Iranian Nuke Program Being Scammed by "Bad Faith" e-Bay Sellers?

Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Link
Good. This is the kind of thing the US excels at anyway. Sneaky, underhanded, manipulative...

You have to assume that eventually they'll get enough good parts to finish the project but the thought of us messing with the Iranians teh way we are is kind of funny... Iran almost looks like a guy who got ripped off on eBay.

"The ad said NEW IN THE BOX... What's with this refurb crap?! Your stupid defective refurb took out my centrifuges!" :laugh:
CBS News has learned that Iran is continuing to make progress on its expanded efforts to enrich uranium ? in spite of covert efforts by U.S. and other allied intelligence agencies to actively sabotage the country's nuclear program.

"Industrial sabotage is a way to stop the program, without military action, without fingerprints on the operation, and really, it is ideal, if it works," says Mark Fitzpatrick, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Non-Proliferation and now Senior Fellow in Non-Proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Sources in several countries involved told CBS News that the intelligence operatives involved include former Russian nuclear scientists and Iranians living abroad. Operatives have sold Iran components with flaws that are difficult to detect, making them unstable or unusable.

"One way to sabotage a program is to make minor modifications in some of the components Iran obtains on the black market, and because it's a black market ? you don't know exactly who you are dealing with," Fitzpatrick says.

Senior government representatives, who spoke to CBS News on condition that neither they nor their country be identified, pointed to the case of the exploding power supplies. Installed at the pilot enrichment facility at Natanz in April 2006 as Iran was first attempting to enrich uranium, the power supplies, used to regulate voltage current, blew up, destroying 50 centrifuges. The head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Agency, Vice-President Gholamreza Aghazadeh said in January of this year that the equipment had been "manipulated."

There is other evidence, CBS News was told, that some of the technical difficulties Iran is having in consistently running its centrifuges are the results of a concerted effort at industrial sabotage.

Sources familiar with the U.S. effort against Iran tell CBS News that U.S. intelligence agencies have run several programs in recent years, employing different techniques, including modifying components in hard-to-detect ways and making subtle changes to technical documents and drawings, rendering them useless.

"Governments [interested in deterring Iran] are investing a lot of effort to disrupt the Iranian trade, or track their purchases," Albright says.

Iran is vulnerable to industrial sabotage because it is prohibited from buying what it wants on the open market. Instead, analysts say, it has turned to the black market, focusing efforts to clandestinely acquire the technology in Western Europe. Intelligence sources tell CBS News that Iranian agents working from the Islamic Republic's consulate in Frankfurt, Germany, have shipped home banned components using the protection and secrecy of diplomatic bags.

Although export controls are stronger in Europe than in many other countries, the Iranians still need European products because of either their quality or reliability, or because they already have European-manufactured products and are looking for spare parts.

But the procurement network is global, and trans-national, analysts say. In Dubai and other neighboring nations, Iran has established a shifting network of front companies.

"These are clandestine efforts. Iran frequently changes its front companies, frequently changes its financial arrangements, and government intelligence agencies have been looking at this," says Fitzpatrick

Albright says Iran has become even more sophisticated in its illicit procurement efforts than the network established by AQ Khan that obtained components and materiel for Pakistan's bomb program.

"They have moved beyond just front companies and are very hard to detect," he said. "The Iranians are very clever."

Iran is described as "highly suspicious" and "almost paranoid," and is believed to be predisposed to believe that any of its many technical problems may be the result of foreign sabotage.

"It?s impossible to say the extent to which Iran has discovered any industrial espionage," Fitzpatrick says. "Any technical problems that Iran experiences in its program, some of which were the result of its own speed-up effort, Iran may attribute to foreign espionage."

According to diplomats, getting the Iranians to believe that components may have been tampered with can be as effective in delaying the program as the real thing. But the diplomats also warn that with enough money and time, Iran's nuclear ambitions cannot be derailed by sabotage alone.
 

DarkThinker

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2007
2,822
0
0
Originally posted by: Billyzeke
LOL! Someones going to get negative feedback.

Received bad reactor component, bomb didn't kill enough sunnis, doesn't respond to death threats F--
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
This is nothing new...
link
In January 1982, President Ronald Reagan approved a CIA plan to sabotage the economy of the Soviet Union through covert transfers of technology that contained hidden malfunctions, including software that later triggered a huge explosion in a Siberian natural gas pipeline, according to a new memoir by a Reagan White House official.

Newt suggested we went after the ONE Iranian oil refinery in the same way.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
More...
Thomas C. Reed, a former Air Force secretary who was serving in the National Security Council at the time, describes the episode in "At the Abyss: An Insider's History of the Cold War," to be published next month by Ballantine Books. Reed writes that the pipeline explosion was just one example of "cold-eyed economic warfare" against the Soviet Union that the CIA carried out under Director William J. Casey during the final years of the Cold War.
At the time, the United States was attempting to block Western Europe from importing Soviet natural gas. There were also signs that the Soviets were trying to steal a wide variety of Western technology. Then, a KGB insider revealed the specific shopping list and the CIA slipped the flawed software to the Soviets in a way they would not detect it.

"In order to disrupt the Soviet gas supply, its hard currency earnings from the West, and the internal Russian economy, the pipeline software that was to run the pumps, turbines, and valves was programmed to go haywire, after a decent interval, to reset pump speeds and valve settings to produce pressures far beyond those acceptable to pipeline joints and welds," Reed writes.

"The result was the most monumental non-nuclear explosion and fire ever seen from space," he recalls, adding that U.S. satellites picked up the explosion. Reed said in an interview that the blast occurred in the summer of 1982.

"While there were no physical casualties from the pipeline explosion, there was significant damage to the Soviet economy," he writes. "Its ultimate bankruptcy, not a bloody battle or nuclear exchange, is what brought the Cold War to an end. In time the Soviets came to understand that they had been stealing bogus technology, but now what were they to do? By implication, every cell of the Soviet leviathan might be infected. They had no way of knowing which equipment was sound, which was bogus. All was suspect, which was the intended endgame for the entire operation."
And the left likes to claim the Soviet Union fell on its own...
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,941
10,280
136
Originally posted by: palehorse74
ya gotta love our intelligence folks! ;)

That's why we spy on them and tell Iran what they're doing? Yeah, we "love" them alright.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Iran is vulnerable to industrial sabotage because it is prohibited from buying what it wants on the open market. Instead, analysts say, it has turned to the black market, focusing efforts to clandestinely acquire the technology in Western Europe.

I doubt it's being done clandestinely. Europe has been supporting Iran for quite some time.
 

zylander

Platinum Member
Aug 25, 2002
2,501
0
76
Originally posted by: DarkThinker
Originally posted by: Billyzeke
LOL! Someones going to get negative feedback.

Received bad reactor component, bomb didn't kill enough sunnis, doesn't respond to death threats F--

Isnt Iran a Sunni country?
 

nonameo

Diamond Member
Mar 13, 2006
5,902
2
76
Originally posted by: zylander
Originally posted by: DarkThinker
Originally posted by: Billyzeke
LOL! Someones going to get negative feedback.

Received bad reactor component, bomb didn't kill enough sunnis, doesn't respond to death threats F--

Isnt Iran a Sunni country?

No, that's Saudi Arabia.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
If they really want to get a bomb made all they need is a pinball machine and the expertise of Doc Brown.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,225
664
126
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Iran is vulnerable to industrial sabotage because it is prohibited from buying what it wants on the open market. Instead, analysts say, it has turned to the black market, focusing efforts to clandestinely acquire the technology in Western Europe.

I doubt it's being done clandestinely. Europe has been supporting Iran for quite some time.

CanOTrolls is back to whining about Europe :roll:
 

zylander

Platinum Member
Aug 25, 2002
2,501
0
76
Originally posted by: nonameo
Originally posted by: zylander
Originally posted by: DarkThinker
Originally posted by: Billyzeke
LOL! Someones going to get negative feedback.

Received bad reactor component, bomb didn't kill enough sunnis, doesn't respond to death threats F--

Isnt Iran a Sunni country?

No, that's Saudi Arabia.

Doh, your right, I got Sunni and Shiite mixed up again.
 

DarkThinker

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2007
2,822
0
0
Originally posted by: zylander
Originally posted by: nonameo
Originally posted by: zylander
Originally posted by: DarkThinker
Originally posted by: Billyzeke
LOL! Someones going to get negative feedback.

Received bad reactor component, bomb didn't kill enough sunnis, doesn't respond to death threats F--

Isnt Iran a Sunni country?

No, that's Saudi Arabia.

Doh, your right, I got Sunni and Shiite mixed up again.

That's what Saddam said after the Kuwait invasion, look how he ended up :p
 

skwicz212

Member
Apr 13, 2007
95
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
More...
Thomas C. Reed, a former Air Force secretary who was serving in the National Security Council at the time, describes the episode in "At the Abyss: An Insider's History of the Cold War," to be published next month by Ballantine Books. Reed writes that the pipeline explosion was just one example of "cold-eyed economic warfare" against the Soviet Union that the CIA carried out under Director William J. Casey during the final years of the Cold War.
At the time, the United States was attempting to block Western Europe from importing Soviet natural gas. There were also signs that the Soviets were trying to steal a wide variety of Western technology. Then, a KGB insider revealed the specific shopping list and the CIA slipped the flawed software to the Soviets in a way they would not detect it.

"In order to disrupt the Soviet gas supply, its hard currency earnings from the West, and the internal Russian economy, the pipeline software that was to run the pumps, turbines, and valves was programmed to go haywire, after a decent interval, to reset pump speeds and valve settings to produce pressures far beyond those acceptable to pipeline joints and welds," Reed writes.

"The result was the most monumental non-nuclear explosion and fire ever seen from space," he recalls, adding that U.S. satellites picked up the explosion. Reed said in an interview that the blast occurred in the summer of 1982.

"While there were no physical casualties from the pipeline explosion, there was significant damage to the Soviet economy," he writes. "Its ultimate bankruptcy, not a bloody battle or nuclear exchange, is what brought the Cold War to an end. In time the Soviets came to understand that they had been stealing bogus technology, but now what were they to do? By implication, every cell of the Soviet leviathan might be infected. They had no way of knowing which equipment was sound, which was bogus. All was suspect, which was the intended endgame for the entire operation."
And the left likes to claim the Soviet Union fell on its own...

When a country falls, does the people who ran it sunddenly all die or do they wait for another day?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: skwicz212
When a country falls, does the people who ran it sunddenly all die or do they wait for another day?
I am not sure what you are getting at?
It was the ideology that failed, the countries are still there, just not in the same form.
 

skwicz212

Member
Apr 13, 2007
95
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: skwicz212
When a country falls, does the people who ran it sunddenly all die or do they wait for another day?
I am not sure what you are getting at?
It was the ideology that failed, the countries are still there, just not in the same form.
I dont understand you. Your not quoting what you said which is:
"And the left likes to claim the Soviet Union fell on its own..."
So it was an external force according to you. Either way, do people who ran a country that suddenly falls change ideology?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Skwicz? I think you joined the argument late?
There are a lot of people on the left who like to claim that the Soviet Union just fell on its own all of a sudden.
They like to ignore history.
In the late 60?s and 70?s a lot of people on the left came to believe that the Soviet Union would always bee with us and that we should make plans to live with them. (Not that we had to get along with them, but that we should accept their existence as a given.)
Then a small group of people came along, Reagan was one of them, who believed that idea was wrong. They started to push the idea that the Soviet Union could be defeated, that we didn?t have to accept them as always being there.
This was radical.
In 1977 Reagan said "My idea of American policy toward the Soviet Union is simple, and some would say simplistic. It is this: 'We win and they lose.' What do you think of that?"
This was a radical idea at the time when everyone else was talking about détente and the like.

Reagan takes office and increases defense spending. And then he starts to push against the Soviets in various ways, deployment of nukes to Europe and the like. The Soviet?s lousy economy can?t take the strain and they buckle under the pressure.

Despite this many of the left resist giving Reagan credit for the Soviet collapse.
That is what I was getting at.

And to answer you question directly. Yes the people who ran the country changed ideology. Gorbachev tried moderate reform and when that didn?t work he took larger steps and eventually the old Soviet style of doing things went away.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Skwicz? I think you joined the argument late?
There are a lot of people on the left who like to claim that the Soviet Union just fell on its own all of a sudden.
They like to ignore history.
In the late 60?s and 70?s a lot of people on the left came to believe that the Soviet Union would always bee with us and that we should make plans to live with them. (Not that we had to get along with them, but that we should accept their existence as a given.)
Then a small group of people came along, Reagan was one of them, who believed that idea was wrong. They started to push the idea that the Soviet Union could be defeated, that we didn?t have to accept them as always being there.
This was radical.
In 1977 Reagan said "My idea of American policy toward the Soviet Union is simple, and some would say simplistic. It is this: 'We win and they lose.' What do you think of that?"
This was a radical idea at the time when everyone else was talking about détente and the like.

Reagan takes office and increases defense spending. And then he starts to push against the Soviets in various ways, deployment of nukes to Europe and the like. The Soviet?s lousy economy can?t take the strain and they buckle under the pressure.

Despite this many of the left resist giving Reagan credit for the Soviet collapse.
That is what I was getting at.

And to answer you question directly. Yes the people who ran the country changed ideology. Gorbachev tried moderate reform and when that didn?t work he took larger steps and eventually the old Soviet style of doing things went away.

And many on the right insist on giving Reagan full credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union. History really suggests the truth is not so black and white.
 

skwicz212

Member
Apr 13, 2007
95
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Skwicz? I think you joined the argument late?
There are a lot of people on the left who like to claim that the Soviet Union just fell on its own all of a sudden.
They like to ignore history.
In the late 60?s and 70?s a lot of people on the left came to believe that the Soviet Union would always bee with us and that we should make plans to live with them. (Not that we had to get along with them, but that we should accept their existence as a given.)
Then a small group of people came along, Reagan was one of them, who believed that idea was wrong. They started to push the idea that the Soviet Union could be defeated, that we didn?t have to accept them as always being there.
This was radical.
In 1977 Reagan said "My idea of American policy toward the Soviet Union is simple, and some would say simplistic. It is this: 'We win and they lose.' What do you think of that?"
This was a radical idea at the time when everyone else was talking about détente and the like.

Reagan takes office and increases defense spending. And then he starts to push against the Soviets in various ways, deployment of nukes to Europe and the like. The Soviet?s lousy economy can?t take the strain and they buckle under the pressure.

Despite this many of the left resist giving Reagan credit for the Soviet collapse.
That is what I was getting at.

And to answer you question directly. Yes the people who ran the country changed ideology. Gorbachev tried moderate reform and when that didn?t work he took larger steps and eventually the old Soviet style of doing things went away.
So, the ideology didn't fail, it was "forced" to fail. Is that your point? So how different is the new ideology of today Russia than the Soviet Union.