Could Iran Retaliate for Apparent Cyber Attack?

Security experts believe Tehran will be reeling from effects of Stuxnet computer worm for a while, but warn it may try to strike back and 'set in motion a deadly game that catalyses a nuclear program'

Iran has limited capacity to retaliate in kind to an apparent cyber attack that infected computers at its sole nuclear power plant, analysts say, but some worry it could seek to hit back by other means.

Security experts say they believe the release of the Stuxnet computer worm may have been a state-backed attack on Iran's nuclear program, most likely originating in the United States or Israel. But they say the truth may never be known.

Little information is available on how much damage, if any, Iran's nuclear and wider infrastructure has suffered from Stuxnet -- and Tehran will probably never share the full details. Officials said on Sunday the worm had hit staff computers at the Bushehr nuclear power plant but had not affected major systems there.

Some analysts believe Iran may be suffering wider sabotage aimed at slowing down its nuclear ambitions, and point to unexplained technical problems that have cut the number of working centrifuges in its uranium enrichment program.

In the short term, intelligence experts believe Tehran's priority will be trying to identify the source of the attack and examining how the worm was uploaded onto its systems. "The Iranian internal security and counterintelligence departments will need to nail down the culprits first, then work out how to turn the tables," said Fred Burton, a former US counterintelligence expert who is now vice president of political risk consultancy Stratfor.

Deniable response
But finding reliable evidence identifying which country or group was responsible might well prove impossible, increasing the probability of a more unofficial and deniable reaction.

Some analysts suggest Iran might like to retaliate with a cyber attack against Israel or the West – although there are question marks over its capability to do so.

"I don't think we can expect much in the way of retaliatory cyber attacks," said regional analyst Jessica Ashooh. "The Iranians simply don't have the technical capacity to do anything similar to properly protected systems – as evidenced by the very hard time they are having controlling and quarantining this attack."

Nevertheless, experts say Iran has made improving its cyber espionage capability a priority – and will probably aim to grow these resources further in the years to come.

The risk, some worry, is that Iran might be tempted to either intensify its own nuclear program or target the West's own nuclear installations in return.

"How prepared are we all for this and could this set in motion a deadly game that catalyses a nuclear program no one intended to engage in?" said Mark Fitt, managing director of N49 Intelligence, a firm that advises businesses in the Middle East.

In terms of a more conventional response, Iran could potentially act through proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, as well as insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"They can... use networks in Afghanistan and the Gulf to strike back using unconventional `stealth tactics' and asymmetric methods," said Fitt.

Whatever happens, analysts say the Stuxnet attack is an early insight into the form state conflict may take in the 21st century.

"It's by no means a one-off – I think we'll see much more of this," said Ian Bremmer, president of political risk consultancy Eurasia Group.

By Reuters

You Might Also Like to Read:
Iran: Computer Worm Didn't Cause Serious Damage

Iran Worm Links to Bible

Iran: Computer Worm Didn't Cause Serious Damage

Tehran officials say Stuxnet computer virus infected 30,000 computers in Islamic Republic. Computer experts estimate worm originates from US, Israel, UK France or Germany

The Stuxnet computer worm has infected 30,000 computers in Iran but has failed to "cause serious damage," Iranian officials were quoted as saying on Sunday.

Some 30,000 IP addresses have been infected by Stuxnet so far in Iran, Mahmoud Liayi, head of the information technology council at the ministry of industries, was quoted as saying by the government-run paper Iran Daily.

Meanwhile, experts from the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran met this week to discuss how to remove the malicious computer code, or worm, the semi-official ISNA news agency reported.

The Islamic Republic confirmed over the weekend that computer systems in its power plants have been attacked by the sophisticated worm. It appears the Bushehr nuclear plant has also been infected.

Computer experts told the New York Times that the worm apparently originates from the United States, Israel, Britain, France or Germany.

Stuxnet is a Trojan-horse-type virus which, in theory, aims to cause physical damage as well as to shutg down computer systems. It is able to destroy gas pipes, disrupt the operations of nuclear power stations and cause industrial boilers to explode.

In the past, Stuxnet has shown up in a number of attacks - primarily in Pakistan, Indonesia, India and Russia.

Experts trying to eliminate virus
"The worm has not been able to penetrate or cause serious damage to government systems," telecommunications minister Reza Taqipour was quoted as saying by the Iran Daily.

"No serious damage to industrial systems (by Stuxnet) have been reported in the country," he added.

According to the paper, another telecommunications official, Saeed Mahdiyoun, said "teams of experts had begun to systematically eliminate the virus.

Stuxnet's abilities were first reported last June when a Belarusian company said it found a worm in one of its clients' systems in Iran. The virus was apparently inserted into a local power plant via a portable USB.

Germany's Siemens company, which manufactures control systems for power stations, later reported that no less that 14 of its clients have been infected.

You Might Also Like to Read:
Could Iran Retaliate for Apparent Cyber Attack?

Iran Worm Links to Bible

Bushehr plant. Also infected?

Ynet News

Why Israel Should Attack Iran

1. If the Israelis do nothing, they know that they would eventually be staring at an internally unstable, virulently anti-Semitic, terrorist-fond regime with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Simply imagining the probable hair-trigger scenarios in which Israel will have to play atomic-bluff with Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guard Corps -- the organization that oversees Iran's nuclear program -- ought to be enough to make any rational nuclear planner shudder. For the first time ever, the same organization that has been responsible for all of the Islamic Republic's terrorist liaison relationships -- including an operationally supportive relationship with al-Qaeda after the 1998 Africa embassy bombings, according to the 9/11 Commission Report -- would control nuclear weapons. Then imagine other Middle Eastern regimes, especially the Saudi state, built upon Wahhabism, also acquiring the bomb in order to counter Iranian Shiite power -- and you can see why the nerves of any Israeli nuclear planner have to be fried.

2. What the Israelis need to do is change this dynamic. A preventive strike offers them the only conceivable alternative for doing so. Any bombing run will, at least temporarily, shock the international system and rock Iran internally.

3. The Israelis will have shown that they are deadly serious about confronting the Iranian nuclear threat, that they are willing to go on a permanent war-footing with the Islamic Republic and its deadliest ally, the Hizbollah, which will probably unleash rocket hell on Israel in turn. Although President Obama may become (privately) furious with the Israelis, any Israeli strike will make the United States, and probably even the reluctant Europeans, more determined to shut down Iran's program.

4. If Khamenei and the Guard Corps respond to an Israeli strike with terrorism, which is likely, then they could well put themselves into a strategic cul-de-sac, especially if they strike out against American targets or do something truly stupid, like trying to shut down the Strait of Hormuz.

We've got at least a 51 percent chance that the Israelis will strike by next summer. If they do, Israeli pilots will unlikely be flying with the conviction that they can end the Iranian nuclear menace forever. But they will, no-doubt, be hoping that, with some luck, they can change a nuclear equation that will otherwise put atomic weapons in the hands of a regime that holds international conferences denying the Holocaust's existence, while arming and funding those who strive for Israel's annihilation.

Should Israel Bomb Iran?
There is only one thing that terrifies Washington’s foreign policy establishment more than the prospect of an American airstrike against Iran’s nuclear-weapons facilities: an Israeli airstrike. Left, right, and center, “sensible” people view the idea with alarm. Such an attack would, they say, do great damage to the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, where Tehran would counterattack, punishing “the Great Satan” (America) for the sins of “the Little Satan” (Israel). An Israeli strike could lead to the closing of the world’s oil passageway, the Strait of Hormuz; prompt Muslims throughout the world to rise up in outrage; and spark a Middle Eastern war that might drag in the United States. Barack Obama’s “New Beginning” with Muslims, such as it is, would be over the moment Israeli bunker-busting bombs hit.

An Israeli “preventive” attack, we are further told, couldn’t possibly stop the Islamic Republic from developing a nuke, and would actually make it more likely that the virulently anti-Zionist supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, would strike Israel with a nuclear weapon. It would also provoke Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps to deploy its terrorist assets against Israel and the United States. Hezbollah, the Islamic Revolution’s one true Arab child, would unleash all the missiles it has imported from Tehran and Damascus since 2006, the last time the Party of God and the Jewish state collided.

An Israeli preemptive strike unauthorized by Washington (and President Barack Obama is unlikely to authorize one) could also severely damage Israel’s standing with the American public, as well as America’s relations with Europe, since the “diplomacy first, diplomacy only” Europeans would go ballistic, demanding a more severe punishment of Israel than Washington could countenance. The Jewish state’s relations with the European Union—Israel’s major trading partner—could collapse. And, last but not least, an Israeli strike could fatally compromise the pro-democracy Green Movement in Iran, which is the only hope the West has for an end to the nuclear menace by means of regime change. This concern was expressed halfheartedly before the tumultuous Iranian elections of June 12, 2009, but it is now voiced with urgency by those who truly care about the Green Movement spawned by those elections and don’t want any American or Israeli action to harm it.

These fears are mostly overblown. Some of the alarmist scenarios are the opposite of what would more likely unfold after an Israeli attack. Although dangerous for Israel, a preventive strike remains the most effective answer to the possibility of Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guards having nuclear weapons. Provided the Israeli air force is capable of executing it, and assuming no U.S. military action, an Israeli bombardment remains the only conceivable means of derailing or seriously delaying Iran’s nuclear program and—equally important—traumatizing Tehran. Since 1999, when the supreme leader quashed student demonstrations and put paid to any chance that the Islamic Republic would peacefully evolve under the reformist president Mohammad Khatami, Iran has calcified into an ever-nastier autocracy. An Israeli strike now—after the rise of the Green Movement and the crackdown on it—is more likely to shake the regime than would have a massive American attack in 2002, when Tehran’s clandestine nuclear program was first revealed. And if anything can jolt the pro-democracy movement forward, contrary to the now passionately accepted conventional wisdom, an Israeli strike against the nuclear sites is it.

There are many voices out there—“realists” in America, Kantians in Europe—who believe this discussion is unnecessary since Iran doesn’t really pose an existential threat to Israel, America, or anyone else, and whatever threat it does pose can be countered with “strategic patience” and the threat of Israeli nuclear retaliation. Tehran may support anti-Israeli terrorist groups, but there is no need to overreact: The regime is as scared of Israel’s military power as Israel is scared of mullahs with nukes. America’s preeminent job should therefore be to calm the Israelis down—or, failing that, arm-twist them into inaction.



Weekly Standard.Com