Al Gore is both stupid and late. (See 1 below.)
One for the books! (See 2 below.)
Think what you will you have to stand in awe of N Korea. Their leadership has starved their people, their leaders are starved for affection but they know how to jerk our chain and make us look pathetically weak and confused.
Like all two bit dictators their story will end tragically but until it does you have to admire their chutzpah! They sure know how to make fools of America and
S Korea. (See 3 below.)
My counter terrorist friend says if America is not going to bomb then it must deter Iran from going nuclear. Boaz Ganor concludes, what we all know, Obama is likely to dither and yet the U.S. is the one, along with Israel, with the most to lose.
When we elected Obama, whether we realized it or not at the time, we got either we got Chamberlain without the umbrella and /or Nero without the violin. (See 4 below.)
Stuxnet reappears. (See 5 below.)
Al Gore's Important Admission
By Andrew Cline
It may not seem like much, but Al Gore's recent admission that ethanol subsidies are bad policy is a really big deal.
"It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for (U.S.) first generation ethanol," Reuters reported Gore saying during a green energy summit in Athens. "First generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small."
This is hardly likely to change U.S. energy policy overnight. As Gore said, "It's hard once such a program is put in place to deal with the lobbies that keep it going." Though that is one more reason to oppose such programs, it is almost beside the point. Gore's admission has much more important implications, namely the revelation of two important truths: 1. Policies to prop up ethanol are environmental frauds; and 2. So is Al Gore.
Al Gore's doomsaying has turned him into the world's famous environmental prophet. He is the sage in the green robe. His words are truth -- undisputable and indispensable. With the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change."
"Knowledge," they wrote. And "needed" measures to counteract the change. Until this week, one of those needed measures, according to Gore, was to turn corn into fuel.
"I was also proud to stand up for the ethanol tax exemption when it was under attack in the Congress -- at one point, supplying a tie-breaking vote in the Senate to save it," Gore said during a Dec. 1, 1998, speech to a Farm Journal conference. "The more we can make this home-grown fuel a successful, widely-used product, the better-off our farmers and our environment will be."
The first part of that statement is true. The second is not.
On Aug. 4, 1994, Gore cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate to save the EPA's ethanol mandate. The fight was between farm state politicians, who wanted to mandate ethanol use, and others who thought methanol would work just as well. Gore broke the tie in favor of the farm state lobby. Though he claimed it was for the planet, Gore's support of ethanol really was to buy the votes of farmers. He admitted as much in Athens:
One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president.
Al Gore? Put politics before the planet? Pshaw.
But it is true; he has admitted it.
This is important because Gore's ethanol exploits duplicate the entire global climate change debate in miniature form.
To gain votes, Gore pushed an idea that was widely thought to be environmentally beneficial, but which skeptics claimed was actually the opposite. The Heritage Foundation at least as far back as the early 1980s was warning that ethanol subsidies were bad energy policy. By the mid-1990s, the mandate was being attacked as a sop to the corn lobby that had no environmental benefits. And by the late 2000s, the broadly accepted view had changed entirely. Scientists had come to believe that grain-based biofuels like ethanol were driving up food prices, causing food shortages, and possibly making global warming worse.
Al Gore, though, boasted that ethanol was helping save the planet. From Gore there was no doubt, no uncertainty, no scientific argument. It was his way, the green way, or the path to planetary destruction. There were no other options.
But there were, and the people offering them -- not Al Gore -- were right. And that leads to the obvious question: If the Enviro-Oracle got ethanol wrong, then what else might he have gotten wrong?
The point is not that Gore is entirely wrong. It's that he is wrong enough (remember the errors in An Inconvenient Truth) to merit skepticism. But law doesn't take skeptics' views into account. Environmental regulations compel compliance. Only in the market does the skepticism of the minority become an important player. If Al Gore bases his personal financial investments on faulty science, it matters to no one but Al Gore, and perhaps his wife. But if states base environmental regulations on faulty science he pushed, we are all harmed.
The great ethanol error would've been corrected quickly had the market been left in control. It was only the misguided hand of government that grew this problem to global proportions, and perpetuates it still.
This fall the EPA approved a waiver allowing gasoline to contain up to 15 percent ethanol for cars made since 2007. Congress has mandated that 13.95 billion gallons of renewable fuels (mostly ethanol) be produced in 2011, up from 12.95 billion gallons this year. (Can you imagine how much worse it would be had Gore been president?)
The bottom line is this: If we cannot base our environmental policies on the pronouncements of Al Gore, should we really be passing costly, far-reaching mandates that force people to behave as Al Gore would want them to? Wouldn't it be better to let the market decide, and leave Al Gore to investing heavily in biofuel companies?
Andrew Cline is editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader.
2) Thanksgiving with Obama, Palin, Bush and Drudge
By David Paul Kuhn
Editors Note: Below is a partial transcript from a dinner Monday night at the White House. In attendance: Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Sarah Palin, Janet Napolitano, George W. Bush and Matt Drudge. (White House officials correctly deny the dinner took place.)
Barack Obama: I'd like to thank all of you for attending this White House pre-Thanksgiving feast. It's a chance to sit down like Indians and pilgrims and smoke a peace pipe.
Janet Napolitano: You can't say that Barack.
Obama: Yes, you're right.
Sarah Palin: That's what's wrong with you folks. You're so politically correct. It's why you won't profile terrorist suspects.
Obama: We will get to the policy discussion shortly. Firstly, I'd like to thank President Bush for coming on behalf of John Boehner, who apparently had another scheduling conflict.
Napolitano: He's probably at a tanning bed.
Palin: In Alaska, the only things we tan are hides. I've killed things with a gun, ya know.
Obama: Yes, Sarah, I've seen your reality show--
Palin: Sundays, 9-8 central, on TLC--
Obama: Well thank you for coming George.
George W. Bush: My pleasure, though I didn't know Michelle would make us eat fake tofu turkey.
Michelle Obama: Apologies, Sarah. I don't know how to cook moose.
Obama: Ok then. On to less contentious issues. Thoughts on this TSA mess?
Napolitano: What mess? So people aren't happy getting frisked. They'd be a lot unhappier with a terrorist attack. And why is it that President Bush does warrantless wire-tapping and there's no big outcry? He lies about Iraq being linked to 9/11 and starts a war in Iraq over it. And those mythical WMDs. But Americans support him for years. People die in war. They're only getting felt up here.
Bush: Who invited Keith Olbermann to dinner? See, you need a color-coded alert system. It warms people to new security measures. Actually, wait until election year for that. Now Janet, let me explain this to you. First, you have tea party folks rallying a national movement with stuff like "don't tread on me" flags. And you think it's a good idea to start a frisk-America policy. And you got to understand, people are being touched here like it's their prom date. This bothers lots of people because everyone goes on planes and no one likes what's being done.
Obama: Yes, war without cost. Tax cuts without paying for them. Brilliant.
Bush: See Barry, that's what gets you in trouble. Are you going to offer another metaphor--yes, I know what a metaphor is--about how placing a car in reverse is like voting Republican?
Obama: Actually, George, that's a simile.
Bush: Thanks professor. I realize you won a Pulitzer--
Obama: It was a Nobel Prize. I've won a Grammy and Emmy too.
Palin: I won the Alaska high school state basketball championship. They called me "Sarah Barracuda." How 'bout a game of basketball sometime Mr. President?
Obama: Anytime Barracuda. But don't call the referee a liberal if you lose.
Bush: There you go again, Barry. You can't be so partisan. It's not your brand.
Obama: Yes, I forget the bridge-builder mantra sometimes. Mea culpa.
Palin: Mea watsa? I only speak American.
Bush: Barry, she's joking again (Bush slaps Obama on the back).
Obama: I'm sorry, yes. You are very humorous Sarah. You were saying George.
Bush: Maybe the issue is the folks doing the searches. If the TSA agents looked liked Sarah here, everyone would be ok with it.
Palin: Oh Mr. President.
Bush: I'm joking around. Well, actually, I'm offering solutions here. That's what I do. Solutions. And as we Texans would say, most of these TSA folks are so ugly it looks like they were in an outhouse when lightening striked... We should hire only good-lookin' TSA agents. No one would complain then.
Obama: George, we cannot discriminate against homely people.
Bush: Sarah's right. You're too politically correct. You'd rather pat down old nuns than offend bad guys.
Obama: May I remind you, you didn't get the bad guy. You know, Osama.
Bush: And have you? Not so easy being president, is it? And wasn't that funny when Fox News wrote your name as Osama during the election Barry?
Obama: Not especially.
Bush: You need to laugh at yourself more. But really, I don't get all this fuss about profiling. Shucks. If a bunch of white Texas good ol' boys, you know average Joes, guys with pickups, who have ranches like real cowboys, real Americans, like me, were trying to use planes as bombs, I wouldn't mind getting profiled.
Obama: Real Americans?
Bush: Oh Barry. You're so sensitive. Don't mind Sarah. You're a real American... Sarah, don't roll your eyes.
Palin: Sorry Mr. President.
Obama: That's alright.
Bush: She was apologizing to me, Barry.
Obama: Of course. ... Matt, are you posting about this under the table?
Matt Drudge: No, Mr. President.
Obama: Look, Matt, people didn't want me to invite you. But in the spirit of Thanksgiving, I wanted to make peace with you as well. Off-the-record. I understand why the people go to your page--
Palin: Why'd you use air quotes Mr. President for "the people?"
Obama: Sorry. Old habits die hard--
Palin: Like socialism?
Obama: More like smoking--
Drudge: You're still smoking. Ha, I got that one right!
Obama: I'm not smoking!
Palin: Big sis probably won't let you.
Obama: Alright, allow me to finish my point ... Now Matt, I don't read Drudge, of course. But I noticed you have been obsessed with these TSA screenings.
Napolitano: This is all your fault, Matt! You've made this a national sensation. Mr. President, I told you he shouldn't be here. No one should read Drudge--
Drudge: Hold on. Janet, didn't you say you knew you "made it" when you saw "Drudge has a nickname for me."
Napolitano: I was joking.
Drudge: Not very well.
Bush: Ok folks. Let's calm down. See, I've been thinking--
Napolitano: That's news--
Bush: Not bad, big sis. But don't forget I created your job. And you're welcome, by the way. ...See now, on TSA, the Israelis not only profile but they use psychological screening. You know, like shrinks. That'd be better. Now I personally don't mind these new security measures. It got me out of Thanksgiving with the old man.
Obama: I wish it could get me out of Thanksgiving with Michelle's family.
Obama: Sorry dear. ... You were saying George.
Bush: This frisking bothers many folks. So here's what you do. Fire big sis over here, and say TSA will only do this if there is probable cause. And yes, profile a bit, one-way tickets, visits to countries that hate us. Every other world power profiles. Do that and I'm sure Drudgey will give you a siren. Drudgey?
Drudge: Don't fire big sis. She's good for clicks. But sure, I'd give that a siren.
Obama: And the banner headline?
Obama: And a red font?
Drudge: Yes, and a red font.
Obama: Hmm. I probably shouldn't be hasty though. Maybe I should let a few committees in Congress consider the issue for the next year--
Bush: That's what you're doing wrong Barry. Just decide. Then let the eggheads squawk over it. No offense Barry, I mean other eggheads. Really though, you're now the decider! That's why you have this fancy house. Have you used the bowling alley by the way? It's awesome. I used to run as fast as I could in my socks and see how far I could slide down the lane. Laura hated that.
Obama: You're still lucky. Michelle won't even let me have real turkey on Thanksgiving.
Obama: Sorry dear. ... I can't wait to eat. Actually, we should cut this organic tofu. And look at these veggies grown in our wonderful sustainable garden. Please let's begin. Sarah, do you want to say grace?
Palin: I knew it! You don't even know grace, do you? Glenn was right about you. And why do you ask the conservative mom from Alaska? You think we're all bible thumpers, don't ya?
Obama: Sorry, perhaps I too was profiling.
Bush: Oh shucks. Lay off the professor, cheerleader.
Palin: Huh, Bushey?
Bush: I'm just playing around. I've been having a lot of fun lately. This book tour is great. Talking to folks, going to Denny's a lot, watching a former critic see what it's like to be in charge. It's good not to be king.
Obama: I can imagine.
Palin: Don't worry Obama, I mean Mr. President, I'm thinking about sorting that out for you.
Obama: That's actually what I do pray for.
Bush: Barry, you're getting all Pelosi-like again. See now, you just got your butt kicked in the election. You should be humbler. A regular fellow. Like me. Show people that you get the message. Fire someone, like I did with Rummy. Again, fire big sis over here. Do it. It's great. Once your vice president gives you permission, you can fire anyone you want. ... relax people, that's some Cheney humor.
Obama: I'll take it under consideration George.
Palin: You should fire yourself. You can do that, ya know. I did. It worked out great! Now I have a reality TV show, a regular position at Fox, a new book coming out and I'm a leading presidential candidate. I'm sure MSNBC would give you a primetime show.
Michelle: Will someone please say grace?
Palin: Ok, I'll do it. Dear Lord, thank you for this liberal feast of tofu and raw vegetables. Please bless this table and please help this socialist president find the right path, so that he no longer molests this nation like his security agents are molesting Americans. Happy Thanksgiving everybody!
David Paul Kuhn is the Chief Political Correspondent for RealClearPolitics and the author of The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma.
3)South Korea warns North of 'enormous retaliation' after attackTwo killed after Pyongyang fires on Yeonpyeong island in first attack on South Korean land since 1953 war
South Korea warned today that it will unleash "enormous retaliation" if North Korea launches fresh attacks against its territory.
North Korean troops bombarded Yeonpyeong, an island in disputed waters, with dozens of rounds of artillery earlier today, reportedly killing two South Korean soldiers and injuring around 20 people.
Seoul placed its military on its highest non-wartime alert level, scrambling F-16 fighter jets to the western sea and returning fire, officials said. It warned that the attack was a violation of the armistice that ended the Korean war in 1953.
The South Korean president, Lee Myung-bak, who convened an emergency security meeting shortly after the initial bombardment, said an "indiscriminate attack on civilians" could never be tolerated.
"Enormous retaliation should be made, to the extent that [North Korea] cannot make provocations again," he said.
The assault is one of the most serious in the decades since the war, given the involvement of civilians, although previous firefights around the disputed maritime border have resulted in a higher number of casualties.
In a short statement carried by the official KCNA news agency, the North said the South had fired first – presumably in reference to a live-fire drill being carried out as part of annual military exercises. It said it had repeatedly warned the South not to go ahead with the drill.
Analysts said that despite the seriousness of the clash, the situation was unlikely to escalate dramatically given the high stakes involved for all parties.
It comes amid growing international concern over reports that North Korea has a new uranium enrichment facility.
Lee ordered officials to "sternly respond" to North Korea's action but stressed that they had to make sure the "situation would not escalate," an aide said.
Yeonpyeong is only around 75 miles west of the South Korean capital.
Broadcasters showed smoke rising from houses in the attack, and Seoul's YTN television said residents had been evacuated to bunkers after firing broke out, at around 2.30pm. It is thought around 1,200 people live on the island.
Lee Chun-ok, a 54-year-old island resident, said she had been watching TV when she heard sounds of artillery, and a wall and door in her home suddenly collapsed.
"I thought I would die," said Lee, who had been evacuated to the port city of Incheon. "I was really, really terrified, and I'm still terrified."
The White House condemned the attack as "belligerent", adding: "The United States is firmly committed to the defence of our ally … and to the maintenance of regional peace and stability."
In London, William Hague urged Pyongyang to stop further "unprovoked" attacks.
Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said there was a "colossal danger" of escalation, Reuters reported. He added: "Those who started this bear a huge responsibility."
China, North Korea's main ally, steered clear of assigning blame. A foreign ministry spokesman, Hong Lei, urged both sides to "do more to contribute to peace and stability in the region".
An unofficial spokesman for North Korea told the Guardian that firing artillery was a "totally justifiable act of self-defence" in response to the sea drills and warned that nuclear war could follow "at any point" unless the exercises stop. Pyongyang has repeatedly issued such threats in the past.
"If the South continues its dangerous behaviour, Seoul will be the next target. It will be a sea of fire," said Kim Myong-chol, executive director of the Centre for Korean-American Peace.
Han Seung-joo, a former South Korean foreign minister, said the "reckless and provocative" act suggested desperation on North Korea's part, and suggested it may be meant to send a message to a domestic audience rather than to the outside world, boosting solidarity and "show[ing] that they can get away with this".
Professor Chu Shulong, an expert on international security at Beijing's Tsinghua University, said it was too early to be sure what had happened.
But he added: "Over the years, North Korea has always been a place that likes to make trouble to get attention from the international community. After they get attention, they can start a new round of negotiations and get supplies from other countries. This is what they have been doing during the past 20 years."
The disputed maritime border has long been a source of friction and has seen repeated skirmishes – in some cases fatal – in recent years.
Relations between the two Koreas have remained especially tense since the South's Cheonan warship sank in March, killing 46 sailors. An international investigation led by Seoul blamed a North Korean torpedo but Pyongyang denies any involvement.
4) If we aren’t going to bomb, we have to deter
By BOAZ GANOR
Only the fear of instant annihilation might dissuade a nuclear Iran from pursuing its expansionist goals.
The Obama administration seems intent on going down in history as the American administration under which Iran attained nuclear military capability.
Looking at the existing constellation of realities – the fact that the regime is led by a spiritual leader, Ali Khamenei, who was appointed by and receives his instructions directly from Allah; the fact that its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is of arguable sanity, systematically abuses the rights of minority groups, denies that the Holocaust took place, and calls for the destruction of Israel; and the fact that the Islamic Republic of Iran, from its very establishment in 1979, took up Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s decree to “export the Islamic revolution” as the heart of its worldview – all these facts spell danger for the Middle East and Central Asia.
Once this malevolent regime harnesses its resources in a race to become a nuclear power, the safety of the entire world will be at risk.
When the sun rises the day following Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear bomb, the world will awaken to a highly combustive reality: The US, the dominant nuclear superpower, will instantly lose its international hegemony, as we will witness the emergence of a radical Islamic nuclear superpower. Many Middle Eastern and Asian states will race toward nuclear proliferation.
But the most immediately threatened and first to capitulate will be the oil emirates of the Gulf and Arab states, like Iraq and perhaps even Saudi Arabia, whose oil reserves will be swiftly conquered by Iranian forces.
Who would dare block the “messenger of Allah,” armed with a nuclear bomb, from attaining regional hegemony from Lebanon to Oman? To be sure, we will see an outpouring of protests and condemnations, but the world will likely sit back as Iran marches toward realizing its strategy of enslaving the oil-dependent West.
Iran will match its military conquests with intensified support of subversive activity in other states. A nucleararmed Iran will reach out to local Islamic fundamentalist movements in Arab and Muslim countries and assist their takeover through either democratic elections or violence, and then will sign pacts with its new allies.
Iran will not hesitate to use vassal terror organizations – Hizbullah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian arena, Shi’ite elements in Iraq and elsewhere – to promote its interests. Under the Iranian nuclear umbrella, these organizations will be immune to reprisal.
THIS IS not a worst-case scenario, but a completely reasonable estimate of what will happen from the moment Iran achieves nuclear capability. Efforts to persuade it to forgo its nuclear aspirations through negotiation or sanctions are doomed to fail. This is a regime which sent its own children to their deaths during the Iran-Iraq war. At that time, thousands of children were ordered to obey a “divine command” and march directly into Iraqi minefields, paving the way for Iranian troops with their young corpses. Such a regime would not even blink when it comes to jeopardizing its economy or sacrificing its international interests for the sake of its ultimate goals.
The only way to prevent this scenario is through a sweeping military operation. Only one country has the power to take on an operation of this scale; it is the country with the most at stake and the greatest interest in preventing this new world disorder. That country is the United States.
US motives for preventing a nuclear Iran are numerous, starting with the direct threat already posed by an Islamic fundamentalist state openly developing long-range missiles capable of reaching any target in the Western world. Add the fact that Hizbullah has already infiltrated American soil, cultivating sleeper terror cells.
Yet by far the greatest motive is that a nuclear Iran will signal the instant loss of support from its traditional Middle Eastern allies, beginning with Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf states. Iran’s intensive courtship of these countries has long been in full force, lobbying them to cut their American ties and transfer allegiance to the rising regional nuclear power. This trend will only intensify once Iran has the Bomb. Having felt that they have bet on the wrong horse by opting for a special relationship with the US, we will see one country after the other cash in its American chips to buy Iranian favor.
A parallel and no-less-dangerous process will be the wave of nuclear proliferation across the Middle East and central Asia. Iran’s traditional adversaries, fearful of an Iranian invasion, will do everything possible to acquire their own nuclear weapons. This process obviously flies in the face of the Obama administration’s openly declared objective to prevent nuclear proliferation.
Worse yet is the clear and present danger of Iranian Islamic radical terrorist affiliates, armed with a divine command, unleashing nuclear weapons far beyond Iran’s borders.
Should President Barack Obama refrain from taking proactive steps and attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, every country in the world will be thrown into a new, much more complicated and dangerous Cold War-like situation, triggered by the multi-polar nuclear environment.
Next to the tough dilemmas this new state of affairs will pose, the Cuban missile crisis will seem like child’s play.
ONLY THE fear of instant annihilation might dissuade a nuclear Iran from pursuing its expansionist goals.
Western states pitted in conflict against a fundamentalist adversary that follows a divine authority will have a hard time predicting Iran’s next moves or creating deterrents. There is but one option in the face of the Iranian nuclear threat: a new American-led nuclear alliance.
The “second-strike nuclear alliance” would include Western states, pro-Western states and others who fear being targeted by an Iranian nuclear attack. Unlike NATO, the SSNA would not oblige members to supply mutual assistance in the event of a conventional war, but would provide vital strategic backup: the guaranteed destruction of any aggressive nuclear attacker of any of its members – the “second strike” capability. Making an SSNA nuclear umbrella available to members could even prevent a nuclear proliferation trend; it could neutralize Iran’s military advantage over its weaker neighbors, strengthen the West and like-minded countries, and might even deter Iran from threatening to put its nuclear capability to use.
The more determination we see on the part of the Obama administration to avoid military confrontation, the more it must establish doctrines for a new, multipolar Cold War, of which the SSNA would be a pillar.
These principles must become clearly articulated, and set into motion from the moment we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iran has attained nuclear weapons.
The writer is deputy dean of the Lauder School of Government Diplomacy and Strategy and director of the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism at IDC Herzliya.
5)Stuxnet knocks Natanz out for a week, hits Iran's air defense exercise
Iranian claims in October that their nuclear systems were cleansed of the Stuxnet virus, intelligence and Iranian sources confirm the invasive malworm is still making trouble. It shut down uranium enrichment at Natanz for a week from Nov. 16 to 22 over breakdowns caused by mysterious power fluctuations in the operation of the centrifuge machines enriching uranium at Natanz.
The shutdown was reported by the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency Yukiya Amano to the IAEA board in Vienna on Tuesday, Nov. 23.
Rapid changes in the spinning speed of the thousands of centrifuges enriching uranium to weapons-grade can cause them to blow apart suddenly without the monitors detecting any malfunction. The Iranian operators first tried replacing the P1 and P2 centrifuges used at Natanz with the more advanced IR1 type, but got the same effect. They finally decided to shut the plant down until computer security experts purged it of the malworm.
But then, when work was resumed Monday, about 5,000 of the 8,000 machines were found to be out of commission and the remaining 2,500-3,000 partially on the blink.
Tuesday, Ali Akbar Salehi, Director of Iran's Nuclear Energy Commission tried to put a good face on the disaster. "Fortunately the nuclear Stuxnet virus has faced a dead end," he said. However, the IAEA report and Western intelligence confirm that the virus has gathered itself for a fresh onslaught on Iran's vital facilities.
According to an exclusive report. Stuxnet is also in the process of raiding Iran's military systems, sowing damage and disorder in its wake.
On Nov. 17, in the middle of a massive air defense exercise, Iranian military sources reported six foreign aircraft had intruded the airspace over the practice sites and were put to flight by Iranian fighters. The next day, a different set of military sources claimed a misunderstanding; there had been no intrusions. Iranian fighters had simulated an enemy raid which too had been repulsed.
Military sources disclose there was no "misunderstanding." The foreign intruders had shown up on the exercise's radar screens, but when the fighter jets scrambled to intercept them, they found empty sky, meaning the radar instruments had lied.
The military command accordingly decided to give up on using the exercise as a stage for unveiling new and highly sophisticated weaponry, including a homemade radar system, for fear that they too may have been infected by the ubiquitous Stuxnet worm.