Social Media are a Stuxnet for Middle East Freedom

Facebook. Twitter. Google Buzz. Stuxnet? Though the latter is not a social media platform, the events in the Middle East make it clear that social media and sophisticated espionage software have something in common: both have penetrated, and will continue to penetrate, sophisticated ideological and technological defenses established by entrenched dictators or extremist theocracies. Social media are penetrating ideological and political defenses that maintain various regimes' power over their citizens; Stuxnet penetrated military and intelligence networks that maintain secrecy surrounding the true nature and progress of Iran's uranium enrichment facilities. All of these penetrations by modern technology into the ideological and cyber domains of non-democratic governments throughout the Middle East work together to expand and protect freedom in a potentially safer environment for all.

The Stuxnet super worm, or "cyber missile", was a remarkably effective tool designed to accomplish a single mission: jump from computer to computer, penetrating every layer of Iran's complex cyber security systems protecting the computer networks operating the Mullahs' uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Bushehr, and destroy those control systems. Stuxnet embedded commands into the software controlling centrifuges and other key machinery, causing breakdowns, incorrect spinning speeds, and other glitches that damaged more than 1100 centrifuges which had been working 24/7 to produce weapons-grade enriched uranium.  For months, the Iranians had no idea they had been hit by arguably the world's first weaponized computer worm.  It worked silently until its damage was done.  The Iranians made repairs, ordered replacement equipment, scratched their heads, and watched as their uranium production ground to a halt.

Many regimes and governments in the Middle East are likewise scratching their heads over the sudden boiling point their citizens have reached, taking to the streets and demanding reforms, resignations, and even democratic elections.  Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan, Iran.  From whence, they wondered, did this viral push for reform spring?  The answer, like Stuxnet in Iran, is found in technology, but not a master work of espionage, but simple social networking platforms that carry discussions and dreams of better lives and more freedom.  Facebook, Twitter, Buzz, and other social media penetrate net filters, arriving on personal devices protesters rely upon to coordinate rallies, launch marches, and direct media attention to brutality. Words of encouragement from around the world, including the U.S., reach into the hearts and homes of protesters for reform via Facebook and Twitter despite the efforts of various oppressive regimes to block citizens from seeing that their protests are known and supported in many lands. The tinderboxes we see today throughout the Middle East may never have spread so broadly, with such speed, and with such effectiveness were it not for the wide availability of social networking and technologically savvy users who, like their more advanced Stuxnet peers, found ways through and around government firewalls and filters to bring reform ideology to the masses, and in some cases, to bring dictators to their knees.

Like Stuxnet, social networking quietly goes about its business, ultimately finding the vulnerabilities of a regime's power and secrets, exploits them, and exposes them to the world. Also, like Stuxnet, social media penetration is not a burden of one nation's people alone, but rather an alliance of like-minded people from any nation intersted in assisting with the ruin of regimes. It is not by coincidence that regimes, when facing protests and international scrutiny, move first to sever communications and Internet access. Yet as Stuxnet and Facebook/Twitter demonstrated, the tech geniuses in the general population always find a way through even the most determined regime's barriers. Freedom, like nature, will always find a way.  Keeping communications open despite clampdowns is a heroic act which has its heart a base desire for human freedom.

Stuxnet crippled Iran's nuclear program for many months, buying nations valuable time to assess the true progress of the Iranian nuclear program and prepare options for an inevitable showdown with the Mullahs. It also reminded Iran that when nations unite their brightest minds for a common cause, anything is possible, even the world's most sophisticated cyber weapon designed for peacefully fighting nuclear proliferation. Social media remind us that likewise, the world's great freedom-loving minds and voices can unite to topple dictators or force reforms that expand human rights and opportunities for self-determination. Technology penetrates barriers to freedom, and carries news of successes to other oppressed peoples who merely need to see what is possible.

Former National Security Advisor: WH Was Not Central to Events in Egypt

MSNBC, in its eternal quest to make us all feel a thrill up our legs while pondering the great achievements of President Obama, interviewed Former national security adviser to President Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski during the Morning Joe program regarding whether the President's critics are right in claiming he "blew it" in his handling of events in Egypt. Clearly the interview, led by MSNBC co-host and Brzezinski daughter, Mika, was set up for Brzezinski to debunk the criticisms and state, as definitively as a failed national security advisor can, that no, Obama did not blow it in Egypt.  MSNBC displayed a photo of the cover of Newsweek Magazine, which bears the headline, "Egypt: How Obama Blew it" and Mika asked Brzezinski if he agreed with that assessment.

To his credit, Brzezinski did not take that bait.  He sidestepped the question deftly by reminding the disappointed MSNBC hosts that it is still too early to tell what will happen in Egypt.  Then he went on to make an observation that surely took the thrill right out of Chris Matthews' leg, assuming he was watching.  As you will recall, Matthews recently made the audacious and wildly inaccurate claim that "it took Obama to have this happen" when discussing the protests and Mubarak's ouster, giving the President all the credit for inspiring Egyptians to seek reform.  Of course Matthews never observed of the purple-fingered voters in Iraq, "It took Bush to make this happen," but that's another topic for another day.  In today's interview, Brzezinski burst that MSNBC and White House self-importance belief bubble by declaring, "The fact is the U.S. and the White House weren't all that central" to what happened in Egypt, giving the credit to Al Jazeera's coverage of events, the Egyptians themselves, and widespread use of American social networking technology that spread news and helped protesters organize.  The cameras panned back to Mika and Joe Scarborough, who fumbled for words trying to ask a follow-up question to a sound byte they obviously had not anticipated.

Next time, Mika, you might consider asking "dad" what he will answer before you bring him on the air.  Your colleague Chris Matthews will now spend a great deal of his time trying to get that thrill back in his leg instead of focusing on reporting to us nothing significant can occur in the world without President Obama making it happen.  Most importantly, the White House, through its surrogates at MSNBC, needs to stop seeking to take credit for an uprising in Egypt that the President did precious little to inspire.

Hillary Tougher Talk on Iran than Commander in Chief

Having survived working with and routinely around the Clintons and their staffs over the years, I admit I once thought that anyone, literally ANYONE, would be preferable as President than Hillary Clinton.  When she announced her long-suspected candidacy for the White House, I found myself, as a conservative Independent, looking upon her Democratic challengers as the last line of defense against another Clinton in the Oval Office, an office I on which I strongly believed her husband had left a stain, figuratively and literally.  During the 2008 campaign, it was clear she would not win her party's nomination, and although I had misgivings about an Obama presidency from a tax and spend point of view, I also noted that in their head-to-head debates, Hillary Clinton was much more conversant on world affairs and expressed, courageously for the times in her party, a concern over withdrawing troops too precipitously from Iraq.  She was usually hawkish on the Iraq War, much to her credit, although the pressures of trying to win a nomination in a party bent on pulling troops out and declaring the war "lost" eventually drove Hillary to echo some calls for a draw down in troop strength.  I do not believe she actually favored that strategy, but it took a back seat to her immediate need to strategically fight for the Democratic nomination.

Now, a few years removed from the bravado of the campaign trail, I wonder if the Democrats made a mistake in nomination as I watch President Obama, as Commander in Chief, taking nuanced non-committal stances on most international developments, as illustrated by his administration's confusing range of responses to the uprising in Egypt.  Eventually, after two weeks of protests against Hosni Mubarak, President Obama spoke in favor of the protesters, some of whom were seeking democracy, others of whom, like the Muslim Brotherhood, were seeking and end to Mubarak's tight controls over their terrorism-related ideologies and activities.  President Obama called for our staunchest long-time ally in the Arab world to step down from 30 years of keeping the peace with Israel, in favor of temporary rule by the Egyptian military until "democratic" elections can be held later this year.  To this day, it remains unclear whether the Egyptian uprising was solely a popular swell for democracy or something insidious organized by groups with violent goals for the region, specifically ending the treaty with Israel.  One must entertain this as a possibility if for no other reason than observing the Iranian government gleefully praising the protesters and their toppling of Mubarak.

Although we have yet to hear any definitive statesmanship from President Obama on today's protests in Iran and the violent methods security forces utilized to disperse the marchers, Hillary Clinton voiced today precisely the message that the President should be delivering to the Mullahs in Tehran.  Although the White House has been noticeably understated on the events in Iran, in marked contrast to the open calls for governmental change in Egypt days earlier, Hillary was front and center pointing out, in refreshingly blunt language, the utter hypocrisy of Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs for praising the Egyptian "revolution" and change of government in Egypt while simultaneously suppressing their own people attempting to march for reforms in a notoriously oppressive regime.

Listen to Hillary state, more eloquently and more forcefully than the President, what needed to be stated to the Mullahs:  Iranian government is hypocritical on issue of protests against government

Capital Cloak gives credit where it is due.  Hillary made the right comments today about Iran.  The question that we must ask is why President Obama, who claims to champion freedom and democracy in Egypt, is mostly silent on Iran, particularly after missing the opportunity to support the Green Revolution in Iran in June 2009.  Iranians who genuinely desire freedom from the oppressive Mullah rule have already experience abandonment once from the Obama White House.  Now, after the events in Egypt, Tunisia, and throughout the Middle East have inspired courageous revolutionaries in Tehran to test the waters of support from the U.S., they are finding the waters tepid at best.  Unless they listen to Hillary, whose message to the Mullahs today was music to Iranian revolutionary ears. 

More such messages are needed, from Hillary, from President Obama, from our Congress, and from heads of state of our allies worldwide.  We can only turn up the heat on the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad if we speak candidly and with unwavering support for the protesters in Iran.  Unlike in Egypt, where it really DOES matter what type of government replaces Mubarak in the long-term, in Iran it DOES NOT matter what would fill the vacuum left by the Mullahs if toppled.  The current regime is hotly pursuing nuclear weapons capability, funding and equipping Hezbollah, infiltrating Iraq and working to shatter fragile coalitions there, and training terrorists who routinely attack allied forces.  We would be hard pressed to imagine a worse government in Tehran.  Supporting any flicker of desire for democratic reform in Iran should be our highest priority.  Speaking bluntly about the regime's hypocrisy is a step in the right direction.