Is that really true or is it a parallel construction to hide humint sources. Much like the bin Laden story.
There's also the theory of the attacks starting at a certain time because the talks for the nuclear were under way. They probably knew the iranian leaders would group together to discuss the details.
For example it is now common knowledge that IAEA shared reserved data with Israel INT agencies, and this info was used for the previous strikes.
It's never been clear to me how effective IAEA can be at keeping out state spies from their midst if the world's best intel agencies want "in".
Going back pre-Iraq-war, back when there were "inspections" and "sanctions" on Iraq, you can dig up "page 19" articles in NYTimes where -- if I recall correctly -- the US was caught putting spy equipment on the IAEA monitoring equipment in Iraq. This is (according to Iraq) what in large part triggered Iraq to kick out US inspectors. Then the Iraq (2) war started because they wouldn't let in inspectors.
Iran's theory, glossed over at the time but also reported in the rare western press articles was that the US intentionally got caught. (So that the Saddam would have explicit pressure to get the US kicked out, so that then they (US/Israel) could have a pretext to take out Iraq.) I don't know if Iran had any actual evidence to that effect or it was a bit of a conspiracy theory; I never actually read Iranian news sources whcih might have had details (or might have revealed just empty posturing.)
yeah, this headline doesn't pass the sniff test to me too:
The traffic cameras can't tell you who is in the vehicle. Maybe they know which plate he typically rides in? But the much simpler explanation is he had a leak.
1) It's possible there are traffic cameras covering wherever they get into the vehicle.
2) It can be used in conjunction with other assets watching who got in etc...
It's also possible that they simply went ahead and hit the vehicle, knowing there was a good chance that their target would be inside. It's not like they've been all that picky about collateral damage.
Why risk starting a war and not be 100% confident where the leader is?
Risk starting a war !!
That was the whole freaking point.
The attacking forces doesn't give a flying F about Iranians otherwise the sanctions would have been removed long ago on humanitarian reasons.
Most wars are started without targeting the leader at all.
Are you sure?
The Chinese traffic Surveillance cameras also photograph who is inside the Vehicles
yes, the driver, but not the passengers. I doubt he drives his own car.
If the cameras can see the driver, they can also see the front passenger. And who gets in or out of the stopped car. Istael/US probably analyzed months of footage to establish patterns and uncover their habbits and schedule.
Similar to how the roads Rome built to control their empire were used by Barbarian invaders. History doesn't repeat but it does rhyme.
It's a bit more complicated:
> The situation on the Rhine/Danube frontier was complex. The peoples on the other side of the frontier were not strangers to Roman power; indeed they had been trading, interacting and occasionally raiding and fighting over the borders for some time. That was actually part of the Roman security problem: familiarity had begun to erode the Roman qualitative advantage which had allowed smaller professional Roman armies to consistently win fights on the frontier. The Germanic peoples on the other side had begun to adopt large political organizations (kingdoms, not tribes) and gained familiarity with Roman tactics and weapons. At the same time, population movements (particularly by the Huns) further east in Europe and on the Eurasian Steppe began creating pressure to push these ‘barbarians’ into the empire. This was not necessarily a bad thing: the Romans, after conflict and plague in the late second and third centuries, needed troops and they needed farmers and these ‘barbarians’ could supply both. But as we’ve discussed elsewhere, the Romans make a catastrophic mistake here: instead of reviving the Roman tradition of incorporation, they insisted on effectively permanent apartness for the new arrivals, even when they came – as most would – with initial Roman approval.
Those barbarian invaders were also used as security forces and were very familiar with the intricate of the empire.
Or the roads the Inca built as well.
One of the key infrastructures for the Inca's large transportation network connecting diverse territories in the Andes was a system of of grass-rope bridges across the ravines that had to be rebuilt annually. I would imagine their fragility played a substantial role in the invasion / occupation. The most important ones were rebuilt by the Spanish in stone once their position was secure.
Could be true, but could also be false.
If Iran removes these cameras, they will have a much harder time tracking protests and dissidents.
So it's entirely possible this could be misinformation intended to mislead the regime into removing the cameras.
[deleted]
It would be simpler to put a disconect on the whole network, or you know, build a society that reflected how people actualy want to live.
The unfortunate part is that cameras are hated everywhere, and EXACTLY the same people hacking Irans network, are running the ones in the US.
Is that really true or is it a parallel construction to hide humint sources. Much like the bin Laden story.
There's also the theory of the attacks starting at a certain time because the talks for the nuclear were under way. They probably knew the iranian leaders would group together to discuss the details.
For example it is now common knowledge that IAEA shared reserved data with Israel INT agencies, and this info was used for the previous strikes.
It's never been clear to me how effective IAEA can be at keeping out state spies from their midst if the world's best intel agencies want "in".
Going back pre-Iraq-war, back when there were "inspections" and "sanctions" on Iraq, you can dig up "page 19" articles in NYTimes where -- if I recall correctly -- the US was caught putting spy equipment on the IAEA monitoring equipment in Iraq. This is (according to Iraq) what in large part triggered Iraq to kick out US inspectors. Then the Iraq (2) war started because they wouldn't let in inspectors.
Iran's theory, glossed over at the time but also reported in the rare western press articles was that the US intentionally got caught. (So that the Saddam would have explicit pressure to get the US kicked out, so that then they (US/Israel) could have a pretext to take out Iraq.) I don't know if Iran had any actual evidence to that effect or it was a bit of a conspiracy theory; I never actually read Iranian news sources whcih might have had details (or might have revealed just empty posturing.)
yeah, this headline doesn't pass the sniff test to me too:
The traffic cameras can't tell you who is in the vehicle. Maybe they know which plate he typically rides in? But the much simpler explanation is he had a leak.
1) It's possible there are traffic cameras covering wherever they get into the vehicle.
2) It can be used in conjunction with other assets watching who got in etc...
It's also possible that they simply went ahead and hit the vehicle, knowing there was a good chance that their target would be inside. It's not like they've been all that picky about collateral damage.
Why risk starting a war and not be 100% confident where the leader is?
Risk starting a war !!
That was the whole freaking point.
The attacking forces doesn't give a flying F about Iranians otherwise the sanctions would have been removed long ago on humanitarian reasons.
Most wars are started without targeting the leader at all.
Are you sure?
The Chinese traffic Surveillance cameras also photograph who is inside the Vehicles
yes, the driver, but not the passengers. I doubt he drives his own car.
If the cameras can see the driver, they can also see the front passenger. And who gets in or out of the stopped car. Istael/US probably analyzed months of footage to establish patterns and uncover their habbits and schedule.
Similar to how the roads Rome built to control their empire were used by Barbarian invaders. History doesn't repeat but it does rhyme.
It's a bit more complicated:
> The situation on the Rhine/Danube frontier was complex. The peoples on the other side of the frontier were not strangers to Roman power; indeed they had been trading, interacting and occasionally raiding and fighting over the borders for some time. That was actually part of the Roman security problem: familiarity had begun to erode the Roman qualitative advantage which had allowed smaller professional Roman armies to consistently win fights on the frontier. The Germanic peoples on the other side had begun to adopt large political organizations (kingdoms, not tribes) and gained familiarity with Roman tactics and weapons. At the same time, population movements (particularly by the Huns) further east in Europe and on the Eurasian Steppe began creating pressure to push these ‘barbarians’ into the empire. This was not necessarily a bad thing: the Romans, after conflict and plague in the late second and third centuries, needed troops and they needed farmers and these ‘barbarians’ could supply both. But as we’ve discussed elsewhere, the Romans make a catastrophic mistake here: instead of reviving the Roman tradition of incorporation, they insisted on effectively permanent apartness for the new arrivals, even when they came – as most would – with initial Roman approval.
https://acoup.blog/2022/01/14/collections-rome-decline-and-f...
Those barbarian invaders were also used as security forces and were very familiar with the intricate of the empire.
Or the roads the Inca built as well.
One of the key infrastructures for the Inca's large transportation network connecting diverse territories in the Andes was a system of of grass-rope bridges across the ravines that had to be rebuilt annually. I would imagine their fragility played a substantial role in the invasion / occupation. The most important ones were rebuilt by the Spanish in stone once their position was secure.
Could be true, but could also be false.
If Iran removes these cameras, they will have a much harder time tracking protests and dissidents.
So it's entirely possible this could be misinformation intended to mislead the regime into removing the cameras.
It would be simpler to put a disconect on the whole network, or you know, build a society that reflected how people actualy want to live. The unfortunate part is that cameras are hated everywhere, and EXACTLY the same people hacking Irans network, are running the ones in the US.
Oops I commented the same before reading yours.
[dead]