Once Again It's The US That Seems To Be The Most Aggressive With Cyberattacks

from the is-this-why-they're-so-afraid? dept

A new documentary is coming out by famed documentary filmmaker Alex Gibney called Zero Day. Big reports in Buzzfeed and the NY Times (both with additional reporting) note how it reveals that the famed Stuxnet attack by the NSA (with an assist from Israeli intelligence) was just a drop in the bucket of a massive cyberattack capability, under the code name NITRO ZEUS, that the US has built up in Iran as an "alternative" to nuclear war should diplomacy fail in negotiating Iran away from making nuclear weapons. The NY Times article focuses more on the geopolitical issues involved in the effort:

For the seven-year-old United States Cyber Command, which is still building its cyber “special forces” and deploying them throughout the world, the Iran project was perhaps its most challenging program yet. “This was an enormous, and enormously complex, program,” said one participant who requested anonymity to discuss a classified program. “Before it was developed, the U.S. had never assembled a combined cyber and kinetic attack plan on this scale.”

Nitro Zeus had its roots in the Bush administration but took on new life in 2009 and 2010, just as Mr. Obama asked General John R. Allen, at United States Central Command, to develop a detailed military plan for Iran in case diplomacy failed. It was a time of extraordinary tension, as the Iranians accelerated their production of centrifuges and produced near-bomb-grade fuel and Western intelligence agencies feared they might be on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon. It was also a period of extraordinary tension with Israel, partly because of its presumed role in the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, and partly because of evidence that Mr. Netanyahu was preparing a pre-emptive strike against Iran, despite warnings from the United States.

Meanwhile the Buzzfeed story focuses more on how the program was a bit of a mess with uncertain results:

However, one confidential source expressed concerns to Gibney about the extent of NITRO ZEUS, saying some planners had “no fucking clue” as to the consequences of some of the proposed attacks.

“You take down part of a grid,” they told him, “you can accidentally take down electricity in the entire country.”

It also notes that the State Department was reasonably concerned about the program -- both whether it was legal and how it might create some serious blowback:

The film’s supporting research material also reveals an array of concerns about such capabilities within the U.S. government and agencies. The State Department was seen by those in other agencies as a “wet blanket” when it came to operations, for expressing concerns about violating the sovereignty of third-party nations’ cyberspace, or about operations that could have significant impact on civilians.

Meanwhile, support for these concerns comes from a rather unexpected source: former NSA and CIA director Michael Hayden, normally quoted around these parts defending the intelligence community. However, here, he notes that massively broadening cyberattack efforts could come back to haunt the US:

“I know no operational details and don’t know what anyone did or didn’t do before someone decided to use the weapon, alright,” he said. “I do know this: If we go out and do something, most of the rest of the world now thinks that’s a new standard, and it’s something they now feel legitimated to do as well.

“But the rules of engagement, international norms, treaty standards, they don’t exist right now.”

In public remarks, Hayden once noted of Stuxnet “this has the whiff of 1945. Someone just used a new weapon.” He also said the secrecy around the U.S.’s cyber programs was stifling the ability to have a public debate about their consequences.

“This stuff is hideously over-classified and it gets into the way of a mature public discussion as to what it is we as a democracy want our nation to be doing up here in the cyber domain,” Hayden said.

I actually agree with Hayden. That doesn't happen very often!

But, really, the main thing that gets me about this report is that we keep seeing Congress and the President going on and on and on about cybersecurity threats against the US -- and yet basically the only significant examples all seem to be the US attacking other countries. The inbound attacks -- such as the OPM hack or even the Sony hack -- actually seem fairly minor in comparison. Those are just hacks to get at data, not to actually break stuff. Yes, it's possible that US officials are freaking out because now they really understand the depth of what can be done thanks to the NSA doing it first, but maybe we should be thinking about dealing with that fact and shoring up our defenses (and not giving reasons to others to emulate us), rather than creating faux moral panics.

Filed Under: cyberattacks, iran, nitro zeus, nsa, stuxnet

Iranian Cleric Suggests The West Ban And Criminalize Negative Portrayals Of Muslims To Prevent Radicalization

from the how-about-no dept

As the nuclear talks between America and Iran continue, perhaps one inevitability is going to be cross-cultural diffusion of a kind. After all, should the deal lead to improved relations, one would expect influence to be peddled by both sides. Since there are very real issues our two nations have to discuss, this should be an overall good thing. But there are some cultural changes that just aren't going to happen.

Take the suggestion from Iranian cleric Ayatollah Salman Safavi, for instance, that Americans combat Islamic extremism by making sure our movies and video games include only favorable representations of his religion lest they cause the very radicalization at the root of the "constantly" negative current portrayals of Muslims and Islam.

"In the Western media be it in films, games or news, Muslims and Islam are constantly associated with terrorism, violence and backwardness, they are constantly portrayed as the "other" to the white European or American and in constant conflict with it," Dr. Safavi tells the Telegraph. "This causes alienation and isolation particularly for young people, who dream of having success in life and being contributing members of society but see their way of life, their beliefs, and what they hold sacred being constantly attacked and degraded. Islamophobia in media be it films or games or news should be considered as promoting and aiding terrorism and also being [a] hate crime."

You can see the cultural differences clashing against each other here. Self-censorship isn't how America does things, after all. Which isn't to say that misrepresentation of the larger Muslim public isn't a real thing, or that action shouldn't be taken by those in the know to combat that portrayal. But those actions must operate within the framework of free and open speech. Take the work of Aasif Mandvi, for instance. The correspondent from The Daily Show has put out a new series called Halal in the Family. The show dissects and highlights anti-Muslim portrayals, using comedy as a vehicle for the discussion. That's how bad or unfair speech is combatted in America, with other, better speech. Asking us to self-censor is a non-starter.

And through real, honest, and open speech, progress can be made. If the Islamic world is being unfairly portrayed, its denizens should feel welcome, if not obligated, to step into the ring of speech and ideas, and put up a fight. They get the same rights as everyone else, after all. Engaging in that way will push the discussion onto a higher platform. It's not like the media keeps its boogeymen around forever. Just ask the Communists. These things have a shelf-life.

The ideal of free speech, on the other hand, does not.

Filed Under: free speech, hollywood, iran, muslims, portrayal

Why Online Attacks By Nations Are Problematic: Enemies Can Learn From Your Digital Weapons, Then Turn Improved Versions Against You

from the that's-awkward dept

Last month, we wrote about a great discussion between Edward Snowden and Bruce Schneier that explored how offensive and defensive operations by national intelligence agencies had changed as they moved online, becoming much more intertwined. A new Snowden leak published by The Intercept confirms that the situation is even more complex, because adversaries can learn from digital attacks directed against them to create even better weapons, which they then use to counterattack:

The NSA is specifically concerned that Iran's cyberweapons will become increasingly potent and sophisticated by virtue of learning from the attacks that have been launched against that country. "Iran’s destructive cyber attack against Saudi Aramco in August 2012, during which data was destroyed on tens of thousands of computers, was the first such attack NSA has observed from this adversary," the NSA document states. "Iran, having been a victim of a similar cyber attack against its own oil industry in April 2012, has demonstrated a clear ability to learn from the capabilities and actions of others."

That's because, unlike traditional physical weapons used against enemy infrastructure, digital versions are not generally destroyed during an attack. One of their big advantages is that once they have infiltrated and infected a target system, they can continue to carry out surveillance or attacks over a long time period. But that also means they may eventually be discovered -- especially if they leak out -- allowing them to be studied and improved in a way generally not possible with traditional weapons. Those new versions can then be directed elsewhere, including against the original attacker.

So intelligence agencies find themselves in a difficult position. The more they carry out attacks using digital weapons, and the more sophisticated those tools, the greater the likelihood that adversaries will detect them, adapt them and then turn them back against the country that deployed them. It's probably too much to hope that this may cause such weapons to be used more sparingly....

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: counterattacks, cybersecurity, digital weapons, iran, nations, nsa, online attacks

Iran's New 'Smart' Internet Censorship Efforts Still Aren't Particularly Smart

from the yeah,-that'll-work dept

Over the years Iran's ham-fisted approach to Internet censorship has offered no shortage of comic relief, whether it's their war on e-mail, their declarations that 3G cellular technology is an "immoral" damnation, or the fact their Internet filters have censored the government's own tirades against getting around filters. With the election of marginally more moderate President Hassan Rouhani there's been some improvement made in Iran's absurd Sisyphean assault on the Internet and free speech, but progress has unsurprisingly been slow.

When running for election Rouhani made numerous public proclamations that Internet filtering doesn't work, given the ability to use VPNs to bypass most filters. Rouhani also took things one step further, admitting such censorship only cultivates a broad distrust between the public and the government (who knew?). Now that Rouhani's in office, Iran is apparently taking baby steps toward sensibility by moving away from wholesale blocking of websites, to what they're calling more selective "smart filtering" of content:

"Presently, the smart filtering plan is implemented only on one social network in its pilot study phase and this process will continue gradually until the plan is implemented on all networks," Communications Minister Mahmoud Vaezi said, according to official news agency IRNA..."Implementing the smart filtering plan, we are trying to block the criminal and unethical contents of the Internet sites, while the public will be able to use the general contents of those sites," Vaezi told a news conference."

What kind of "criminal and unethical" content are we talking about? While the program is only being trialed for Instragram at the moment, such "smart" filtering includes blocking Instragram accounts like @RichkidsofTehran, which featured photos of young rich Iranians flaunting their wealth. Meanwhile, while Reuters suggests the program could involve lifting outright bans on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, several regional reports state that those bans are going nowhere, suggesting this isn't as dramatic a step forward as some had hoped.

Obviously concern persists that Iran will continue to make cognitively-incoherent decisions when it comes to filtering out entirely harmful content or political commentary, and that the country will continue its war on VPNs and other circumnavigation techniques. On the bright side, plans by former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for Iran to build their own Internet appear to have been put on the hold for the moment while the country works out the kinks of their still not-particularly-smart Internet filtering efforts. The complete smart filtering program (whatever it actually winds up looking like) is expected to be implemented fully by June 2015.

Filed Under: censorship, filters, iran

US Gov't Wants To Use 'State Secrets' Claim To Kill Defamation Case (Not Involving US Gov't) Without Giving A Reason

from the secret-law,-secret-courts,-secret-reasons dept

We've written many times in the past about the DOJ's abuse of the "state secrets" privilege to try to toss out basically any lawsuit that explores government surveillance, no fly lists and the like. But, now it's taking the ridiculousness to a new level. In a NY court room, the DOJ is requesting a civil defamation lawsuit between two private parties be tossed out for state secrets reasons -- but refuses to provide any reason for why it's a state secrets issue. Basically, the government wants to be able to just claim state secrets and have everyone believe them, killing off a defamation lawsuit between two private parties.

If the judge agrees, it would mark the first time the government had invoked the state secrets privilege without publicly explaining its motivation for doing so.

And, of course, if the judge allows it, expect the DOJ to use this new-found power to continue to get all sorts of lawsuits dismissed without an explanation.

A ruling by U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos allowing use of the privilege - more closely associated with cases involving government surveillance, extraordinary rendition and espionage - without a public explanation could set a precedent for it to be used with minimal disclosures either to the public or to opposing parties in lawsuits.

The judge has at least expressed some skepticism about this, but it's not clear how he'll rule.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Byars hesitated during a hearing on Wednesday when Judge Ramos asked whether he had been able to find any cases in which the government had been allowed to use the state secrets privilege without providing a public explanation.

In the end, he did not dispute the claim by Restis's lawyer Abbe Lowell that the Restis case would be the first to be dismissed under the privilege without the government submitting a public affidavit describing the nature of the information that needed to be kept secret.

"Public disclosure must not risk the secrets at issue," Byars said, adding that not even Restis's lawyers could be told about the secret information because the case is civil, not criminal, and "it's not done."

For the time being, Judge Ramos asked the government and both parties in the case to file some briefs about this, and I wonder if the judge will accept amicus briefs as well. The whole thing seems rather crazy. Not just is the government stepping into a private defamation lawsuit and asserting state secrets, but then trying to do so without any public explanation.

The defamation lawsuit was filed by a Greek businessman, Victor Retsis, against a non-profit group, United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), concerning claims UANI made, saying that Retsis had illegally exported oil from Iran. Retsis says this isn't true and it's defamatory. Even if this does involve dealings with Iran, it's hard to see how state secrets should come into play here at all. It just feels like the DOJ is trying to hide something else that might come out in the process.

Filed Under: defamation, doj, edgardo ramos, iran, sanctions, state secrets, victor retsis
Companies: uani

Iranian Grand Ayatollah Issues Fatwa Against 'Immoral' High-Speed Internet Connections

from the Age-of-Enlightenment-still-several-hundred-years-away,-apparently dept

Iran continues to battle the Internet, recognizing the fact that an unfiltered exchange of ideas (some of them admittedly often horrifically bad) tends to undermine repressive regimes. While the President and the Minister of Communications have stressed that higher-speed connections (and less censorship) are useful to Iran's citizens, many others in the government feel that increasing speeds means giving up lots and lots of control. (via @visions_studios)

[C]onservative, religious, and security organizations and officials fear the loss of control that a faster Internet will bring, and as such resist the administration’s efforts to provide the faster services.

These government officials would prefer the President push everyone onto Iran's version of the Internet: the National Information Network. Whenever it's finally fully implemented, it will function like a countrywide Intranet, giving government control over access as well as opening users up to significant amounts of surveillance.

Since President Rouhani seems reluctant to throttle the nation's internet users, others have pressed forward on the issue. Cue the Grand Ayatollah of Iran, who has arbitrarily determined that high-speed connections are an affront to [this particular] God.

A Grand Ayatollah in Iran has determined that access to high-speed and 3G Internet is “against Sharia” and “against moral standards.” In answer to a question published on his website, Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi, one of the country’s highest clerical authorities, issued a fatwa, stating “All third generation [3G] and high-speed internet services, prior to realization of the required conditions for the National Information Network [Iran’s government-controlled and censored Internet which is under development], is against Sharia [and] against moral and human standards.”

Left undiscussed is how incremental increases in speed are incremental increases in sin or how exactly an Iran-only internet would redeem "immoral" high-speed connections. These sorts of questions are better left unasked, especially in a nation filled with religious leaders that can impose and carry out death penalties with impunity.

The bottom line is that a clunky internet is a mostly-useless internet, even for non-subversive reasons like seeking jobs or performing research. Shirazi's declaration is mostly noise-making, but it does serve a purpose -- to give the conservatives pushing for the Iranternet more ammo to use against political opponents. Nothing brings the froth to the surface faster than blending politics and religion, especially when the subject matter is the world wide web.

The former Minister of Communications had this to say in support of strangling the web.

"If the Ministry of Communications does not pay attention to the sensitivities of the people and the ulama [high-ranking clerics], [the Ministry] will have no choice but to prepare itself for significant developments at the Parliament and in society."

Note that the "sensitivities of the people" are somehow exactly the same as the "sensitivities of high-ranking clerics," even when the people are actively seeking better connection speed.

Mahmoud Khosravi, Chairman of the Board and Managing Director of the Ertebatat-e Zirsakht (Communications Infrastructure) Company, stated recently that three million new requests for high-speed Internet services had been filed.

Iran's citizens want one thing. Parts of the government want another. And religious leaders just want control of both the people and the government. In between lies the internet. "Knowledge is power" as they say, and the internet contains a wealth of it. And Iran's power structure -- the part of it that relies on stupidity like "2G good, 3G bad" fatwas -- would like this threat neutralized, and it's willing to further harm the future of the nation to do it.

Filed Under: 3g, broadband, fatwa, grand ayatollah, internet connections, iran, morality

The Plight Of Iranians Trying To Make A Video Game About The 1979 Revolution

from the video-games-are-art-and-speech dept

Talk with someone who is from an older generation or someone who does not spend much time playing video games and you'll often hear a common refrain: games aren't art. Or, perhaps you'll get a qualifier, claiming that games aren't a serious form of art, or speech. For some of us, the silliness of those statements has been evident for a long time, particularly given that the courts have stated the opposite. That said, perhaps the problem has been the lack of a definitive example at which to point. Other forms of art have these examples that clearly denote the realm of artwork. The literary world is littered with examples, such as Salman Rushdie and the controversy around The Satanic Verses. Music is also rife with examples, from Bob Dylan to the Pussy Riot fiasco in Russia. Film too has its heroes in speech and art.

I submit that the plight of Iranian nationals attempting to make a game about the 1979 revolution ought to be gaming's example. The story is a fascinating one involving several folks who have taken to hide their identities in order to remain safe while making a game that is likely to result in tension with their home governments. The story focuses on one Iranian who is working under the name Phoenix.

"I started working professionally when I was 17," Phoenix said, in an e-mail exchange mediated by Khonsari. "I wanted to become an animator and thought that was the closest I was going to get to working on games, as there was no gaming industry in Iran to support that kind of work. I yearned to work on video games; I love them and dreamed of working on them…I just didn't think it was possible."

But it eventually dawned on him that a game like 1979 Revolution would change his life in more sinister ways. The ephemeral nature of the Iranian government's thought policing means that Phoenix doesn't exactly know if he's being targeted. Nevertheless, he didn't want to risk being wrong. After all, in these kinds of scenarios, you never know that you're a person of interest until it's too late. "I'm not sure if anyone is coming after me," Phoenix said. "But I need to be cautious not only for my own safety, but also for that of my family. Also, Navid was written about and if they associated me with him it could be trouble for my family."

The Navid mentioned is Navid Khonsari, who is headlining the 1979 Revolution project. Iran, now actively trying to foster an image of a kinder, softer version of the same theocracy that put a contract on Salman Rushdie's head, has already dubbed Khonsari a spy and refused him any admittance to his home country. There hasn't been any word yet about death sentences, but several team members on the project, including Phoenix, aren't taking any chances.

Meanwhile, the game, which is still being developed, is already getting tongues wagging. Many commentators are skeptical about the historicity the game will attempt to portray, or the political motivations of the developers, or the fairness of the portrayal of all sides within. If this sounds familiar, it should, because this is the kind of discussion reserved for fictional artwork and speech surrounding the serious topics of our day. In other words, this game, and the plight of its artistic developers, ends the discussion about games as serious speech and artwork. If we believe that the makers of this game deserve protection from the Iranian government's attempts to silence their speech, or discourage their activism, then we're already thinking about this whole story in the framework of art and expression.

That said, it would be a mistake to denigrate the sacrifice these artists are making for their craft.

As for Mr. Phoenix, he doesn't know when it'll be safe to go home again. "There was no space for growth or to further my life experience," Phoenix said. "Don't get me wrong: there are many artists in Iran who are thriving and I have much respect for them. For me, it was about experiencing the world beyond Iran. My hope for this game is that people will learn what happened and have greater understanding for all people. From learning about their experience in the game, they might be more compassionate rather than dismissive."

Sounds like an artistic hero to me, one who deserves commendations and support for his art and speech.

Filed Under: free speech, iran, phoenix, revolution, video game

United States Sanctions On Exporting Open Online Learning Courses Are Completely Backwards

from the aiding-the-enemy dept

Between Syria, Cuba, Iran and Sudan, Americans bothering to pay attention to the world around them are becoming increasingly familiar with how we sanction other countries and the intricacies of those sanctions. The intersection of sanctions and technology tend to revolve around the export of hardware, software, and services to nations with regimes we don't particularly care for. All of these sanctions are typically designed to achieve one or both of the following goals: altering the behavior of the regime in question and/or encouraging the people of that nation to rise up against the regime by making everyone completely miserable.

With that in mind, we can now conclusively say that at least some of the tech sanctions levied against some countries are completely useless and should be done away with, namely those that intermittently punish the people of Syria, Iran, Cuba and Sudan, preventing their people from accessing open education platforms.

Coursera, which according to its site aims “to change the world by educating millions of people by offering classes from top universities and professors online for free,” is now subjected to a recent directive from the US federal government that has forced some MOOC (Massive Online Open Course) providers to block access for users in sanctioned countries such as Iran and Cuba. Coursera explains the change in its student support center:

"The interpretation of export control regulations as they related to MOOCs was unclear for a period of time, and Coursera had been operating under one interpretation of the law. Recently, Coursera received a clear answer indicating that certain aspects of the Coursera MOOC experience are considered ‘services’ (and all services are highly restricted by export controls). While many students from these countries were previously able to access Coursera, this change means that we will no longer be able to provide students in sanctioned countries with access to Coursera moving forward."

While updates to this post suggest that connectivity to Syrians has been reestablished, that isn't so with regard to countries like Iran, Cuba or Sudan. Examine for a moment the practical application of this kind of sanctioning. The US has identified a regime we do not like, which will almost by definition be relatively well-educated, affluent, and powerful. That regime oppresses its people. To combat this, part of our sanctions policy is designed to prevent the oppressed people from accessing educational services that would offer a ladder towards the educational standards enjoyed by the offending regime. Knowledge is power, of course, and the ability to learn about the world outside of the pens in which these countries have placed their own people is a tool that could be used to encourage change in these countries. Don't take that from me, take it from the governments in those nations which are quite busy censoring the internet out of fear of their people becoming more educated. And now the US is essentially joining the censoring party, too.

In September 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation called on the US to lift all restrictions “that deny citizens access to vital communications tools.” But the US has continued its piecemeal approach, going back and forth between blocking new ranges of transactions to allowing the export of certain services.

“These sorts of export restrictions are overbroad and contain elements which have no effect on the Syrian regime, while preventing Syrian citizens from accessing a wealth of tools that are available to their activist counterparts in neighboring countries and around the world,” EFF stated.

Likewise in Iran, Cuba, and Sudan. A common complaint one sometimes gets from peace activists is that sanctions should be lifted because they don't hurt the regime, only the innocent civilians. That complaint is usually moot, because often times the entire point is to hurt the citizens to breed unrest building towards revolution. But in this case, the harm is repressing the capacity for change, and therefore serves no purpose. Even beyond the humanist concept of exporting information and education as a simple matter of human rights, these sanctions can only have the opposite effect of their intention.

Fortunately, Coursera appears to have a genuine interest in spreading education and, as they did with the Syrian issue, appear to want to work with the US government to get around these outdated sanctions.

Coursera ended the announcement of the changes that prevent access to their courses in sanctioned countries with the following note: “We value our global community of users and sincerely regret the need to take this action. Please know that Coursera is currently working very closely with the U.S. Department of State and Office of Foreign Asset Control to secure the necessary permissions to reinstate site access for users in sanctioned countries.”

If the US government has any interest in their sanctioning policies beyond using them as some kind of penis-measuring contest, they'll act quickly to give Coursera the ability to export education to the nations of oppressed people, otherwise known as the places where it is most sorely needed.

Filed Under: cuba, iran, moocs, online learning, sanctions, sudan, syria, us
Companies: coursera

Iran's FARS: Snowden Documents Finally Detail That The US Government Is Run By Aliens

from the truth-is-out-there dept

Edward Snowden's leaks have offered much in the way of revelation. Each story seems to broaden our understanding of exactly how widespread the government surveillance efforts have gone. They have caused many Americans to rethink their stance on their own government. They've painted several public employees, including those holding the highest offices in the nation, as inhuman power-mongers. And, according to Iran's semi-official FARS news agency, there may be a reason for that.

FARS is reporting that the latest revelation from the Snowden documents is that the American government is actually run by a race of aliens known as "Tall Whites," who have engineered everything in recent history, most notably the rise of Hitler, because all alien intergalactic roads lead back to Hitler.

Pictured: a Tall White

And, no, I'm not making any of this up or exaggerating any of this. That distinction belongs to the website whatdoesthismean.com, best known as being generally insane and specifically crackpot-conspiracy-theory-ish. Prior to FARS deciding that this was, like, totally legit, that website was the only source for this revelation that has FARS stating:

A stunning Federal Security Services (FSB) report on the nearly two million highly classified top-secret documents obtained from the United States Department of Defense (DOD) run National Security Agency-Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) by the American ex-patriot Edward Snowden states that this information is providing “incontrovertible proof” that an “alien/extraterrestrial intelligence agenda” is driving US domestic and international policy, and has been doing so since at least 1945.

They further state that the only reason you haven't heard of these "Tall Whites" running the American government is because they have instituted a global network designed to shut down any information sources about them. Apparently, the FARS news agency and WhatDoesThisMean are somehow out of the reach of these alien masterminds.

Thanks for the laugh, FARS. In the future, if you could just go ahead and return to falling for "news stories" from The Onion, that'd be great.

Filed Under: aliens, ed snowden, fake stories, iran

Twitter Diplomacy? New Iranian Officials Use Twitter To Make Surprising Moves To Cool Tensions Over Israel And Nukes

from the kind-of-amazing-when-you-think-about-it dept

Here's a fairly incredible story. The Iranian government is quite well known for stifling dissent and trying to limit the internet. However, we noted recently that the new President of Iran had made some surprisingly progressive statements about ending internet censorship and filtering, and supporting human rights. Obviously, it's easy to say things, while actually doing things is quite different. Even so, it's still surprising to see two recent tweets out of the Iranian government that suggest that perhaps they're really looking to ease certain tensions and move towards more peaceful relationships. The Back Channel blog has the details of the two key tweets, starting with surprising tweets from both the new President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif wishing Jews a Happy Rosh Hashanah.

As the sun is about to set here in #Tehran I wish all Jews, especially Iranian Jews, a blessed Rosh Hashanah. pic.twitter.com/tmaf84x7UR

— Hassan Rouhani (@HassanRouhani) September 4, 2013

Happy Rosh Hashanah

— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) September 5, 2013

As you probably know, Iran doesn't exactly have the best reputation with Jews, and its former President regularly threatened to go to war with Israel. Knowing a few Persian Jews who fled that country years ago, even any suggestion of a conciliation towards Jews is a stunning point. And, it went even further. Nancy Pelosi's daughter, Christine Pelosi, responded to Zarif's tweet, stating that it would be better if Iran stopped denying the Holocaust:

Thanks. The New Year would be even sweeter if you would end Iran's Holocaust denial, sir. “@JZarif: Happy Rosh Hashanah”

— sfpelosi (@sfpelosi) September 5, 2013

Amazingly, she got back a response, in which Zarif said that Iran does not deny the Holocaust, and that "the man who is perceived to be denying it is gone now," obviously referring to Ahmadinejad.

@sfpelosi Iran never denied it. The man who was perceived to be denying it is now gone. Happy New Year.

— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) September 5, 2013

Zarif later confirmed to reporters that it was really him who was tweeting those messages and also that he recognized he was tweeting with Nancy Pelosi's daughter.

The other interesting tweet came from President Rouhani, noting a change in who controlled Iran's nuclear efforts, and also signalling a greater willingness to have a "constructive interaction" with the world on this:

Foreign Ministry will be in charge of Iran's #Nuclear Negotiations.Ready for constructive interaction with the world http://t.co/sCrQ0Qhh5K

— Hassan Rouhani (@HassanRouhani) September 5, 2013

This, also, is a pretty big deal, and while I'm sure many will (rightfully) view the whole thing with skepticism, one can also be hopeful that this is a sign of a real shift in policies from Iran.

But perhaps even more interesting is the fact that this is all happening over Twitter. The fact that Zarif and Pelosi could have an exchange like that is fairly astounding once you think about it. That sort of thing was basically impossible just a few years ago. The ability to do diplomacy via social media is quite amazing. It really was just a year and a half ago that we were somewhat amazed (and also hopeful) that various citizens of both Israel and Iran were reaching out to each other via Facebook, to try to build direct connections and a hopeful sense of peace between citizens, but we wondered if the same sort of thing would ever extend up to the politicians and those in power. While we're not there yet, it's at least nice to see some sort of encouraging sign.

The ability to actually communicate and relate to one another as human beings rather than as caricatures is incredibly powerful. It can (and will) be abused at times, but we can still hope for good results and be encouraged when we see potential signs of it happening.

Filed Under: christine pelosi, hassan rouhani, holocaust, iran, israel, javad zarif, nancy pelosi, rosh hashana, social media
Companies: twitter