The Stuxnet Mystery... Dutch Engineer Disrupted Iranian Uranium Enrichment

Natanz nuclear facility, 322 kilometers south of Tehran (AP)
Natanz nuclear facility, 322 kilometers south of Tehran (AP)
TT
20

The Stuxnet Mystery... Dutch Engineer Disrupted Iranian Uranium Enrichment

Natanz nuclear facility, 322 kilometers south of Tehran (AP)
Natanz nuclear facility, 322 kilometers south of Tehran (AP)

Sixteen years after the largest operation targeting the Iranian nuclear program, a new investigative report by a Dutch newspaper revealed the identity of the agent who introduced the “Stuxnet” computer worm to the main uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, central Iran, in a process that took years of cooperation between the United States and Israel.
Washington and Tel Aviv developed the Stuxnet virus, which was discovered in 2010, after it was used to strike the Natanz facility, in the first attack of its kind on industrial equipment. Iranian officials said at the time that the virus had infected the Bushehr nuclear station, which overlooks the Arabian Gulf.
The virus is a malicious computer program that attacks widely used industrial control systems produced by the German company Siemens AG, and exploits security vulnerabilities in the Microsoft Windows operating system. Experts say that the virus could be used for espionage or sabotage.
Years after the attack that disrupted the Iranian nuclear program and caused tension between Tehran and the West, De Volkskrant revealed the details of the access of American and Israeli intelligence to the heavily fortified facility, after a Dutch engineer succeeded in introducing equipment contaminated with the virus into the lifeline of Natanz, and installing it on water pumps.
According to the investigation published by De Volkskrant, Dutch Engineer Erik van Sabben, an agent of the Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD), succeeded in reaching the Natanz facility, to carry out the secret operation that was preceded by years of preparation and cooperation between the CIA, the Israeli Mossad, at a cost of one billion dollars.
The investigation stated that the engineer carried out an extremely risky mission in Iran, by infiltrating the Natanz facility in 2007, where he installed contaminated devices and equipment. The results of the largest major blow to the Iranian nuclear weapons program emerged eight months after the equipment was fixed, causing the disruption of a thousand central devices within the facility.
Van Sabben, a civil engineer by profession, died in a motorbike crash near his home in Dubai two years after the operation.
According to the newspaper, the Dutch engineer, who is married to an Iranian woman, worked for a transport company in Dubai, and traveled several times to Iran. The company said it had previously sent spare parts to Iran’s oil and gas industry, but was not aware of the secret activities of its employee.
His death raised questions among the Dutch intelligence service, and fears that it was linked to his secret activities in Iran.
The two-year investigation was based on the testimonies of 43 people, 19 of whom were from the Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD), the Dutch Military Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD), and former employees of the Mossad, the Israeli Military Intelligence Service (Aman), and the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
The investigation raises questions about why the Dutch government, the two main Dutch intelligence services, and the parliamentary committee on public security and intelligence were not informed of the details of the Stuxnet operation. The newspaper noted that international experts view the sabotage of the Iranian nuclear program as “an act of war while the Netherlands was not at war with Iran,” and warned of “geo-political consequences” if the involvement of the country’s intelligence services is proven.
Electronic warfare constitutes an essential aspect of the shadow war taking place between Israel and Iran, especially against the backdrop of the nuclear file, the focus of the main conflict between Tehran and the Western powers.
At the end of August, Iran announced that it had thwarted an “Israeli plot” to damage its program to develop ballistic missiles and drones through defective spare parts imported from abroad.
According to the Iranian account, the Ministry of Defense obtained spare parts and electronic chips, which are used in the production of advanced missiles and drones.

Mahdi Farahi, Deputy Minister of Defense, told state television: “Had it not been for thwarting the interference, and if spare parts had been used, all the missiles would have been ineffective.”
State television accused a “professional and specialized network with the help of some infiltrated elements” of being behind the “conspiracy.”

 

 

 

 



Trump Carves Up World and International Order with It

Analysts say talks to end the war in Ukraine 'could resemble a new Yalta'. TASS/AFP
Analysts say talks to end the war in Ukraine 'could resemble a new Yalta'. TASS/AFP
TT
20

Trump Carves Up World and International Order with It

Analysts say talks to end the war in Ukraine 'could resemble a new Yalta'. TASS/AFP
Analysts say talks to end the war in Ukraine 'could resemble a new Yalta'. TASS/AFP

By casting doubt on the world order, Donald Trump risks dragging the globe back into an era where great powers impose their imperial will on the weak, analysts warn.
Russia wants Ukraine, China demands Taiwan and now the US president seems to be following suit, whether by coveting Canada as the "51st US state", insisting "we've got to have" Greenland or kicking Chinese interests out of the Panama Canal.
Where the United States once defended state sovereignty and international law, Trump's disregard for his neighbors' borders and expansionist ambitions mark a return to the days when the world was carved up into spheres of influence.
As recently as Wednesday, US defense secretary Pete Hegseth floated the idea of an American military base to secure the Panama Canal, a strategic waterway controlled by the United States until 1999 which Trump's administration has vowed to "take back".
Hegseth's comments came nearly 35 years after the United States invaded to topple Panama's dictator Manuel Noriega, harking back to when successive US administrations viewed Latin America as "America's backyard".
"The Trump 2.0 administration is largely accepting the familiar great power claim to 'spheres of influence'," Professor Gregory O. Hall, of the University of Kentucky, told AFP.
Indian diplomat Jawed Ashraf warned that by "speaking openly about Greenland, Canada, Panama Canal", "the new administration may have accelerated the slide" towards a return to great power domination.
The empire strikes back
Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has posed as the custodian of an international order "based on the ideas of countries' equal sovereignty and territorial integrity", said American researcher Jeffrey Mankoff, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
But those principles run counter to how Russia and China see their own interests, according to the author of "Empires of Eurasia: how imperial legacies shape international security".
Both countries are "themselves products of empires and continue to function in many ways like empires", seeking to throw their weight around for reasons of prestige, power or protection, Mankoff said.
That is not to say that spheres of influence disappeared with the fall of the Soviet Union.
"Even then, the US and Western allies sought to expand their sphere of influence eastward into what was the erstwhile Soviet and then the Russian sphere of influence," Ashraf, a former adviser to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, pointed out.
But until the return of Trump, the United States exploited its position as the "policeman of the world" to ward off imperial ambitions while pushing its own interests.
Now that Trump appears to view the cost of upholding a rules-based order challenged by its rivals and increasingly criticized in the rest of the world as too expensive, the United States is contributing to the cracks in the facade with Russia and China's help.
And as the international order weakens, the great powers "see opportunities to once again behave in an imperial way", said Mankoff.
Yalta yet again
As at Yalta in 1945, when the United States and the Soviet Union divided the post-World War II world between their respective zones of influence, Washington, Beijing and Moscow could again agree to carve up the globe anew.
"Improved ties between the United States and its great-power rivals, Russia and China, appear to be imminent," Derek Grossman, of the United States' RAND Corporation think tank, said in March.
But the haggling over who gets dominance over what and where would likely come at the expense of other countries.
"Today's major powers are seeking to negotiate a new global order primarily with each other," Monica Toft, professor of international relations at Tufts University in Massachusets wrote in the journal Foreign Affairs.
"In a scenario in which the United States, China, and Russia all agree that they have a vital interest in avoiding a nuclear war, acknowledging each other's spheres of influence can serve as a mechanism to deter escalation," Toft said.
If that were the case, "negotiations to end the war in Ukraine could resemble a new Yalta", she added.
Yet the thought of a Ukraine deemed by Trump to be in Russia's sphere is likely to send shivers down the spines of many in Europe -- not least in Ukraine itself.
"The success or failure of Ukraine to defend its sovereignty is going to have a lot of impact in terms of what the global system ends up looking like a generation from now," Mankoff said.
"So it's important for countries that have the ability and want to uphold an anti-imperial version of international order to assist Ukraine," he added -- pointing the finger at Europe.
"In Trump's world, Europeans need their own sphere of influence," said Rym Momtaz, a researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace.
"For former imperial powers, Europeans seem strangely on the backfoot as nineteenth century spheres of influence come back as the organising principle of global affairs."