WarSclerotic

Israel builds up its cyberwar corps – UPI.com.

TEL AVIV, Israel, Nov. 2 (UPI) — Amid signs the cyberwar with Iran is heating up, the Israeli army reportedly has launched a major recruitment drive for computer wonks to expand Unit 8200, a highly secret outfit that’s supposedly behind recent cyberattacks on the Islamic Republic.

It’s widely held that Israel has been driving hard to develop a whole arsenal of cyberweapons in preparation for possible war with Iran.

In particular, the Israelis have threatened pre-emptive strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities that would include a multitude of cyberattacks on Tehran’s command-and-control network, communications and infrastructure that would degrade its military capabilities.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu established a special division of Unit 8200 in 2010 to develop the Jewish state’s cyberwar capabilities.

That makes it Israel’s cutting edge in the rapidly evolving arena of cyberconflict, a silent and virtually invisible form of warfare that theoretically is capable of knocking out the entire industrial, commercial, financial and social infrastructure of an enemy, as well as seriously degrading his fighting capabilities, without firing a shot.

This is the form of warfare that’s emerging between Iran, on one hand, and Israel and the United States on the other.

Yedioth Ahronoth, a leading Israeli daily, Thursday quoted a senior officer in the army’s manpower division as saying the military faces a dire shortage of cyberwarriors and is scouring the country, as well as the Jewish diaspora, for recruits.

“It’s become clear that the demand for soldiers in this field is growing, which is why we’re searching for solutions not only in Israel but abroad as well,” the officer observed.

Netanyahu has championed Israel’s effort to expand its arsenal and defenses against cyberattack.

“There are increasing attempts to carry out cyberattacks on computer infrastructures in the state of Israel,” he told a weekly Cabinet meeting Oct. 14.

“Every day there are attempts, even many attempts, to infiltrate Israel’s computer systems.”

He didn’t say where the attacks originated but it was clear he was referring to Iran, the target of Israeli and U.S. cyberattacks since 2009 and now rapidly developing its own cyberwarfare capabilities and clearly making progress.

Later this month, cyberthreats will be the main focus of the Second International Conference of Homeland Security in Tel Aviv. The conference, organized by the Israel Export and International Cooperation Institute, will be attended by some 2,000 security officials, defense company executives and military analysts from around the globe.

Israel’s high-tech defense companies are expected to display a range of new systems to counter the emerging cyberwar threat.

Cyberwarfare is being given priority under the military’s current five-year development plan, despite hefty cutbacks in defense spending.

Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi, the new head of Military Intelligence, is reported to have allocated $320 million for the army’s cyberwarfare program.

“Cyber readiness is one of the new pillars in our plan, including both defense and offense,” the military’s leading cyberexpert, Maj. Gen. Isaac Ben Israel, explained.

He downplayed the report the military was seeking would-be cyberwarriors among Jewish communities abroad, stressing that the military has first pick of 18-year-old Israelis when they commence their mandatory three-year military service.

But he stressed: “Cybertechnology is a new weapon in the old business of warfare. If we want to defend ourselves, we have to dominate this field.”

Israel is striving to do this, alongside the United States.

Senior officers in both militaries have dropped strong hints, supported by the conclusions of leading information technology researchers, that Israel and the United States jointly developed the Stuxnet virus that was used to sabotage Iran’s uranium enrichment program, the core of its alleged military nuclear project, in 2009 and again in 2010.

Those ground-breaking cyberattacks were followed by more sophisticated viruses identified as Duqu, Gauss, W32.Flame and its powerful spinoff, Mini-Flame.

These have been directed not only at Iran’s nuclear program but also the state-owned National Iranian Oil Co. and other important infrastructure in recent months.

The Iranians, who’ve been throwing considerable resources into developing their own cyber capabilities, have started striking back. U.S. officials say Tehran was behind attacks in August against Saudi Arabia’s oil giant Aramco and Rafgas in neighboring Qatar.

‘The Lawgiver,’ by Herman Wouk – The Washington Post.

( An unbelievably positive review.  My Abba… I’m so proud, I’m actually crying. – JW )

By Melvin Jules Bukiet, Published: November 1

Most writers have a physical or mental drawer full of ideas for books that were never written. Maybe the time wasn’t right, or maybe the writer wasn’t up to the task. Generally, those ideas fade and ultimately disappear. Yet every once in a while, some novelist will dust off an ancient memo and say, “Hmmm, there’s something here.”

That process doesn’t usually take 50 years, but heck, novelists have a different sense of time than normal people. Especially if they’re 97 years old. For most of his abundant life span, Herman Wouk has been renowned for the historical realism of books such as his pair of doorstopping 1970s blockbusters, “The Winds of War” and “War and Remembrance.” Also, Wouk received a Pulitzer Prize for “The Caine Mutiny,” although he was never entirely welcome in the high-lit club, maybe because he was considered too successful to be serious.

Now, in “The Lawgiver,” Wouk fulfills the dream of a novel he conceived ages ago, and in doing so reveals himself to be as serious as anyone in his choice of both subject (the Bible) and style (postmodern collage). Fortunately for his readers, he wields a computer with a touch as light as a quill pen.

“The Lawgiver” begins when a writer named Herman Wouk receives an insanely lucrative offer to pass judgment on a screenplay about Moses commissioned by an eccentric Australian billionaire. Tim Warshaw, a Hollywood honcho desperate for a hit to save his failing production company, takes on the project and brings along screenwriter Margolit Solovei, the “preoccupied pagan” daughter of an Orthodox rabbi.

Wouk and his wife, Betty, hear out Solovei’s passionate views of Moses, “a hero nobody can write,” along with various “Hollywood trolls” who beg them to “please keep God’s lines short and few!” The Wouks, along with the trolls, provide us with scores of e-mails, faxes, diary entries, meeting memoranda and taped conversations, creating a tapestry that’s both a paean to the early epistolary form of the novel and utterly of our time.

Clearly, “The Lawgiver” has unleashed Wouk’s inner metafictionalist as well as a parodist of considerable virtue, which is to say viciousness, as he chronicles the battle to get this film on track. Warshaw wants his team to “think twenty-first century, think special effects — think maybe three-D,” yet neither his backer nor his writer wants a re-creation of Cecil B. DeMille. After all, “the Torah narrative is not popcorn amusement for dating teenagers.” And in the midst of financial manipulation and ego games, the Aussie actor they’ve got lined up to play Moses flees into the Outback to herd sheep. Honorably, he offers to send back his salary. Warshaw comments, “An actor returning money . . . is like a total eclipse of the sun, only less usual.”

Throughout his giddy romp between Sinai and Sunset Boulevard, Wouk alludes to a slew of other writers like an over-caffeinated grad student. He mentions Dickens and Thackeray and Saki and Robert Louis Stevenson, who he declares “has a ‘submerged’ reputation, [yet] goes on being read all over the world.” This sounds rather like a description of Wouk’s own career, but without a tang of antiquarian sour grapes. Wouk’s most-famous works may indeed dwell in decades past, but “The Lawgiver” is attuned to the pulse of today. Among its many remarkably ironic, ripped-from-the-headlines moments is a suggestion that the Moses movie becomes a surprise hit across the Arab world.

Besides modern media, “The Lawgiver” explores Jewish faith and nutty Australocentrism, yet it never loses track of its story. The page after I wanted to cry out, “Hey, what happened to that couple at the Uluru red rock?,” Wouk delivers the scene. Even when I began to feel that the Solovei chick was starting to resemble one of Wouk’s early protagonists, Marjorie Morningstar, another character notes precisely that resemblance. And two further plots emerge from beneath the big-money, big-moxie shenanigans. First, the rekindling of Solovei’s long-dormant romance with a young man from her childhood feels like a contemporary echo of Herman Wouk’s 70-year romance with his own wife. Second, in some essential way, this book about a movie about a book is also about the very act of writing books. Wouk reminds us of the eternal value of storytelling while he shows 30- and 50- and 80-year-old whippersnappers how it’s done.

Bukiet is the author of seven books of fiction and the editor of three anthologies. He teaches at Sarah Lawrence College. His first children’s book, “Undertown,” is due out next spring.

© The Washington Post Company

Procurement: Sifting Through The Wreckage In Israel.

November 2, 2012: An examination of the Iranian UAV that was shot down over Israel on October 9th revealed that some of the components were from Germany. This is no surprise, as Iran has been smuggling industrial goods from Germany for decades. While Germany has become increasingly aggressive in halting this smuggling, the goods still find their way to Iran, often via third or fourth countries and lots of false documents.

Meanwhile there is still a lively debate over what the purpose of the October 9th UAV flight was. Most Israeli experts appear to believe it was a publicity stunt, because Iran and Hezbollah were desperate for a win, any kind of win, given the problems they are having in Syria and with the stronger Iranian embargo (they can’t sell most of their oil) and the resulting economic crises. Some say the Iranian UAV was the first of hundreds and an attempt to see if some of these UAVs, armed with explosives, could attack Israel’s nuclear reactor at Dimona. Iran claims it has sent many UAVs into Israel, but the Israelis doubt it.

Meanwhile Iran continues to develop new UAVs. Earlier this year they introduced the Shaparak. This UAV weighs about 100 kg (220 pounds), has an 8 kg (16 pound) payload, and endurance of 3.5 hours. The Shaparak can operate up to 50 kilometers from the operator and at altitudes as high as 4.5 kilometers (15,000 feet). The October 9 UAV might have been this model, operating automatically via GPS guidance (from one preprogrammed point to another). If so, it was a one way trip because of the short range of the Shaparak (about 1,000 kilometers).

The Iranians have been developing UAVs since the 1980s. The ones used most frequently are the Ababils. This is an 82 kg (183 pound) UAV with a 2.9 meter (9.5 foot) wing span, a payload of about 35 kg (77 pounds), a cruising speed of 290 kilometers an hour, and an endurance of 90 minutes. The Ababil is known to operate as far as 249 kilometers from its ground controller. But it also has a guidance system that allows it to fly a pre-programmed route (using GPS) and then return to its ground controllers for a landing (which is by parachute). The Ababil can carry a variety of day and night still and video cameras. There are many inexpensive and very capable cameras available on the open market, as well as the equipment needed to transmit video and pictures back to the ground.

The Ababil has been seen in Sudan and Lebanon, where Iranian backed Hezbollah has received about a dozen of them. The Israelis feared that the low flying Ababils could come south, carrying a load of nerve gas or even just explosives. Using GPS guidance such a UAV could hit targets very accurately. Moreover, there’s nothing exotic about UAV technology, at least for something like the Ababil. Iranian UAV development got a boost from American UAVs received in the 1970s (Firebee target drones).

Iran also has a larger (174 kg/382 pounds) Mohajer IV UAV, the latest model of a line that began in the 1980s. The Mohajer II is about the same size as the Ababil.

Israel Hayom | Red lines and preemption.

No delays in rescue efforts during Benghazi attack, U.S. officials say.

Friday, 02 November 2012

A burnt building at the US consulate compound in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi on September 13, 2012 following an attack late on September 11 in which the US ambassador to Libya and three other US nationals were killed.(AFP)

inShare

In wake of bombing, Sudan may be looking to chill ties with Iran | The Times of Israel.

Foreign minister suggests Khartoum could be ‘exposed’ by Iranian-Israeli conflict, according to Al-Hayat; Sudan yet to reply to Iranian proposition for increased security cooperation

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, center, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, left, review an honor guard, in Tehran, Iran, in 2006. (photo credit: AP/Hasan Sarbakhshian, file)

Sudan may want to consider downgrading ties with Iran and move closer to the Gulf Arab states, the country’s foreign minister reportedly said this week, in the wake of the bombing of a military complex thought to be linked to Iranian arms shipments.

Foreign Minister Ali Karti reportedly told a meeting of Khartoum’s ruling National Congress Party that the country should consider moving away from Tehran as a means of insulating itself should war break out between Iran and the West, the London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayat reported Friday.

“Is it in the strategic interest of Sudan in its foreign relations to bolster ties with Arab Gulf states to obtain financial and economic assistance and expand investment, or to strengthen ties with Iran for reasons related to the nature of the projected shifts in the Israeli-Iranian conflict in the region?” Karti reportedly asked the meeting.

Last week, a suspected munitions factory — thought to be linked to the flow of arms from Iran to Hamas in the Gaza Strip, via Sudan — was blown up in Khartoum, killing two. While Jerusalem has remained mum on the issue, Sudan blamed Israel and independent reports indicate the Yarmouk munitions site was indeed hit from the air.

On Sunday, Britain’s Sunday Times reported that Israeli officials indicated the bombing was meant to send a message to Tehran and was even a dry run for a possible military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Five days after the bombing, two Iranian ships docked off Sudan’s coast on the Red Sea, though officials said the presence of the Corvette destroyer and helicopter carrier were unlinked to the bombing. On Wednesday, the ships left Sudan.

According to the report in Al-Hayat, Tehran has proposed an increased security arrangement with Sudan aimed at “protecting the Red Sea,” though Khartoum has yet to reply to the idea.

Karti told the meeting, which became so heated that many people walked out, according to the report, that siding with Iran would “expose” Sudan to attack.

According to diplomatic sources cited in the Sudan Tribune on Friday, Khartoum’s spy chief Mohamed Atta held talks with his Saudi counterpart during last week’s Hajj pilgrimage. It is not clear what the two discussed.

Iran and Sudan have historically enjoyed close relations. Sudan is thought to be a vital link for Tehran to Gaza, ruled by Iranian ally Hamas, and North Africa.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Sudan in 2011, saying the countries were united against the Western “powers of arrogance.”

According to the Sudan Tribune, however, Khartoum officials were displeased with the visit, after the Iranian president did not offer any aid to Sudan.

Why Israel Hasn’t Struck Iran—Yet.

For those, like me, who scour media reports hoping to discern what’s really going on regarding Iran, Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak’s interview this week to Britain’s The Telegraph is like striking gold.

Last summer, speculation about a possible Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program was at fever pitch, and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu appeared genuinely at the end of his tether in public appearances and statements. A stream of top U.S. political and defense officials came to Israel in what seemed a last pitch to talk Jerusalem out of it.

As we now know, nothing happened. Netanyahu, addressing the UN General Assembly at the end of September, gave a totally new timeline, saying Iran’s nuclear development wouldn’t reach the “red line” until the spring or summer of 2013.

Seemingly that bore out those who claimed Netanyahu and Barak’s warnings all along had just been bluff. Now, Barak discloses that an attack was averted

when Iran quietly chose to use over a third of its medium-enriched uranium for civilian purposes, delaying the moment when it could have built a nuclear bomb…. Asked whether the critical moment would otherwise have arrived “about now,” Mr Barak replied simply: “Probably yes.”

Iran needs about 250 kg of medium-enriched uranium to make a bomb. By August this year, Iran was closing in with a total of 189 kg. It was at that point that

the country’s experts took 38 per cent of this stockpile and converted it into fuel rods for a civilian research reactor, thus putting off the moment when they would be able to make uranium of sufficient purity for a nuclear bomb.

This picture is generally consistent with a report three weeks ago by Haaretz defense analyst Amos Harel, who attributed his information to “senior defense officials”—possibly Barak himself.

Why, then, did Iran back off? Barak told The Telegraph:

“There could be at least three explanations. One is the public discourse about a possible Israeli or American operation deterred them from trying to come closer. It could…be a diplomatic gambit that they have launched in order to avoid this issue culminating before the American election, just to gain some time. It could be a way of telling the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] ‘oh we comply with our commitments.’”

Mr Barak added: “Maybe it’s a combination of all these three elements. I cannot tell you for sure.”

Note that, out of the three possibilities, Barak puts Iran’s fear of an attack first.

Presumably, Iran can read developments well enough to have known there was no real chance of an American attack at that point. But if—as seems likely—Iran feared an Israeli strike, it would undercut those American (like Chief of Staff Martin Dempsey) and Israeli (like former Mossad chief Meir Dagan) figures who have been loudly claiming Israel could at most slightly delay Iran’s nuclear program and poses no real military threat to it.

So where do things stand now?

Barak says—concurring with Netanyahu’s timeline—that Iran’s decision “allows contemplating delaying the moment of truth by eight to 10 months.” As for the sanctions that other Western governments believe in so fervently:

“I am extremely sceptical about the chances that [they] will lead the ayatollahs to sit together at any point in the foreseeable future and decide to give up their intention to go in the footsteps of Pakistan and North Korea and turn into a military nuclear power.”

The sanctions issue is one on which the Israeli leadership has consistently disagreed with all other Western governments. It came up again on Thursday as Netanyahu met in Paris with French president François Hollande, who—like all the rest—opposes an Israeli strike.

Instead, Hollande said: “We must make sure that through pressure, sanctions and later through negotiations, Iran renounces its intention to have access to nuclear weapons.”

Netanyahu, for his part, said:

“The sanctions are taking a bite out of Iran’s economy… unfortunately they have not stopped the Iranian program…. Given the history of the Jewish people, I would not sit by and write off a threat by those who say they are going to annihilate us.”

Exclusive: PM on standby to send warplanes to Gulf as Iranian tensions rise – UK Politics – UK – The Independent.

Weakness invites provocations – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Op-ed: Obama has been supportive of Israel, but he is perceived as internationally weak president

Manfred Gerstenfeld

Many of President Obama’s actions have thus been supportive of Israel. One reason that they may not have had much effect upon Israeli Jews is his image as an internationally weak president, which is also very bad for Israel. Even if part of America’s weakness is due to perception only, that translates into reality. It invites provocation by the US’ enemies. One sees this in the posturing of Iranian leaders, the world’s leading supporters of terrorism.

Also highly problematic is President Obama’s view of the situation among radical Islamists. Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism found that many known radical Muslims have made hundreds of visits to the Obama White House, meeting with top administration officials. To illustrate his basic attitude toward the Muslim world, one can analyze Obama’s Cairo speech in 2009. Obama expressed apologetics and appeasement and understated the major criminality within the Muslim world.

Obama applied double standards through omissions of many important facts. He said that it was time to put a halt to Israeli settlements. He did not say, “It is time for Egypt and many other Muslim states to stop the murderous anti-Semitic incitement against Jews. This hate-mongering is also widely spread in Egyptian government media. It was equaled only by Nazi Germany.” He did not say, “Stop the death penalty.” When he spoke about equality for women he did not say, “In many Muslim countries there are extreme cases of discrimination against women. This should be halted.” Obama did not speak about the incitement against and persecution of Christians in a variety of Muslim countries. Nor did he say, “In the new century we have not seen any other terror attack on the scale of 9/11 which was driven by the religious conviction of major criminals.”

Obama’s Cairo speech (Archive photo: CNN)

Another omission was when he stated that civilization owed a debt to Al Azhar without mentioning prominent Muslim clerics who support suicide terrorism. When he spoke about the Palestinians, he said, “The Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.” That statement contains many fallacies. The largest part of the Palestinian Mandate is Jordan, a state with a Palestinian majority. The Palestinians were granted a second state through a United Nations General Assembly resolution in 1947. Yet it was not good enough for them and their Arab allies. They preferred to start a war to attempt to massacre the Jews in what became Israel. Until 1967, they could have publicly asked their Arab “brethren” for a second state when the Palestinian territories were controlled by Jordan and Egypt.

After the Arab defeat in 1967, the Palestinians could have once again obtained a second state. Yet they preferred to continue their fight to eliminate Israel. While Obama didn’t mention the suffering of Christians in Muslim lands, he did mention the suffering of Palestinian Christians, without stating that this was mainly caused by Palestinian Muslims.

Obama also said things about the Muslim world in Cairo which were closer to lies than to half-truths. To state that “in our times many Muslim communities have been in the forefront of innovation” does not reflect the reality of the Muslim world. Tiny Israel has won more Nobel prizes than all Muslims put together, while there are about two hundred times more Muslims than Israelis.

The only area where major innovation has emerged from the extremist parts of the Muslim world is ‘creative terrorism.’ In this framework the Palestinians have also made a substantial contribution in inventing new modes of terror. If there were a Nobel Prize for terrorism, top candidates would be Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and various other Palestinian groupings as well as the initiators of 9/11.

It is probably due to Obama’s attitude toward highly problematic extremist Islamists, the betrayal of long time political allies such as Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and his perceived international weakness that a majority of Israeli Jews continue to feel uncomfortable with him as president. One wonders to what extent Obama has genuinely abandoned the appeasing and apologetic spirit he exhibited in Cairo, or whether much of it will re-appear if he is reelected.

Manfred Gerstenfeld is a member of the Board of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, of which he has been chairman for12 years.