The New York Times has been howling about “warrantless wiretapping” conducted in the United States by the National Security Agency and directed against al-Qaeda operatives who might be wandering around our country carrying carrying knitting needles or other household implements that are still allowed on planes.
But even as the newspaper worries about the privacy rights of suspected terrorists, why has it not said a word about the possibility that it itself is a target of warrantless surveillance, and not by the U.S. government but by far less friendly forces? Is the newspaper unaware of the problem, or does it find it inconvenient to acknowledge it, or does it simply have its head in the sand?
Without subjecting Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. to enhanced interrogation methods, we cannot say. But Jennifer Dyer, formerly a Commander in U.S. Naval Intelligence, offers her analysis of the issue in another Connecting the Dots exclusive. Her short answer is yes, such eavesdropping is probably happening. Her long answer is right here:
Russia, in particular, has an extensive history of using its diplomatic and civilian facilities abroad as bases for intelligence collection — and for collecting against civilian targets as well as government agencies. But Russia is not the only suspect; and technological advances have changed the collection targets and methods somewhat, since the public last had occasion to think very hard about this topic.
The dimensions of the problem are key factors. A Department of Defense publication from 1989 [p. 16] provides a useful overview of former-Soviet attempts and capabilities to monitor foreign communications abroad, pointing out, notably, the suitability of the Soviet consular compound in New York City for intercepting several types of voice communications in most of Manhattan. Although phone communications were overwhelmingly transmitted via landline at that time, the DOD security study observed that in more than half of all phone connections, calls were switched randomly over interim links to optimize circuit loading [p. 159], and that it was impossible to ensure that every potential connection path was secure against monitoring.
This warning was cutting-edge in the 1980′s, when physical tapping, of the phone lines associated with specific individuals or organizations, was still what the average person thought of in this regard. If there were no men in trench coats crouched in leased office spaces next door, could we not assume we were tap-free?
Foreign intelligence agencies, however, study our civil-communications infrastructure far more closely than we do, and for the specific purpose of identifying vulnerabilities. It has been quite some time since the surveillance of a phone call had to be undertaken next door, or even near a switching room in a phone company building. In the wireless microwave age, with routine satellite connections and high-data-rate transmission, 90 percent of the surveillance approach need not even involve collectors physically on the same continent. Soviet collectors in the 1980′s might seek to exploit phone junction facilities; in the 199’0s their Russian successors in New York posted vans near microwave towers. Actual exploitation of the data collected might occur within 24 hours, as linguists labored over replayed recordings.
Today, it is fairly simple not only to monitor microwave relay facilities, but to simply monitor cell-phone chatter through the airwaves. In fact, any phone call may be connected in a variety of ways, regardless of how it was placed by the originator; calling from a fixed, landline phone might once have increased the difficulty of intercept, but today it serves rather to make the originator easier to identify, as links in the transmission path are exploited. Moreover, it takes very little in the way of interception and transmission equipment to instantaneously relay anything collected to the other side of the world, where linguists — whose presence at a consulate, in a big bunker, might seem odd — can quickly interpret and report, unremarked, at home.
Such electronic surveillance produces some of the cheapest and highest-payoff intelligence there is, and we may apply a good rule of thumb from the intelligence world here: if it can be done, someone is trying to do it. It is reasonable to assume that Russia, as she has in the past, performs such monitoring from her consulate on Central Park East, and that Russian surveillance can intercept much of Manhattan via the airwaves, from its roof. Knowing the recent history of Russian attempts to exploit communications relay points with mobile collection, we may equally assume that that is an ongoing effort.
Russia, again, is not our only suspect. While there is less direct evidence available to the public on Chinese efforts at electronic surveillance, we know that espionage against the U.S. is a very high priority for China, and the rule of thumb suggests Beijing will try this method, as well as the human contact espionage China is best known for. China’s New York consulate on East 61 Street provides a useful vantage point for electronic collection. However, a nation need not have a diplomatic facility in New York to have a collection base there. The Iranian Alavi Foundation, a putative charitable foundation that has fallen under suspicion by U.S. federal agencies as a base for espionage and the support of terror cells, owns the 32-story building it occupies at 52nd and Fifth — a position with advantages for electronic collection in Manhattan.
Physical intercept of signals is, of course, only a primitive method of electronic surveillance in today’s technological environment. Because it remains cheap and high-payoff, it will continue for some time. But recent successes in information technology (IT) based espionage highlight the real feasibility of obtaining large amounts of intelligence by intercepting communications digitally. As phone and personal computer capabilities merge, it will be increasingly irrelevant to separate attacks against one from attacks against the other.
Probably the most celebrated monitoring attack to date against a phone network was the “Athens Affair” in 2004-05, when still-unidentified cyber-attackers hacked into switching computers in Greece’s Vodafone network and monitored more than 100 phones used by government officials and private civilians. (A full technical explanation of the hackers’ approach can be found here.)
Although these attackers have not been identified, China was directly implicated in the hacking of German government computers in 2007, when German authorities discovered that data was being “siphoned off” daily from computers in the German Chancellery and other government agencies, by hackers in Lanzhou, Canton Province, and Beijing. The years 2006-07 were busy ones for China’s hackers, who were fingered in network intrusions in the British government and the U. S. Departments of Defense and Commerce. Russia demonstrated some network intrusion prowess of her own in a broad scale cyber attack on Estonia’s government, public facilities, and private organizations – including news media computers — in April-May of 2007.
While only one of these data network intrusions (the Chinese attack on German systems) was characterized by officials as an attempt at extended monitoring, per se, they underscore the easy availability of the technology to manipulate computer networks, and the aptitude of, at a minimum, China and Russia for exploiting it. The applicability of such capabilities to monitoring the journalists at the New York Times is reinforced by the success of eccentric American hacker Adrian Lamo in penetrating the New York Times computer network in 2004. Lamo confessed that while online with the New York Times network, he was able to view not only employment and other personal records of the New York Times staff, but was able to obtain the private phone numbers of journalists and contributors, such as former President Jimmy Carter.
Of course, if the intelligence collector is China, “Trojan” hardware sold to IT providers may be the placement method. The U.S. government decided not to even install 16,000 computers manufactured by the Chinese firm Lenovo, in the wake of Chinese intrusions on U.S. government networks in 2006. Russia’s history of introducing Trojan hardware into U.S. embassies and consulates was certainly a historical factor in this security decision [p. 17]. However, private news organizations do not routinely consider the possibility that IT hardware — phones or computers — that they purchase from commercial vendors may contain manufacturer-embedded code or devices for long-term exploitation.
If it can be done, someone is trying to do it.
Even if we discount (at Israel’s peril) the genocidal statements, coming from some of Iran’s more bellicose or just plain nutty leaders, there is still the very real and dangerous fact that nuclear weaponry would give Iran complete hegemony over the gulf.
This in turn would give it a foot on the neck of the West’s economy for the foreseeable future.
Iran will need this power to arrogate wealth to itself. Its economy is currently on a collision course with reality as things stand.
Few people take into account that things look so bad for Iran, currently, that it cannot afford to give up its plans for economic hegemony over the Gulf via nuclear weaponry.
Even the ‘realists’ should be able to see this reality.
Maine’s Michael, absolutely right. Thanks for bringing up the economic dimension.
I am very much opposed to just a tactical strike against Iran’s nuclear program. Unfortunately, they have just gotten too good at exporting terror and will then use all their resources to get back at us. It would be too much of a slap in the face for them to sit back and do nothing.
Once we do decide to go after them, which I think is coming soon, we need to go all in and target every part of their government instead that maintains control over their people. We need to hit the Ayatollahs and their puppets, the Secret police and the Iranian Republican Guards with everything we’ve got and allow their people the opportunity for freedom.
One thing about the democrats, even though they are weak, they like to appear that they are tougher than they really are. Clinton proved that he was not above lobbing a few missiles at perceived threats and I believe since Obama has most of Clinton’s people in place, things will pretty much revert to the ’90s. I just hope that Obama actually goes out and completes the task rather than use a token response to the Iranian nuclear threat that accomplishes nothing.
george, I agree we need to strike to destroy the regime, not just its nuclear infrastructure. Many thanks for raising this critical point.
Please explain, Micheal, in concrete terms, what you believe that the Iranian regime is going to do with its nukes once it has them in order to establish “complete hegemony” over the Gulf. This isn’t a smart-alecky question. I’m really curious what scenario is being envisioned. “If you don’t agree to lower production figures, we’re going to nuke you?” Or maybe, “If you don’t agree to our embargo, we’re going to nuke you?” Or maybe, “If you don’t let give your Shi’a a greater say, we’re going to nuke you?” Or maybe, “If you don’t remove your naval vessels and lift sanctions, we’re going nuclear on you?”
Mr Chang – in the absence of a major provocation, the likelihood of our launching a massive regime-killing campaign against Iran, or threatening one, has got to be near zero. What’s the point even of discussing it?
george, you are an idiot.
The Iranian people, unlike what you may think, or read on your daily neocon websites are not oppressed. Iran’s regime is in power because the people ushered it in almost 40 years ago. Don’t sit there and act as if its a dictatorial regime put in place and kept in place by a superpower ( Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan all come to mind)
iran will get its nuclear technology this year. Its funny that you want to change the regime in Iran just because you don’t agree with it, and just because Iran doesn’t bend to your will like all your other puppets.
And people like Gordon, just simply advocate killing of innocent people in Iran, because he can’t get enough of kissing Israeli ass.
You have to realize that countries act in their own interests, and Iran will get the technology its been diligently working toward whether you like it or not. In this case, Israel’s interests do not coincide with American Interests. Sorry Gordon, you”ll have to find another country to do Israel’s dirty work for it.
CK MacLeod, yes, sometimes what is necessary is not considered practical. Those times are usually followed by death in great numbers. If there is some chance I can stop history, I will try to do so.
Sam, thanks for supporting my case that Iran will get the bomb in a matter of months.
Gordon,
who said bomb??? Not me, that was you sir. you said BOMB, I said nuclear technology. Which in Iran’s case is nuclear power plant. Don’t lie and put words in my mouth.
Also, gordon, thanks for ignoring my other points and just retorting with a one line argument, very intellectual of you.
CK, the number one export of the current regime is in my opinion not oil but terrorism. They routinely supply money, weapons, and training to any group willing to take on the Great Satan or his proxies. They don’t care even if the Religion of choice of terrorists’ groups are even Shi’ite. Hamas is Sunni, yet Iran been backing these terrorist attacks from the beginning. Imagine what they do if they get nukes. Will they back the fall of Saudi Arabia? How about Kuwait? Will they close the Gulf so they can artificially raise the price of oil and prop themselves in power in perpetuity? Will they go all out and simply destroy Israel? The harm they could cause if they get nukes is limitless. With a committed enemy who embraces his own destruction, why would they care about retaliation?
George,
you have no facts to back up your talking points, and on top of that, you assert that Iran is not a rational actor when everything points to the contrary.
Iran supports Hamas not because of religion, but because of the cause. Religion is not the main driving factor to Iranian foreign policy. Also, its interesting you point to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as two nations that Iran may threaten. I guess that has nothing to do with the fact that they are puppet states that do what you please.
you see George, your talk is cheap. Iran will not be stopped from aquiring peaceful nuclear technology. Thats a fact. Stop wetting your pants and deal with the reality, not your imagination of what the world is.
Sam, thanks for the vote of confidence. You are right-sane countries do act in their own self interest. Is the killing and torturing of one’s own people in your self interest? Is exporting terror acting in one’s own self interest? Is routinely talking of destroying Israel self-interest?
The people of the Iran are not oppressed? I assume the Iranians are welcome to exercise their freedom of Speech, or assembly? How about freedom of religion?
When an idiot calls you an idiot does that make you a genius?
George,
get your facts straight you LIAR.
Iran does have freedom of religion, one quick look on wikipedia and you see that Iran has churches, temples, and synagoges (spelling) in Iran.
Another quick look and you”ll see that in Iran, women have the right to vote. In Iran, there is a female vice president. In Iran, women can drive (unlike your prescious ally Saudi Arabia). In Iran, there are many different opposition groups in government that are against the current government.
And please cite any documented killing and torturing of Iranians in Iran from credible sites to prove your point. I guess the Israeli way of killing and torturing Palestinians is better. Also, Iran exports terror? Hezbollah is a political party in Lebanon with a representation among the people. Just because it doesnt agree with you doesnt make it a terror group. and dont even say its on the US terror list, because the United States is not the be all and end all of world terror organizations.
And didn’t the United States talk about “obliterating Iran” if something happened to Israel?? I believe your secretary of state uttered those words…hmm..interesting diplomacy there.
Iran will do whats in its best interest. deal with it.
Sam, Iran’s nuclear program is largely military in nature. Tehran has convinced few that its intentions are peaceful. Even the IAEA won’t give Iran a clean bill of health.
Your only other substantive point directed to me was the killing of innocent people. I’m not in favor of that.
There has been no proof, Iran has never been proven to want nuclear weapons.
Besides, Iran has the right to any weapon it wants. There is no moral justification, or legal justification that you can present that can logically deny the right to a nuclear weapon to any country that potentially wants to have it.
The United States has used nuclear weapons in a criminal nature against civilians, and you are scared of a country that has never said it wants them, or has never been proven to want them??
george, how precisely would possession of a nuclear arsenal facilitate actions against SA, Kuwait, and/or the Gulf?
Furthermore, you proceed from an assumption that I do not accept, which is that the Iranian leadership is bent on genocidal nuclear aggression and “embraces [their] own destruction,” and that Iran can therefore be presumed to be undeterrable. There are no doubt some number of zealots always eager to take a shortcut to Paradise, but I do not believe that Iran is controlled by men determined to go out in a pointless blaze of glory, taking their civilization, their realizable aims, their long-term prospects, and some very large number of their compatriots with them. They probably do dream of leading the Islamic world, and they may even believe that Allah’s got big plans for them, but it is a huge leap to go from there to collective suicide by a date certain. How do you imagine such an order being given and effectuated? Do you imagine that sometime soon Iran will manufacture an automated system on a hair trigger, to be gift-wrapped for the most implacably insane Mullah available, inviting him to throw a nuclear surprise party whenever the mood or the vision hits him?
With the exception of those countries that gave up nuclear programs or arsenals, or the ones, like Britain, already enfolded in much larger alliances, every member of the nuclear club has asserted its determination and willingness to accept immolation – up to and including the eradication of all human civilization – rather than yield its sovereignty and security. If you care to look, you can find apocalyptic promises and in some cases concrete measures from the US, the USSR/Russia, China, France, and others. There’s no point in having a force de frappe if you’re not going to claim a willingness to go frappe someone with it – that is, destroy another country rather than surrender, even if that means, in theory, “embracing your own destruction.”
CK,
excellent point. People like Gordon and George don’t realize that the world is a rational place where people and countries act in rational manner. They think that all of the enemies of Israel are comic book villains bent on world destruction.
I have come to realize, that convincing these people of the truth, and of the facts is pointless. They have people like Gordon that post assanine blog entries about attacking Iran because it wants to be independent and have its own form of nuclear capabilities.
Nonetheless, great point.
Nukes do in fact facilitate criminal organizations from acting in a malicious manner because they know themselves to be invulnerable to a counterattack. Mumbai is a prime example of exported Pakistani terrorism to India. What exactly are the repercussions from India when nukes are on the table?
Unfortunately, Iran’s religious zealots are in fact in charge of the regime. Do you really think that madmen specialize in self restraint? They do not believe in a ‘pointless blaze of glory.’ They believe in martyrdom in the cause of Allah, and they have demonstrated on multiple occasions that they are willing to sacrifice their own people to achieve their aims. I take the terrorists at their word-they state vociferously that their primary cause is the destruction of Israel and the United States. Why shouldn’t I believe their thoughts and actions for the past 30 years?
George,
Once again, you sidestep the questions and go on a pointless rant with no facts to back up your claim.
Iran is not a criminal organization, its a country. Being invulnerable to counterattack only occurs when the other countries have the same amount of nuclear devices.
If Iran has 5 bombs, and the United States has 5000, do you really think that Iran would do anything that involves nuclear weapons. Off course not, nuclear detterance is based on the idea that both countries will be assured destruction. In Iran’s case, IF they decide they want nuclear weapons, they would not assure the destruction of anyone because of their limited capabilities.
And second of all, Iran’s zealots are NOT in power, you don’t understand that the President of Iran is a figurehead who does not even command the loyalty of the army. For you to sit there and talk about zealots is idiotic to the core. Iran is actually the only muslim nation that does not involve in suicide bombings, or in anything related to martyrdom.
Please also, explain how they have demonstrated “on multiple occasions” that they are willing to sacrifice their own people? Please explain it with facts, and cite articles if necessary.
Also, what terrorists do you take at their words? Last I checked, Iran had a president, who was elected by the people, who is running for reelection this summer. Iran has a working political system unlike countries like Saudi, Egypt, and Kuwait. But surprisingly, you only deem Iran a threat because Iran does not conform to your world view. Interesting, you claim to be a proponent of freedom, but at the same time, your government denies millions of people theirs by supporting corrupt puppet regimes aroudn the world.
I don’t really care to associate myself with many of your remarks, Sam. I reject your continual attribution of bad motives and intellectual deficiencies to those who disagree with you (I’ve even found myself the object of your insulting and aggressive tactics). I also think you’re wrong about Iran’s apparent aims, though I’m obviously not as pessimistic – I would even say alarmist – as Mr Chang, george, Michael, and others. My best guess is that sometime over the next few years, we’ll be entering into an actually fairly familiar nuclear stand-off in the Gulf, and that a nuclear Iran will increasingly act as a status quo power.
That doesn’t mean that I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran as a positive, however, least of all for Iran itself. However, it seems to me that the likely political cost to the current Iranian leadership of giving up its apparent nuclear ambitions – even giving up the uncertainty about them – shouldn’t be underestimated. It would take – or produce – huge political change in Iran for it to move decisively off its current course. For reasons we’ve discussed elsewhere, attempting to cause that change by military means could be a very high-risk, high-cost, uncertain if not unlikely, potentially extremely counterproductive project for Israel, the US, or anyone else, and for that reason I don’t expect absent major provocation from Iran, which I also don’t expect.
However, as I’ve also argued on other threads, this is all guesswork. None of us really knows the true state of play.
I wonder why nobody mentions what seems to me a
crucial circumstance: the slump in oil prices puts Iran
in an untenable economic position.
That could lead either to an escalation on
the part of Iran – in order to drive oil prices up
again – or to bargaining and concessions.
The bargaining might well begin with a
declaration that they have everything
necessary to make a nuclear bomb.
The declaration needn’t be true…
Sam, you write: “Besides, Iran has the right to any weapon it wants.” No, it doesn’t. Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has no right to possess nukes.
Sam, you write: “Being invulnerable to counterattack only occurs when the other countries have the same amount of nuclear devices.”
Why do you write this? It does not seem to be borne out by the history of nuclear weapons. Invulnerabily can be conferred by just a handful of nukes, even if the adversary has thousands of them. North Korea is a good example. Please explain your views.
Thanks in advance.
CKM — sorry I didn’t have time yesterday to make a response on the thrust of your comments. While I don’t agree with your assessment that we don’t know enough to judge what Iran is doing, I do sympathize with your concern that the threat from Iran is too often couched in overblown terms.
Regarding the latter concern, I have never suggested that “the threat” is Iran preparing to launch nuclear weapons at Israel on Tuesday, after successfully detonating a device on Monday. I don’t assess that things will play out that way.
Neither, however, do I regard the possession of nuclear weapons as a condition that would domesticate Iran into a status quo power. It never did so for the Soviet Union. Americans routinely make the mistake of thinking that if a nation is not using nukes, directly, to change the political landscape, then nukes are not a key factor in whatever that nation IS doing. The ground truth about “nuclear deterrence” in the Cold War is not that the Soviets didn’t use nukes to prosecute their policies. The truth is that America’s nukes did not prevent the Soviets from prosecuting their policies in other ways.
What was called “extended deterrence” — the idea that the US nuclear deterrent would deter the USSR from making depredations on the “Third World” periphery — never actually worked. From Vietnam to Angola, Cuba to Cambodia, the Soviets backed (and fomented) landscape-changing insurgencies, revolution, and guerrilla war, to the detriment of Western interests (and the deaths of millions in Marxist civil wars). The perspective that is decisive for Americans, that the USSR never attacked OUR homeland, is an understandable one. But the reality that our nuclear deterrent did not prevent the Soviets from ravaging the homelands of others, has to matter to nations like Israel, as they contemplate the likely outcome of a “deterrence” situation with Iran.
The unsuccessful deterrence that Israel foresees, and validly so, is the kind of “extended deterrence” by the US that did not work in the Cold War. You have expressed skepticism about Iran using nukes to dominate the Middle East, and if the process were merely a matter of Ahmadinejad throwing threats around, like a Persian Khrushchev, I would agree that such straightforward brinkmanship would be too untenable and provocative for Iran’s clerical council to permit.
But that is not the effective way in which Iran would use her nukes. Rather, she would approach her strategy more like the former Soviet Union. She would ramp up her systematic attempts at subversion of regional governments, with terrorism that affects the people and makes them vulnerable to the promise of restored order — a promise from radical Islamists, rather than Marxists. The Middle East is relatively peaceful today, but targeted terrorism in the Persian Gulf nations — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Oman — along with the targeting of Jordan, and even Egypt (and ultimately Iraq), would pave the way for long-term elimination of the Western-oriented governments of those nations.
What would deter the US from taking decisive action, as our regional partners were subverted one by one, would be Iran’s nuclear arsenal. The stakes would become too high for decisive intervention on our part — as they were considered to be in Korea, and in Vietnam, and in Berlin (and divided Germany as a whole), and as they were considered to be during the Cuban missile crisis. In each of those cases we achieved a compromise outcome that involved the US making concessions and accepting a standoff. The concrete realities on the ground, for Koreans, Vietnamese, Germans, and Cubans, were divided countries, and ultimately, some or all of them being left to the government of thuggish totalitarian regimes.
Israel has to have the perspective of the Koreans, Vietnamese, Germans, and Cubans. She is not in a position to take the lofty, detached view of the United States. WE are not actually in the position we think we are, to take that detached view, but the consequences of Iran gradually fomenting regime change across the Middle East would come across less clearly to us than to the nations of the region. Average Americans would have trouble wading through the political abstractions of our own politicians and media, to understand what was going on.
Iran WOULD be in a much better position to systematically drive Western-oriented leaders out of the capitals of the Middle East, if she had a nuclear arsenal with which to up the stakes for American policy there. Iran would also become an even more useful proxy for Russia and China, in their competition to end our hegemony of the region and establish their own. We can fully expect a nuclear-armed Iran to represent a signal opportunity for partnership, with one of the great Asian powers, in a strategy to rid the Middle East of the US. We would face not just Iran there, but Iran and Russia (most likely), or, less likely, Iran and China.
Ahmadinejad comes across as a nut. But the clerical council is not at all insane. It is motivated as much by longstanding geopolitical ideas of Persian hegemony as by radical Shi’a Islam. In this way, it is very much analogous to the Communist Party leadership of the former Soviet Union (and, for that matter, the Party leadership in China today).
America has half a globe’s worth of strategic depth in which to retreat as a nuclear-armed Iran trumps us through terrorism and revolution in the Middle East. But the peoples of the region do not. Arabs and Turks are no more in favor of a nuclear-armed Iran than Israelis are. They don’t want to be the Vietnamese — or, to find an analogy closer to home, the Afghans under the Taliban — to the radical hegemonic vision of Iran’s current rulers.
Sure, their own leaders are as corrupt and unsavory as those in Saigon through much of Vietnam’s North-South war. We in the West will find all the reasons we regularly found during the Cold War, to distance ourselves from the victims of foreign-fomented insurgency and guerrilla radicalism. But what will stay our hand, if it becomes obvious that only our intervention could restore order on terms favorable to Western-leaning factions, will be the nuclear weapons held by Iran.
That will be a self-imposed constraint, no question about it. But our history, in terms of the impact on the third parties under threat, is of adhering to it every time, in the end. Israel IS the “third party” in this scenario. She has to face that reality.
J.E. Dyer, thanks for the excellent analysis.