Israel tested Stuxnet on Iran, with US help. Another "Conspiracy Theory" Turns Out To Be True.

US and Israeli intelligence services collaborated to develop a destructive computer worm to sabotage Iran's efforts to make a nuclear bomb, The New York Times reported Sunday.
The newspaper quoted intelligence and military experts as saying Israel has tested the effectiveness of the Stuxnet computer worm, which apparently shut down a fifth of Iran's nuclear centrifuges in November and helped delay its ability to make its first nuclear weapons.

The testing took place at the heavily guarded Dimona complex in the Negev desert housing the Middle East's sole, albeit undeclared nuclear weapons program. Experts and officials told the Times the effort to create Stuxnet was a US-Israeli project with the help, knowingly or not, of Britain and Germany.

"To check out the worm, you have to know the machines," a US expert told the newspaper. "The reason the worm has been effective is that the Israelis tried it out."

There has been widespread speculation Israel was behind the Stuxnet worm that has attacked computers in Iran, and Tehran has blamed the Jewish state and the United States for the killing of two nuclear scientists in November and January.

The Times report came as Iran earlier said its controversial uranium enrichment program was progressing "very strongly," just days ahead of a high-profile meeting between Tehran and six world powers over the Islamic republic's nuclear program.

Both the United States and Israel have recently announced they believe the program has been set back by several years. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pointed to a series of sanctions imposed since June 2009 by the UN Security Council and individual countries.

And Moshe Yaalon, Israel's strategic affairs minister and former military chief, said last month that a series of "technological challenges and difficulties" meant Tehran was still about three years away from being able to build nuclear weapons.

Israel has backed US-led efforts to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability through sanctions, but has also refused to rule out military force.

On Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said international sanctions against Iran would only be effective if they were backed by a "credible" military threat.

The Stuxnet worm apparently included two major parts, one intended to make Iran's nuclear centrifuges spin out of control.

Another secretly recorded normal operations at the nuclear plant, then played those recordings back to the site's operators so all would appear usual during the sabotage operation, according to the Times.

Stuxnet targets computer control systems made by German industrial giant Siemens and commonly used to manage water supplies, oil rigs, power plants and other critical infrastructure.

Most Stuxnet infections have been discovered in Iran, giving rise to speculation it was intended to sabotage nuclear facilities there.

The report came after Clinton, who was on a five-day trip to the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar last week, urged Arab states to stay focused on sanctions against Iran.

The UN Security Council last June imposed a fourth round of sanctions against Iran in a bid to halt its uranium enrichment programme.

Iran says its aims are peaceful, denying charges by Israel and the West that its uranium enrichment work masks a drive for nuclear weapons.

The Islamic republic is set to hold a new round of nuclear talks with Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States in Istanbul on January 21 and 22.

Source

Not a "Conspiracy Theory" anymore. The corporate regime media only has credibility with collectivist pop-culture zombies.

Was Chernobil the first Stuxnet?

Good post.
Funny how the article makes a fact that Iran is actually building nuclear weapons.
And that the US and Israel, two countries that have the capability of killing ALL of us a few times over, are the ones halting the development of nuclear facilities in a "developing" country.
Only I will have The Big Fork!


For clarification: My posture is that ALL WMD should be banned, globally. As they serve no useful purpose for humanity's interests. There's no REAL need to have weapons that can (and have) destruct an entire city in a matter of seconds (One of the worst act of terrorism, only done by ONE country in our history..)

For those who don't know how deadly this stuxnet virus is:

It's like sending an F-22 Raptor to fight WW1.

That's the reason why Iran's nuclear facillity got totally wrecked after this virus infiltrated their system.

With the assasinations of top Iranian nuclear scientists, their whole nuclear programme has been setback 5-10 years.

It also means that it's highly unlikely that Iran will make any future deals regarding it's nuclear programme from outside sources, forcing Iran to develop it's own tools and only use it's own scientists.

I wonder how Iran is going to make israel pay for this? hezbollah and hamas?

reply to post by drakus


I think that weapons of mass destruction are what keeps the world at peace now. It is contradictory, but if you think about it, there were no more world wars after the first 2 atomic bombs were used.

I do not think the world is at peace, just because there is no declared war between the major powers (EEUU-RUSSIA-CHINA).
I think is quite the opposite...
The only thing that WMD does is to warrant that no "small" nation can resist one of the "big" nations... The US can easily burn a whole country down to its ashes from a comfy divan in washington...
It's hard to resist that kind of oppression...

Originally posted by drakus
The US can easily burn a whole country down to its ashes from a comfy divan in washington...
It's hard to resist that kind of oppression...

edit on 18/1/2011 by drakus because: bad memory

But if the US did this (burn a country), some country will end up burning US too. You see, its a game with no winners, so I say that these weapons end up keeping the peace. Dont say it is a real peace or that there are not wars in the world. What I say is that we live in relative peace.

Originally posted by RUSSO

Originally posted by drakus
The US can easily burn a whole country down to its ashes from a comfy divan in washington...
It's hard to resist that kind of oppression...

edit on 18/1/2011 by drakus because: bad memory

But if the US did this (burn a country), some country will end up burning US too. You see, its a game with no winners, so I say that these weapons end up keeping the peace. Dont say it is a real peace or that there are not wars in the world. What I say is that we live in relative peace.

edit on 18-1-2011 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)

ONLY if the country burnt in the first place had ANY way of retaliating in a comparable matter, and almost every country lacks that capability.

After the terrorist nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, how many US's cities where burnt?

What I say is that we live in relative peace.
Well, that depends on the definition of "we"...
Living in peace also means, don't dying of starvation, or a damn flu. You see where i'm going?
The majority of the population of Earth, does not live in "peace".
I think that you are confusing Peace with a continuated Status Quo, sure that may mean peace; but peace for the Rockeffeller - type of guy. of which there are like 30-35 around the world

Anyway, it is an interesting topic of discussion