Who Applauds the Brewing Intifada?

In recent days, there has been protests, conflicts, murders and explosions in and around Israel. It is important to list these attacks as they demonstrate what may lay ahead.

The following report was released by the Israel Foreign Ministry on Thursday, 13 Marcheshvan. The Palestinians have carried out three terrorist attacks in Jerusalem in less than two weeks and instigated numerous riots on the Temple Mount since the summer. Incitement and the glorification of terrorists have played an important role in triggering the violence and in encouraging further attacks. Rioting on the Temple Mount document.

The past weeks have been marked by a series of terrorist attacks in Jerusalem: One Israeli man was killed and 14 injured, some seriously, in Jerusalem on Wednesday, November 5, when a Palestinian deliberately rammed his commercial van into two separate crowds of Israelis near a light-rail train station and then attacked passers-by with a metal pole. A nearly identical attack took place exactly two weeks earlier (Wednesday, October 22) when a Palestinian steered his car into a light-rail station killing an Israeli-American baby and a woman originally from Ecuador and injuring eight. On Wednesday, October 29, a Palestinian terrorist attacked Yehuda Glick, an American-born Israeli, as he was departing from a conference in central Jerusalem. The terrorist shot Rabbi Glick multiple times and he remains in critical condition. Rioting on the Temple Mount: In the past few months, Palestinian radicals have been trying to breach the status quo by preventing Christians and Jews from visiting the Temple Mount. Palestinian rioters – incited by Hamas and the radical branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel – have attacked visitors as well as the police with stones and fireworks, using the al-Aqsa Mosque as their base of operations.

On November 5, several dozen masked Arabs again rioted on the Temple Mount. As the Mughrabi Gate for non-Muslim visitors to the Temple Mount opened as usual, the rioters came out of their prepared positions inside the al-Aqsa mosque and launched stones and fireworks at police stationed at the gate. The police responded with non-lethal measures to prevent injuries. The rioters then returned to the al-Aqsa mosque, positioning themselves behind barricades they built the night before. They targeted the police with the hundreds of fireworks, rocks and iron bars prepared beforehand, all from within the mosque itself. Several police officers were injured. Although as a matter of policy, the police never enter the mosque, following the escalation of attacks from inside the mosque, the police had to take a rare step. A small number of officers walked a few steps into the mosque’s entrance, for a short time, to remove the barricades that were preventing the mosque’s doors from being shut. By closing these doors, the police separated the rioters from their targets, thereby restoring calm to the Temple Mount and enabling peaceful visits to the plaza. A video filmed by the Israel Police clearly shows the Palestinian rioters at the entrance to the mosque, which they have taken over and desecrated as a launching base for their attacks. It is important to note that contrary to a number of media reports, the Temple Mount is not synonymous with the al-Aqsa mosque. Rather, this mosque is one of several structures located within the Temple Mount plaza (called Haram al-Sharif/the Noble Sanctuary by Muslims). Israel places the highest value on freedom of religion and worship. In contrast to Palestinian claims, Israel has made no move to change the decades-old status-quo on the Temple Mount, to which the Government of Israel is committed. Israel is reacting with maximum restraint to Palestinian violence on the Temple Mount. Its goals are to allow Muslims to pray peacefully and for Jews and others to visit safely. The police, despite being targeted, use only non-lethal measures against rioters, such as sponge-bullets and concussion grenades. In contrast, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas and his “unity government” partner Hamas are operating to undermine the status-quo on the Temple Mount, inciting riots to enflame tensions. Islamic extremists are endangering the safety of the al-Aqsa mosque by transforming it into a base for attacks and using flammable weapons. They store fireworks, Molotov cocktails and other dangerous objects inside the mosque and launch violent attacks from within the structure they claim as their third holiest site. While instigating riots on the Temple Mount, PA President Mahmoud Abbas himself, as well as Hamas, have engaged in incitement to terrorism and violence in Jerusalem.

In recent statements, Abbas said that all means must be used to prevent Jews from going up to the Temple Mount. He called Jewish visitors to their holiest site a “herd.” In the past, Abbas has disseminated lies, claiming that Israel is attacking the al-Aqsa mosque and that Jews are “desecrating” it. The most recent terrorist attack (November 5) is a direct result of the incitement by Abbas and his Hamas partners. The acts of incitement include a condolence letter sent by Abbas (1 November) to the family of the terrorist who shot Yehuda Glick. In the letter that glorifies the shooter, the PA president wrote that he “ascended to heaven as a martyr in the course of defending the rights of our nation, its honor and holy sites.” Abbas’ Fatah movement also published materials exalting the terrorist who carried out the attack on 22 October. For example, both Sultan Abu-Aynayn (an Abbas advisor and Fatah Central Committee member) and Fatah’s official Facebook page praised him as “a heroic martyr.” The international community should strongly condemn Abbas’ incitement and call on the PA president to cease this encouragement of violence and terrorism. The inflammatory language and actions must cease so that calm can return to Jerusalem and its Temple Mount in particular.

Then there is the breaking relationship with Jordan over the mosque closing.

While facing increased Arab riots and terrorist attacks that resemble the underpinnings of a renewed Palestinian intifada (uprising), Israel is simultaneously working to manage tension in its delicate relationship with Jordan, one of its two peaceful Arab neighbors.

On Nov. 5, masked Arab rioters threw rocks and shot fireworks at Israeli security forces on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, forcing Israel to temporarily close the holy site to visitors and touching off a diplomatic spat between the Jewish state and Jordan.

Israel also temporarily closed the Temple Mount to all worshippers last week after an Arab man’s attempted assassination of activist Yehudah Glick, a promoter of Jewish access to the Temple Mount. The preventative move came against the backdrop of weeks of increased Muslim riots and assaults on Jewish residents, including the recent vehicular Palestinian terror attack on Jerusalem’s Ammunition Hill light rail station that killed two people. After pressure from U.S. and Muslim leaders, the Israeli police decided to re-open the Temple Mount ahead of Muslim prayers on Oct. 31. Yet Nov. 5 saw another car-ramming attack by a Palestinian driver, this time at the Shimon Hatzadik light rail station in Jerusalem. The latest car attack killed an Israeli Druze border police superintendent and a 17-year-old yeshiva student.

Following the temporary closure on Nov. 5, Jordan threatened to undermine its relations with Israel by recalling its ambassador to the country over Israeli “violations” on the Temple Mount. Jordan and Egypt are the only Arab nations that have diplomatic relations with Israel.

After a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Jordan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nasser Judeh, accused Israel of “escalating the situation in Jerusalem” and “violations against the Al-Aqsa Mosque,” the Jordanian news agency Petra reported. Judeh added that Jordan would continue to counter “unilateral Israeli moves through diplomatic and legal means, especially using its vantage position as a member of the U.N. Security Council.”

Grant Rumley, a research analyst specializing in Palestinian politics and the Levant region for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told JNS.org that he believes Jordan’s calculations “are mostly the result of domestic pressure.”

“It’s harmful for the Jordanians to pull their minister from Israel, but it’s even worse for [Jordan’s] King Abdullah domestically if he doesn’t do anything,” Rumley said. “This, combined with a complaint to be filed at the Security Council, amount to symbolic gestures that are likely to appease the Jordanian public (a majority of whom do not support the country’s peace treaty with Israel) while still not severely damaging the strategic relationship with Israel.”

Despite fighting against each other in the 1948 War of Independence and 1967 Six Day War, Jordan and Israel have always maintained a relatively close relationship, which was finally formalized in 1994 with the Israel-Jordan peace treaty.

Today, both countries cooperate in several important areas, including security, the economy, and natural resources. Jordan in September signed a 15-year, $15 million natural gas deal with Israel that was hailed at the time as an “historic agreement.” As top allies of the U.S., Jordan and Israel also cooperate closely on intelligence sharing, especially amid the threat of the Islamic State and other terrorist groups in nearby Iraq and Syria. Jordan and Israel have also set up joint industrial parks, including the Jordan Gateway, whose formation was announced in late 2013.

At the same time, Israel and Jordan maintain a unique arrangement in Jerusalem. According to the 1994 peace treaty, Jordan retains custodianship over the Muslim holy sites in eastern Jerusalem, including the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound. But since the late 1990s, Israel has gradually allowed the Palestinian Authority to assert greater control over the site, which has caused some friction with Jordan and a gray area over control.

As part of the Jordan-Israel arrangement on the holy sites, Jews and non-Muslims are permitted to visit the Temple Mount, site of the First and Second Temples, on select days, but are not permitted to pray there. Yet there has been a push by some Israelis for greater Jewish sovereignty at the Temple Mount, including prayer rights.

Meanwhile, Muslim leaders, including in the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, have used the Temple Mount issue to incite protests and violence. Recent Palestinian news has been flooded with speeches, articles, and cartoons featuring calls by Palestinian Authority [PA] President Mahmoud Abbas to “defend” Al-Aqsa “in any way,” Palestinian Media Watch reported.

“This is our Sanctuary, our Al-Aqsa, and our Church [of the Holy Sepulchre]. They (Jews) have no right to enter it. They have no right to defile it. We must prevent them. Let us stand before them with chests bared to protect our holy places,” Abbas said.

For Jordan, the Temple Mount arrangement is just one of the critical issues facing the country.

“Jordan has about four major areas of concern these days: the threat of Islamic State, the economy, the crisis of handling Syrian refugees, and the tensions in Jerusalem,” Rumley told JNS.org.

“Now, for Abdullah, that’s probably exactly the order he’d list these issues in importance,” he said. “For the Jordanian public, it might be the other way around. These are sensitive issues, and Abdullah made a strategic calculation in keeping this spat with Israel at the diplomatic/rhetorical levels. There are too many benefits to the relationship with Israel in regards to the other categories for the king to seriously consider severing ties.”

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesperson Paul Hirschson, meanwhile, was careful not to place too much blame on Jordan for recent unrest, instead focusing on PA incitement.

“We regret the Jordanian decision [to recall its ambassador], which doesn’t contribute to calming the situation,” Hirschson told JNS.org. “We would expect Jordan to condemn the violence, deliberately instigated from [PA headquarters in] Ramallah.”

Before the news of the recall of the Jordanian ambassador and the threat of diplomatic action in the U.N., reports indicated that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and King Abdullah met secretly in Amman on Nov. 1 to discuss the situation in Jerusalem and urge calm.

The two leaders spoke again over the phone on Nov. 6 about the importance of ending violence and incitement over the Temple Mount.

“We agreed that we’ll make every effort to calm the situation,” Netanyahu said after the phone call.

“I explained to him that we’re keeping the status quo on the Temple Mount and that this includes Jordan’s traditional role there, as consistent with the peace treaty between Jordan and Israel,” Netanyahu added, referring to claims in the Muslim world that Israel is seeking to change the status there.

Some Israeli lawmakers, however, feel that Israel is conceding sovereignty over Jerusalem and the holy sites.

“Israeli society needs to decide if it is willing to pay the price for maintaining sovereignty over the Temple Mount and the entire land,” said Member of Knesset Moshe Feiglin (Likud), who has been a leading advocate for Jewish rights on the Temple Mount and recently visited the site. “The weakness being shown in dealing with the Temple Mount reflects on the whole country.”

After the two vehicular terror attacks on Nov. 5, Netanyahu placed the blame on Palestinian incitement.

“This attack was the direct result of the incitement of Abbas and his Hamas partners,” Netanyahu said. “This front of hate wants to run over all of us. Peace will come when Abbas stops calling Jews ‘defilers’ and he stops embracing murderers.”

Last week, Abbas’s Fatah movement declared Oct. 31 to be a “day of rage” in Jerusalem, calling on Palestinian “fighters” to defend Al-Aqsa, while Hamas similarly called for further protests and violence.

While the tension continues to escalate, Rumley believes that the situation has not yet risen to the level of another Palestinian intifada.

“I think there are a lot of analysts out there eager to label this as an intifada,” he told JNS.org. “But intifadas have to have leadership at some point. The first started leaderless before local committees sprouted up. The second [Intifada] was top-down coordinated. So far, the situation in East Jerusalem is leaderless.”

“What we’re seeing instead is not so much local leadership as it is external groups attempting to steer the situation,” added Rumley. “Hamas calling for protests, Abbas calling for days of rage, etc. … Right now, these attacks and clashes appear to have a short shelf life, but that doesn’t mean it will stay that way in the future.”

Immigration: Morton, Johnson, Holder and the White House

The Senate passed an immigration bill but it was such a lousy bill it failed to be considered by the House. The Dream Act failed in both Houses of Congress so Barack Obama initiated the DACA executive order. Now that a new Congress is about to be seated, Obama demands a new revolutionary immigration policy law or he is going to use his pen to sign executive action giving amnesty and refugee status to millions.

Examining some historical facts and political machinations are important for perspective on the immigration mindset of the White House.

The Border Patrol’s annual statistics were posted on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Web site for about five hours on Oct. 10, then taken down. But Customs and Border Protection spokesman Christopher O’Neil said in an e-mail that the decision to remove the briefly released data had nothing to do with the midterm elections. Rather, he said, it was an effort to provide all of the agency’s statistics — and not just the Border Patrol’s — “in one concise and comprehensive package.”

Using slides to illustrate his remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Oct. 9, Johnson announced that the Border Patrol had made 479,377 apprehensions last year on the border. He saluted CBP for recently making public an internal report and new policy on the agency’s use of force. And he underscored “a commitment to transparency.”

The new annual statistics were posted and taken down within hours the next day.

 

Then there are the Morton Memos and they include the edict for discretion on prosecuting criminal illegals and deportation going back 3-4 years.

A memo in full text is found here. Text in part is below demonstrating where immigration laws are not being enforced.

One of ICE’s central responsibilities is to enforce the nation’s civil immigration laws in coordination with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). ICE, however, has limited resources to remove those illegally in the United States. ICE must prioritize the use of its enforcement personnel, detention space, and removal assets to ensure that the aliens it removes represent, as much as reasonably possible, the agency’s enforcement priorities, namely the promotion of national security, border security, public safety, and the integrity of the immigration system. These priorities are outlined in the ICE Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities memorandum of March 2,2011, which this memorandum is intended to support.

Because the agency is confronted with more administrative violations than its resources can address, the agency must regularly exercise “prosecutorial discretion” if it is to prioritize its efforts. In basic terms, prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise “it in the ordinary course of enforcement1.When ICE favorably exercises prosecutorial discretion, it essentially decides not to assert the full scope of the enforcement authority available to the agency in a given case.

 

When weighing whether an exercise of prosecutorial discretion may be warranted for a given . alien, ICE officers, agents, and attorneys should consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to

  • the agency’s civil immigration enforcement priorities;
  • the person’s length of presence in the United States, with particular consideration given to presence while in lawful status;
  • the circumstances of the person’s arrival in the United States and the manner of his or her entry, particularly if the alien came to the United States as a young child;
  • the person’s pursuit of education in the United States, with particular consideration given to those who have graduated from a U.S. high school or have successfully pursued or are pursuing a college or advanced degrees at a legitimate institution of higher education in the United States;
  • whether the person, or the person’s immediate relative, has served in the U.S. military, reserves, or national guard, with particular consideration given to those who served in combat;
  • the person’s criminal history, including arrests, prior convictions, or outstanding arrest warrants;
  • the person’s immigration history, including any prior removal, outstanding order of removal, prior denial of status, or evidence of fraud;
  • whether the person poses a national security or public safety concern;
  • the person’s ties and contributions to the community, including family relationships;
  • the person’s ties to the home country and condition~ in the country;
  • the person’s age, with particular consideration given to minors and the elderly;
  • whether the person has a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, child, or parent;
  • whether the person is the primary caretaker ofa person with a mental or physical disability, minor, or seriously ill relative; ;
  • whether the person or the person’s spouse is pregnant or nursing;
  • whether the person or the person’s spouse suffers from severe mental or physical illness;
  • whether the person’s nationality renders removal unlikely;
  • Whether the person is likely to be granted temporary or permanent status or other relief from removal, including as a relative of a U.S. citizen or permanent resident;
  • whether the person is likely to be granted temporary or permanent status or other relief from removal, including as an asylum seeker, or a victim of domestic violence, human trafficking, or other crime; . and .
  • whether the person is currently cooperating or has cooperated with federal, state or local law enforcement authorities, such as ICE, the U.S Attorneys or Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, or National Labor Relations Board, among others.

Behpajooh and John Kerry

At least four secret letters have been dispatched from the White House and sent to Iran. The full contents of the letters are still unknown except the most recent was revealed by the Wall Street Journal containing two items, points of collaboration over the ISIS war in Iraq and striking a final deal on the Iranian nuclear program.

Denials have been made by the White House that the United States was not working with Iran on the matter of Iraq as noted here. ‘Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” last month, National Security Adviser Susan Rice said the U.S. wasn’t working with Iran on the fight against the Islamic State. “We are not in coordination or direct consultation with the Iranians about any aspect of the fight against ISIL,” Rice said, using an alternate acronym for the jihadist group. “It is a fact that, in Iraq, they also are supporting the Iraqis against ISIL, but we are not coordinating. We are doing this very differently and independently.”

After doing some deep research, it was found that under SecState John Kerry, nothing else matters when it comes to Iraq, Syria, Russia or Iran except gaining a nuclear deal with the help of the P5+1, a deal that has excluded the U.S. Congress and ALL allies in the Middle East.

The United States under the G. W. Bush administration worked a stealthy mission to halt the Iran program in coordination with Israel by creating and infecting the Iranian nuclear program with an undetected virus into the computers controlling the spinning centrifuges. Outside companies were identified and sanctions and later targeted via a thumb drive to infect the computer network to bring a halt to the cascading centrifuge system.

One such company was Behpajooh and there are many more, but all of these associated firms have been ignored by the State Department, Treasury, the interagency and the envoy working in cadence with John Kerry giving freedom to Iran to continue their program.

The betrayal of the State Department and the White House of allies and Congress is epic in nature, when this could lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, a long future of hostilities with Daesh and a much sooner launch of a nuclear weapon by Iran on their targeted enemies the little Satan and the big Satan, Israel and the United States.

Here is the story on how Stuxnet came to be. Clearly, the Bush administration and Israel were clandestine in this regard and the mission was successful. It now begs the question, will it happen again if a deal is reached by the November 24 deadline?

An Unprecedented Look at Stuxnet, the World’s First Digital Weapon

In January 2010, inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency visiting the Natanz uranium enrichment plant in Iran noticed that centrifuges used to enrich uranium gas were failing at an unprecedented rate. The cause was a complete mystery—apparently as much to the Iranian technicians replacing the centrifuges as to the inspectors observing them.

Five months later a seemingly unrelated event occurred. A computer security firm in Belarus was called in to troubleshoot a series of computers in Iran that were crashing and rebooting repeatedly. Again, the cause of the problem was a mystery. That is, until the researchers found a handful of malicious files on one of the systems and discovered the world’s first digital weapon.

Stuxnet, as it came to be known, was unlike any other virus or worm that came before. Rather than simply hijacking targeted computers or stealing information from them, it escaped the digital realm to wreak physical destruction on equipment the computers controlled.

Countdown to Zero Day: Stuxnet and the Launch of the World’s First Digital Weapon, written by WIRED senior staff writer Kim Zetter, tells the story behind Stuxnet’s planning, execution and discovery. In this excerpt from the book, which will be released November 11, Stuxnet has already been at work silently sabotaging centrifuges at the Natanz plant for about a year. An early version of the attack weapon manipulated valves on the centrifuges to increase the pressure inside them and damage the devices as well as the enrichment process. Centrifuges are large cylindrical tubes—connected by pipes in a configuration known as a “cascade”—that spin at supersonic speed to separate isotopes in uranium gas for use in nuclear power plants and weapons. At the time of the attacks, each cascade at Natanz held 164 centrifuges. Uranium gas flows through the pipes into the centrifuges in a series of stages, becoming further “enriched” at each stage of the cascade as isotopes needed for a nuclear reaction are separated from other isotopes and become concentrated in the gas.

As the excerpt begins, it’s June 2009—a year or so since Stuxnet was first released, but still a year before the covert operation will be discovered and exposed. As Iran prepares for its presidential elections, the attackers behind Stuxnet are also preparing their next assault on the enrichment plant with a new version of the malware. They unleash it just as the enrichment plant is beginning to recover from the effects of the previous attack. Their weapon this time is designed to manipulate computer systems made by the German firm Siemens that control and monitor the speed of the centrifuges. Because the computers are air-gapped from the internet, however, they cannot be reached directly by the remote attackers. So the attackers have designed their weapon to spread via infected USB flash drives. To get Stuxnet to its target machines, the attackers first infect computers belonging to five outside companies that are believed to be connected in some way to the nuclear program. The aim is to make each “patient zero” an unwitting carrier who will help spread and transport the weapon on flash drives into the protected facility and the Siemens computers. Although the five companies have been referenced in previous news reports, they’ve never been identified. Four of them are identified in this excerpt.

The Lead-Up to the 2009 Attack

The two weeks leading up to the release of the next attack were tumultuous ones in Iran. On June 12, 2009, the presidential elections between incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and challenger Mir-Hossein Mousavi didn’t turn out the way most expected. The race was supposed to be close, but when the results were announced—two hours after the polls closed—Ahmadinejad had won with 63 percent of the vote over Mousavi’s 34 percent. The electorate cried foul, and the next day crowds of angry protesters poured into the streets of Tehran to register their outrage and disbelief. According to media reports, it was the largest civil protest the country had seen since the 1979 revolution ousted the shah and it wasn’t long before it became violent. Protesters vandalized stores and set fire to trash bins, while police and Basijis, government-loyal militias in plainclothes, tried to disperse them with batons, electric prods, and bullets.

That Sunday, Ahmadinejad gave a defiant victory speech, declaring a new era for Iran and dismissing the protesters as nothing more than soccer hooligans soured by the loss of their team. The protests continued throughout the week, though, and on June 19, in an attempt to calm the crowds, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei sanctioned the election results, insisting that the margin of victory—11 million votes—was too large to have been achieved through fraud. The crowds, however, were not assuaged.

The next day, a twenty-six-year-old woman named Neda Agha-Soltan got caught in a traffic jam caused by protesters and was shot in the chest by a sniper’s bullet after she and her music teacher stepped out of their car to observe.

Two days later on June 22, a Monday, the Guardian Council, which oversees elections in Iran, officially declared Ahmadinejad the winner, and after nearly two weeks of protests, Tehran became eerily quiet. Police had used tear gas and live ammunition to disperse the demonstrators, and most of them were now gone from the streets. That afternoon, at around 4:30 p.m. local time, as Iranians nursed their shock and grief over events of the previous days, a new version of Stuxnet was being compiled and unleashed.

Recovery From Previous Attack

While the streets of Tehran had been in turmoil, technicians at Natanz had been experiencing a period of relative calm. Around the first of the year, they had begun installing new centrifuges again, and by the end of February they had about 5,400 of them in place, close to the 6,000 that Ahmadinejad had promised the previous year. Not all of the centrifuges were enriching uranium yet, but at least there was forward movement again, and by June the number had jumped to 7,052, with 4,092 of these enriching gas. In addition to the eighteen cascades enriching gas in unit A24, there were now twelve cascades in A26 enriching gas. An additional seven cascades had even been installed in A28 and were under vacuum, being prepared to receive gas.

The performance of the centrifuges was improving too. Iran’s daily production of low-enriched uranium was up 20 percent and would remain consistent throughout the summer of 2009. Despite the previous problems, Iran had crossed a technical milestone and had succeeded in producing 839 kilograms of low-enriched uranium—enough to achieve nuclear-weapons breakout capability. If it continued at this rate, Iran would have enough enriched uranium to make two nuclear weapons within a year. This estimate, however, was based on the capacity of the IR-1 centrifuges currently installed at Natanz. But Iran had already installed IR-2 centrifuges in a small cascade in the pilot plant, and once testing on these was complete and technicians began installing them in the underground hall, the estimate would have to be revised. The more advanced IR-2 centrifuges were more efficient. It took 3,000 IR-1s to produce enough uranium for a nuclear weapon in one year, but it would take just 1,200 IR-2 centrifuges to do the same.

Cue Stuxnet 1.001, which showed up in late June.

The Next Assault

To get their weapon into the plant, the attackers launched an offensive against computers owned by four companies. All of the companies were involved in industrial control and processing of some sort, either manufacturing products and assembling components or installing industrial control systems. They were all likely chosen because they had some connection to Natanz as contractors and provided a gateway through which to pass Stuxnet to Natanz through infected employees.

To ensure greater success at getting the code where it needed to go, this version of Stuxnet had two more ways to spread than the previous one. Stuxnet 0.5 could spread only by infecting Step 7 project files—the files used to program Siemens PLCs. This version, however, could spread via USB flash drives using the Windows Autorun feature or through a victim’s local network using the print-spooler zero-day exploit that Kaspersky Lab, the antivirus firm based in Russia, and Symantec later found in the code.

Based on the log files in Stuxnet, a company called Foolad Technic was the first victim. It was infected at 4:40 a.m. on June 23, a Tuesday. But then it was almost a week before the next company was hit.

The following Monday, about five thousand marchers walked silently through the streets of Tehran to the Qoba Mosque to honor victims killed during the recent election protests. Late that evening, around 11:20 p.m., Stuxnet struck machines belonging to its second victim—a company called Behpajooh.

It was easy to see why Behpajooh was a target. It was an engineering firm based in Esfahan—the site of Iran’s new uranium conversion plant, built to turn milled uranium ore into gas for enriching at Natanz, and was also the location of Iran’s Nuclear Technology Center, which was believed to be the base for Iran’s nuclear weapons development program. Behpajooh had also been named in US federal court documents in connection with Iran’s illegal procurement activities.

Behpajooh was in the business of installing and programming industrial control and automation systems, including Siemens systems. The company’s website made no mention of Natanz, but it did mention that the company had installed Siemens S7-400 PLCs, as well as the Step 7 and WinCC software and Profibus communication modules at a steel plant in Esfahan. This was, of course, all of the same equipment Stuxnet targeted at Natanz.

At 5:00 a.m. on July 7, nine days after Behpajooh was hit, Stuxnet struck computers at Neda Industrial Group, as well as a company identified in the logs only as CGJ, believed to be Control Gostar Jahed. Both companies designed or installed industrial control systems.

electrical systems for the oil and gas industry in Iran, as well as for power plants and mining and process facilities. In 2000 and 2001 the company had installed Siemens S7 PLCs in several gas pipeline operations in Iran and had also installed Siemens S7 systems at the Esfahan Steel Complex. Like Behpajooh, Neda had been identified on a proliferation watch list for its alleged involvement in illicit procurement activity and was named in a US indictment for receiving smuggled microcontrollers and other components.

About two weeks after it struck Neda, a control engineer who worked for the company popped up on a Siemens user forum on July 22 complaining about a problem that workers at his company were having with their machines. The engineer, who posted a note under the user name Behrooz, indicated that all PCs at his company were having an identical problem with a Siemens Step 7 .DLL file that kept producing an error message. He suspected the problem was a virus that spread via flash drives.

When he used a DVD or CD to transfer files from an infected system to a clean one, everything was fine, he wrote. But when he used a flash drive to transfer files, the new PC started having the same problems the other machine had. A USB flash drive, of course, was Stuxnet’s primary method of spreading. Although Behrooz and his colleagues scanned for viruses, they found no malware on their machines. There was no sign in the discussion thread that they ever resolved the problem at the time.

It’s not clear how long it took Stuxnet to reach its target after infecting machines at Neda and the other companies, but between June and August the number of centrifuges enriching uranium gas at Natanz began to drop. Whether this was the result solely of the new version of Stuxnet or the lingering effects of the previous version is unknown. But by August that year, only 4,592 centrifuges were enriching at the plant, a decrease of 328 centrifuges since June. By November, that number had dropped even further to 3,936, a difference of 984 in five months. What’s more, although new machines were still being installed, none of them were being fed gas.

Clearly there were problems with the cascades, and technicians had no idea what they were. The changes mapped precisely, however, to what Stuxnet was designed to do.

Reprinted from Countdown to Zero Day: Stuxnet and the Launch of the World’s First Digital Weapon Copyright © 2014 by Kim Zetter. Published by Crown Publishers, an imprint of Random House LLC.

 

Remembering a Civil War Soldier

Rules of engagement today are designed with mountains of lawyers, applied politics and global implications. But there was a time when a single long war was fought exclusively on American soil, the Civil War.

Soldiers in the Civil War fought for a country in their own home country, many was a family member against yet another family member with sides deeply divided.  Here is the story of a soldier of more than 150 years ago that is being awarded the highest military honor, and even lawyers and politics were a part of this event so many years later. Enjoy the read and applaud the valor.

Why a Civil War soldier will get the Medal of Honor — 151 years after his death

First Lt. Alonzo H. Cushing was bleeding profusely from wounds to his abdomen and shoulder as thousands of Confederate infantrymen advanced on his artillery battery in the Battle of Gettysburg. At least one of his soldiers begged him to seek medical treatment, but he refused. He stayed on the battlefield another 90 minutes while under attack, ordering his men to keep firing their three-inch cannons right up until the moment that he was killed with a gunshot to the head.

The Union Army’s ability to stop that assault by at least 13,000 soldiers — known as Pickett’s Charge, after a Confederate general who led rebel troops taking part in it — is a key part of the Civil War’s most iconic battle. But the heroism of Cushing, 22, on July 3, 1863, was not honored with the nation’s highest award for combat valor, even though 63 other Union soldiers received the prestigious decoration.

U.S. officials will rectify that Thursday.

President Obama is scheduled to award the Medal of Honor in a White House ceremony to descendants of the Cushing family, more than 151 years after the battle. They’ve passed his story down for generations with pride, but had not considered it possible that Cushing would receive the award, they said.

“His whole family was a very brave family,” said Jessica Loring, who is Cushing’s first cousin, three generations removed. “His mother would say, ‘Death before dishonor’ when she sent her sons off to war, and three of them died very young.”

It’s a highly rare, if not unprecedented, occurrence for battlefield bravery to be recognized with the Medal of Honor so many years later. Cushing initially was recognized posthumously with an honorary “brevet” promotion to lieutenant colonel, something that was common for officers at the time, said Mark Bradley, a historian with the U.S. Army Center of Military History. But officers rarely received the Medal of Honor at the time. Some other Union soldiers who were awarded the medal for actions at Gettysburg received it posthumously; for decades, no one nominated Cushing.

About 40 years ago, a woman who lived on a farm in Delafield, Wis., once owned by the Cushing family began asking why not. Margaret Zerwekh, now 94, learned about the soldier’s heroism while researching his family, and began compiling an application to nominate him for the Medal of Honor. She enlisted the help of then-Sen. William Proxmire (D.-Wis.), and later received backing from other members of her state’s congressional delegation. Then-Sen. Russ Feingold (D.-Wis.) nominated Cushing for the Medal of Honor in 2002, Army officials said.

Even then, the process took years. The Army approved the nomination in 2010, but the amount of time that had passed since Cushing’s act of heroism required Congress to suspend the statute of limitations on the honor. Legislation to do so passed in 2013, paving the way for Obama’s approval of the award.

Zerwekh and many members of the Cushing family had not met until this week, turning the event into something of an extended family reunion. Helen Loring Ensign, 85, of Palm Desert, Calif., will receive the medal from the president at the White House. It will be displayed in numerous locations afterward, including Gettysburg and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., which Cushing attended and where he later was buried.

“The idea is that it shouldn’t just sit on someone’s mantlepiece and just stay there,” said Jessica Loring. “It needs to be shown so people today can understand the price of making our country free and the sacrifice it takes. We want to bring Alonzo to life in what he did for this nation.”

Although Medals of Honor awarded today require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of acts of valor, Bradley said it is difficult to determine the exact details of Cushing’s actions 151 years later. The standard at the time was not as stringent, however, and there is no doubt that Cushing faced a fearsome barrage and refused to give up his command.

“That area looked like a slaughterhouse,” Bradley said of the battlefield around Cushing, known as Cemetery Ridge. “There were dismembered horses… literally hundreds of Confederate dead and dying lying in front of the guns. This was not a sight for the faint-hearted, and that is where Alonzo Cushing spent his last hours on this hour.”

Two of Cushing’s brothers also are considered war heroes. William B. Cushing was a commander in the Union navy, and best known for playing a key role in the sinking of the CSS Albemarle, an ironclad Confederate ship. An older brother, Howard B. Cushing, was a soldier during the Civil War and later killed in a fight with Native Americans in the Apache tribe.

Obama out of Iraq Due to WH, Maliki, Mahdi Army

The White House knew better than anyone else when it came to Iraq. At all costs, Barack Obama wanted out and to declare hostilities over. He prevailed however, today Iraq is a battleground not seen before.

In Mosul, two army divisions also disintegrated as thousands of soldiers and police officers shed their uniforms, dropped their weapons and ran for their lives. Shehab, told that his commanders had deserted, tossed his rifle and ran away too.

“We felt like cowards, but our commanders were afraid of Daesh. They were too afraid to lead us,” said Shehab, 43, using the Arabic acronym for Islamic State. The military collapsed in Mosul even though Washington spent eight years and $25 billion to train, arm and equip Iraq’s security forces. The United States has now deployed 1,400 advisors to try to rebuild the shattered military into a force that can repel Islamic State.

So how did Iraq reach this point?

Behind the U.S. Withdrawal From Iraq

Negotiations were repeatedly disrupted by Obama White House staffers’ inaccurate public statements

By James Franklin Jeffrey

The spectacular success in early 2014 of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, an offshoot of al Qaeda in Iraq, is often blamed on the failure of the Obama administration to secure an American troop presence in Iraq beyond 2011. As the U.S. ambassador to Iraq in 2010-12, I believed that keeping troops there was critical. Nevertheless, our failure has roots far beyond the Obama administration.

The story begins in 2008, when the Bush administration and Iraq negotiated a Status of Forces Agreement granting U.S. troops in the country legal immunities—a sine qua non of U.S. basing everywhere—but with the caveat that they be withdrawn by the end of 2011.

By 2010 many key Americans and Iraqis thought that a U.S. military presence beyond 2011 was advisable, for security (training Iraqi forces, control of airspace, counterterrorism) and policy (continued U.S. engagement and reassurance to neighbors). The Pentagon began planning for a continued military presence, but an eight-month impasse on forming a new government after the March 2010 Iraqi elections delayed final approval in Washington.

In January 2011, once the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was formed, President Obama decided, with the concurrence of his advisers, to keep troops on. But he wasn’t yet willing to tell Prime Minister Maliki or the American people. First, Washington had to determine the size of a residual force. That dragged on, with the military pushing for a larger force, and the White House for a small presence at or below 10,000, due to costs and the president’s prior “all troops out” position. In June the president decided on the force level (eventually 5,000) and obtained Mr. Maliki’s assent to new SOFA talks.

The Obama administration was willing to “roll over” the terms of the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement as long as the new agreement, like the first, was ratified by the Iraqi Parliament.

Iraqi party leaders repeatedly reviewed the SOFA terms but by October 2011 were at an impasse. All accepted a U.S. troop presence—with the exception of the Sadrist faction, headed by the anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, which held some 40 of Iraq’s 325 parliamentary seats. But on immunities only the Kurdish parties, with some 60 seats, would offer support. Neither Mr. Maliki, with some 120 seats, nor former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, the leader of the largely Sunni Arab Iraqiya party with 80 more, would definitively provide support. With time running out, given long-standing U.S. policy that troops stationed overseas must have legal immunity, negotiations ended and the troop withdrawal was completed.

Given the success in winning a SOFA in 2008, what led to this failure? First, the need for U.S. troops was not self-evident in 2011. Iraq appeared stable, with oil exports of two million barrels a day at about $90 a barrel, and security much improved. Second, politics had turned against a troop presence; the bitterly anti-U.S. Sadrists were active in Parliament, the Sunni Arabs more ambivalent toward the U.S., and polls indicated that less than 20% of the Iraqi population wanted U.S. troops.

Could the administration have used more leverage, as many have asserted? Again, the main hurdle was immunities. The reality is that foreign troops in any land are generally unpopular and granting them immunity is complicated. In a constitutional democracy it requires parliament to waive its own laws. An agreement signed by Mr. Maliki without parliamentary approval, as he suggested, would not suffice. (The legal status of the small number of “noncombat” U.S. troops currently redeployed to Iraq is an emergency exception to usual SOFA policy.)

Some suggest that the U.S. could have made economic aid or arms deliveries contingent on a Status of Forces Agreement. But by 2011 the U.S. was providing relatively little economic aid to Iraq, and arms deliveries were essential to American and Iraqi security. Was the 5,000 troop number too small to motivate the Iraqis? No Iraqi made that argument to me; generally, smaller forces are more sellable. Could someone other than Mr. Maliki have been more supportive, and were the Iranians opposed? Of course, but with or without Mr. Maliki and Iranians we faced deep resistance from parliamentarians and the public.

Could President Obama have showed more enthusiasm? True, Mr. Obama seemed to feel he couldn’t force an unwanted agreement on the Iraqi people, and he didn’t work with Mr. Maliki as President Bush had. But Mr. Obama spoke or met with Mr. Maliki three times in 2011, and Vice President Joe Biden was constantly in touch. What counted most with Mr. Maliki was not rapport but the coldblooded calculus of pluses and minuses affecting his political fortunes. On the other hand, the negotiations were disrupted repeatedly by White House staffers with public statements inaccurately low-balling the troop numbers and misinterpreting Iraqi decisions.

The withdrawal of troops allowed President Obama to declare that he was “ending the war in Iraq”—oddly, since it was the Bush administration’s military victories and successful negotiation of the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement that had set the timeline for U.S. troop withdrawal. Later, during the 2012 presidential debates, Mr. Obama inexplicably denied that he had even attempted to keep troops in Iraq.

Could a residual force have prevented ISIS’s victories? With troops we would have had better intelligence on al Qaeda in Iraq and later ISIS, a more attentive Washington, and no doubt a better-trained Iraqi army. But the common argument that U.S. troops could have produced different Iraqi political outcomes is hogwash. The Iraqi sectarian divides, which ISIS exploited, run deep and were not susceptible to permanent remedy by our troops at their height, let alone by 5,000 trainers under Iraqi restraints.

Iraqis in Shiite-dominated greater Baghdad generally support the army, he said. But he also acknowledged that the army cannot defend the surrounding “Baghdad belt” without the help of thousands of Shiite militiamen Kamil calls “volunteers,” particularly because areas just to the north, west and south have a Sunni majority.

Officers in one of many units that collapsed in Mosul, the 2nd Battalion of Iraq’s 3rd Federal Police Division, said their U.S. training was useful. But as soon as their American advisors left, they said, soldiers and police went back to their ways.

Retired Lt. Gen. James M. Dubik, in charge of Iraqi training in 2007 and 2008, said Maliki’s government intimidated and assassinated Sunni officers while Maliki seized personal control of the security forces from commanders. Human rights groups have accused Iraqi security forces of detaining and killing Sunnis.

Selected quotes from the text above is from

Why Iraqi army can’t fight, despite $25 billion in U.S. aid, training