Iran’s government is extremely nervous and has been engaging in urgent diplomatic efforts with countries in the Middle East to gauge whether they can reduce the scale of Israel’s response to its missile attack earlier this month and – if that fails – help protect Tehran, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.
I haven’t seen any experts mentioning it, but I’m increasingly wondering whether a response may, at least in part, take the form of some kind of cyberattack.
There are several points that would support this.
Israel has hit Iran like this in the past, with Stuxnet
, with US involvement.
Stuxnet is a malicious computer worm first uncovered in 2010 and thought to have been in development since at least 2005. Stuxnet targets supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems and is believed to be responsible for causing substantial damage to the nuclear program of Iran. Although neither country has openly admitted responsibility, multiple independent news organizations recognize Stuxnet to be a cyberweapon built jointly by the United States and Israel in a collaborative effort known as Operation Olympic Games. The program, started during the Bush administration, was rapidly expanded within the first months of Barack Obama’s presidency.
Different variants of Stuxnet targeted five Iranian organizations, with the probable target widely suspected to be uranium enrichment infrastructure in Iran; Symantec noted in August 2010 that 60 percent of the infected computers worldwide were in Iran. Siemens stated that the worm caused no damage to its customers, but the Iran nuclear program, which uses embargoed Siemens equipment procured secretly, was damaged by Stuxnet.
My guess is that a non-kinetic response may be considered by the US to have less potential for escalation to a wider war. This has consistently been something that the US has stated that it would like to avoid.
Most-importantly, I have a hard time otherwise explaining Gallant’s quote:
Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on Wednesday said that the IDF’s counter-strike on Iran for its October 1 massive strike on Israel will put the original attack to shame.
He said, “The Iranian attack was aggressive but inaccurate. In contrast, our attack will be deadly, pinpoint accurate, and most importantly, surprising - they will not know what happened or how it happened. They will just see the results.”
I have a hard time seeing dropping a bomb on anything producing an effect that could be described in that way.
Arguing against that, it’s also been consistently reported that no firm commitment to a specific response has yet been made. Gallant might have had an option in mind, but if there’s no commitment yet, any quote from him doesn’t mean that that’s what will definitely happen.
Over the past 10 days, Israeli media have reported that Netanyahu and Gallant are considering several options, among them striking Iranian nuclear facilities, petrol installations, army bases, missile production facilities, arms depots and Iranian leaders. The Biden administration expressed its disapproval of the first option and has reservations about the second one.
Netanyahu and Biden spoke on Wednesday. Citing unnamed US and Israeli senior officials, Walla reported on Thursday that while no specific decision has been made on the retaliatory strike, the two leaders had reduced gaps on the issue. It added that Israeli and American senior officials had held several discussions prior to Netanyahu and Biden’s conversation, including between Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer and US national security adviser Jake Sullivan, on details of a possible Israeli strike.
“Dialogue is undergoing continuously, and we are listening to what the Americans are saying, while explaining to them the way we see and assess the situation from our side,” an Israeli government spokesperson told Ynet after the call between Netanyahu and Biden. “Israel will do what is necessary to protect itself.”
I feel lile Gallant is referencing the earlier pager bombs attack to make Iran’s leaders nervous. If it isn’t just for that and have some truth to it, I don’t think it’s anything we can predict. Yet, I agree it’s more likely to be something unconventional.
I haven’t seen any experts mentioning it, but I’m increasingly wondering whether a response may, at least in part, take the form of some kind of cyberattack.
There are several points that would support this.
Israel has hit Iran like this in the past, with Stuxnet , with US involvement.
My guess is that a non-kinetic response may be considered by the US to have less potential for escalation to a wider war. This has consistently been something that the US has stated that it would like to avoid.
Most-importantly, I have a hard time otherwise explaining Gallant’s quote:
I have a hard time seeing dropping a bomb on anything producing an effect that could be described in that way.
Arguing against that, it’s also been consistently reported that no firm commitment to a specific response has yet been made. Gallant might have had an option in mind, but if there’s no commitment yet, any quote from him doesn’t mean that that’s what will definitely happen.
https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2024/10/israels-cabinet-remains-uncertain-about-response-iran-attack
I feel lile Gallant is referencing the earlier pager bombs attack to make Iran’s leaders nervous. If it isn’t just for that and have some truth to it, I don’t think it’s anything we can predict. Yet, I agree it’s more likely to be something unconventional.