Responding to Alterman: No ‘Joy’ in Stuxnet

Responding to Alterman: No ‘Joy’ in Stuxnet

Responding to Alterman: No ‘Joy’ in Stuxnet


What follows is a response to Eric Alterman’s response to my original post concerning Alterman’s endorsement of the Stuxnet computer worm against Iran’s nuclear program, which Alterman found to be a source of “joy.” If you have the patience, you can read his initial column, my blog post criticizing it, and his reponse to my criticism. Or maybe you have better things to do. Like, your laundry. 

Alterman wonders, in his response, if infecting Iran’s computers with a deadly virus is an act of war. He writes: “I have no idea if a computer virus constitutes an ‘act of war’ or not, though if it does, an awful lot of hackers working on behalf of say, Wikileaks, better watch their backs.” What he’s missing, of course, is that when a nation uses a computer virus against another nation, that isnt the same thing as what a hacker for Wikileaks does. It’s the equivalent of say, one country putting a biological virus in another nation’s food supply. Indeed, Russia has formally asked NATO to conduct an inquiry into the Stuxnet virus, whose origin was apparently in Israel but may have had some sort of US support. Reports AFP: “Russia’s envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, said the Stuxnet virus caused centrifuges producing enriched uranium at the Bushehr plant to spin out of control, which could have sparked a new ‘Chernobyl tragedy,’ the 1986 nuclear meltdown in Ukraine. ‘NATO should get down to investigating this matter,’ he said.” But Alterman is joyous about it. 

Alterman says, in his response, in regard to the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, that he “personally said nothing about them one way or another, and I certainly don’t profess to know who carried out the [assassinations] to which Dreyfuss refers.” Here he’s being disingenuous at best. It’s almost certain that the murders were carried out by Israeli hit squads. Alterman works himself into a snit over my comment that if he sees “joy” in unleashing a computer worm because it undermined Iran’s program, he may equally be joyous if the murders have also slowed the program. True, he doesn’t say so. But he doesn’t condemn the assassinations, and if they did slow the program and thus reduce the chances of war with Iran, then why wouldn’t he think that the murders were joyous, too? 

Alterman says that I wronged him by mixing up a potential Israeli attack on with an American one. “[Dreyfuss] also spends a great deal of time arguing that an American attack on Iran under Obama was not imminent, but fails to notice that the column was entirely devoted to an Israeli, not an American operation,” he writes. Well, no. He says outright, in the original column, that neocons are “trying to goad Barack Obama into a war,” and he says that Israel’s joyful deployment of Stuxnet means that “ought to serve as a warning to Obama and company against listening to any of these incautious warmongers.” That sounds, to me at least, like he’s referring to the worry that Obama, not Israel, might be tempted to bomb Iran. Of course, either an Israeli attack on Iran or an American one would be illegal, unjustified and catastrophic in its results. But the neoconservatives and their friends would find either one, or both, acceptable. In any case, I’ve never implied that an American attack on Iran is “imminent.” In fact, I feel strongly that Obama has zero appetite for war with Iran, and that he’ll do anything he can to avoid it.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy