothing you say is going to make that okay!” Thank you, Buffy, but I don’t think he’s listening. [/popculture digression])
So, Barack O’Dahmer, convincing himself that he is helpless hostage to events, uses his “thoughtful”, “evolved” methods of killing on every fevered delusion that crosses his paranoid mind. He thinks this makes him “ruthless”.
But what it really reveals him as is…dickless. He doesn’t have the courage to face an actual crisis and confront it with actual weapons, which ironically, would limit the damage. So he kills and kills and kills again, not caring about the wider consequences because he “has no choice”. And innocent men, women, and children pay the price for this little boy and his toys.
Pathetic.
(P.S.—Attaboy, David.)
“Some of the better reporters in the media are waking up to this and speaking out, but not enough.” too true the ‘not enough’.
Obama is reckless and willing to do anything to please his Financial Terrorist backers. Seriously, we’re FKD.
eh.. show us the code. These people are class A liars and braggarts. We don’t even know if Osama Bin Laden was the one of the men who was offed in Abottabad.
Obama is a war pig and if you vote for him you are a war pig too.
No lie. We needed a preznint with a bit of Malcom X, and instead, we got Uncle Tom.
My theory is still the best. Obama is a neocon posing as a centrist Democrat. This best explains his catastrophic Presidency, to say nothing of his charming fans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oie7_yVT30
RuthlessRUS? LOL! Maybe, when handling his own base and the so called Terror army out here ( same thing to him.) Beyond that he’s just another golfing buddy for the Conservs. of both so called tribes /parties.
And, the fact that America no longer manufactures our own computers, but instead, have chosen to out-source our hardware, we’re only as safe as our weakest link.
The link, could NOT be any weaker, and blowback is assured.
Cluster-fail!