In Through The Out Door

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak is in town this week to discuss with White House and Pentagon officials what to do about Iran’s nuclear program. Accompanying Barak is Israeli Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz; he’s the former IDF chief who set off a firestorm recently when he said an Israeli military strike against Iran is “unavoidable.” Current IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi was here last week and met with his Pentagon counterpart, Admiral Michael Mullen. Ashkenazi reportedly said he favors a diplomatic solution, but also issued the standard declaration that “all options must be prepared” for stopping Iran’s nuclear program.

There has been considerable debate about whether Israel could even carry out an effective air strike against Iran’s nuclear program. Analysts say there are too many factories, labs and reactor sites dispersed too widely across the country. According to a 2006 paper published by two MIT doctoral candidates (one of the most thorough pieces of analysis available), it would be impossible for Israel to knock out the entire Iranian nuclear program but the target set could be narrowed to the most critical facilities. They identify the critical nodes as: the Esfahan uranium conversion facility, the gas centrifuges at the Natanz enrichment facility and the heavy water plant and future plutonium production reactors at Arak.

The MIT analysts identify Natanz as the most difficult target because much of the facility is buried deep and covered with layers of concrete. Israeli bombs would have to penetrate the earth covering, bore through the concrete layers and then dump enough bombs into the hole to generate blast pressures that could damage or destroy the equipment inside. They figure the strike package would have to drop a combination of roughly 24 BLU-109 2,000 lb. and BLU-113 5,000 lb. bunker busters on Natanz. The facilities at Esfahan are not buried and those at Arak are not hardened, so those targets sets would be relatively simple to destroy with no more than 24 2,000 pound GPS guided bombs.

What does Israel have as far as deep strike weapons? The MIT folks count at least 25 F-15I (the Israeli version of the F-15E Strike Eagle) and 20-50 F-16I, both airframes configured specifically for deep strike missions. Israel also has a large number of F-16s that could be fitted as strike aircraft, Wild Weasel jamming aircraft and over 40 F-15A and C versions to escort the bombers. Developments in precision targeting, specifically GPS guided bombs, means all Israeli aircraft carry bombs considerably more accurate than those used in the Osirak raid. They envision a 50 plane strike package evenly split between F-15I and F-16I aircraft.

Then the question becomes how well can Iran defend its airspace. Iranian aircraft are a mix of the old and the very old. Iran’s most modern fighter is the Mig-29, of which they have maybe 40. They also have a large number of 1970s era F-4, F-14, F-5 and some newer Chinese built F-7M and F-6. Iranian fighters would be operating over friendly territory, advantageous when they need to refuel or rearm. They could also draw on ground control radar to guide them into favorable attack positions against IDF aircraft roaming Iranian air space. If the Iranian aircraft could get into firing position against Israeli bombers, which is admittedly a big if, they have sufficiently modern air-to-air missiles that they could probably down a few.

It’s not Iran’s fighter jets that could pose the real challenge, as the Iranian air force is more of an “antique show,” says David Ochmanek, an analyst with RAND who directs an ongoing study for the U.S. Air Force that examines future threats from Iran. The real threat to an attacker, he says, are Iranian surface-to-air missiles. There are reports that the Iranians field some of the newer Russian-built double digit SAMs, such as the SA-10, though not the newer and more potent SA-20 (the newer Russian designation is S-300 and S-400). The S-300 is considered by some accounts to be comparable to the U.S.-built Patriot air defense missile.

Ochmanek says the double digit SAMs are far more capable than the earlier SA-2, SA-3 and SA-6. The newer systems have high powered radars that are difficult to jam and more powerful, faster missiles. Barry Watts, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington thinktank, and a Vietnam-era fighter pilot, says if pilots could spot the smoke trails of the earlier generation of SAMs they could outmaneuver them because of the G-force limitations of those older missiles. With the latest generation SAMs outmaneuvering doesn’t work. “Those missiles went from ten G missiles, to about thirty or forty G’s,” which means the missile’s turn rates are vastly improved, he said. Coupled with the new powerful radars, “if the missile is locked up on you and it’s guiding, the only thing you can do is pull the ejection handles and get out of the airplane.”

Iran has also reportedly bought the fairly sophisticated Tor-M1 SA-15 Gauntlet, a short-range mobile SAM system. The Tor M-1’s greatest strength is its mobility, which, because of Iran’s sizeable and mountainous terrain, could make for a very difficult target because it can pop-up almost anywhere. Iran lacks the resources to protect all of its air space, so it relies on “point defense,” deploying its anti-aircraft guns and missiles around strategically important sites, Ochmanek says.

The MIT folks figured that to carry out an effective strike, twelve F-15Is would have to arrive over Natanz, six F-16I over Esfahan and five F-16I over Arak. Their analysis said that a 50 plane strike package would provide the Israelis significant attrition cushion. The paper’s authors note that to cause the operation to fail, Iranian air defenses would have to down close to 40% of the attacking Israeli jets, an attrition rate that would exceed even the disastrous U.S. raid on Ploesti in Word War II. The MIT analysts conclude that largely because of advances in precision weaponry, “Israeli leaders have access to the technical capability to carry out the attack,” and that it would be no more risky than that of the 1981 raid on Osirak.

If a couple of students from MIT came up with that conclusion, the Israeli intelligence and military communities probably have a fairly high degree of confidence in the success of air strikes. The Israelis likely believe they can set back any progress the Iranians have made in nuclear enrichment by at least five years. What that would buy Israel and the rest of the world in terms of changing Tehran’s policies is anybody’s guess.

[From Iran's Natanz Tough Nut to Crack]

Classified Information is defined as data, regardless of form that includes sensitive information that its disclosure is restricted by law or regulation to particular group of people. Information is classified at one of three levels based on the amount of danger that its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause to national security.

The highest basic level of classified information is Top Secret. Top Secret information is defined as information that if disclosed would reasonably be expected to cause “exceptionally grave damage” to national security. The next to highest level of classified information is Secret. Secret information is defined as information that if disclosed would cause “serious damage” to national security. The third level of classified information is Confidential. Confidential is defined as information that if disclosed could cause “damage” to national security.

There are other restrictions on information such as NTK – need to know and SSI – sensitive security information. In these dangerous times, a slip or accidental disclosure of classified information can easily result in loss of life and billions of dollars of damage.

The extraordinary sensitivity of our intelligence and defense organizations’ mission requires the extraordinary protection against possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Any information coming to your attention concerning the loss or unauthorized disclosure of classified information should be reported immediately to proper government officials. Due to a number of recent security incidents involving the unauthorized disclosure of classified information training programs like “Handling Classified Information” has seen a significant increase in demand according to Spy-Ops. Organizations are taking additional steps to inform employees and contract workers of their responsibilities when handling sensitive information.

The most widely known case of leaking classified information came when the identity of a secret agent was disclosed. CIA covert operative Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, had her identity publically disclosed in multiple newspapers back in July of 2003. Since then, disclosures of classified information seem be become know monthly.

Examples (By far not an exhaustive list):

Jul 15, 2008 The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is exploring into how confidential and extremely sensitive information on airline security and the state of airporst was leaked to the press.

April 2008 A Defense Department official who worked as a weapons policy analyst pleaded guilty to disclosing classified military information that was later passed on to China.

August 2007 A Congressman revealed a budget cut in the classified portion of the 2008 Intelligence Authorization Bill dealing with the human-intelligence programs.

July 2007 Millions of documents containing sensitive and sometimes classified information have been floating about freely on file sharing networks after being inadvertently exposed by individuals downloading P2P software on systems that held the data. Among these documents were the Pentagon’s classified (secret) network infrastructure diagrams, complete with IP addresses as well as information on five separate Department of Defense information security system audits.

October 2006 A report published on the front page of the New York Times included a classified one-page slide “Iraq: Indications and Warnings of Civil Conflict” from an Oct. 18 military briefing.

August 2006 A Navy lawyer could be put behind bars for 30 years after Navy officials charged him with passing along secret information while he was stationed at Guantanamo Bay.

April 2006 The CIA fired an officer who acknowledged, after failing a polygraph examination, giving classified information to a reporter.

April 2005 The Justice Department launched an investigation into leaks to the media about the National Security Agency’s classified domestic surveillance program.

These incidents and many others have triggered multiple ongoing investigations by the FBI and many other federal entities. One would think that the people who have been authorized to handle classified information would take divulging this information more seriously. We should all be outraged when our country’s secrets are disclosed for whatever reason. After all, it puts all of us at risk.

[From The Stop Secret Sieve]

According to security specialists the days for intricate attacks on web servers using special tools are numbered. “Business logic flaws” in web applications are said to enable criminals to obtain money simply with a browser.

[From Web browsers become tools for criminals]