When President Ronald Reagan was winning the Cold War, many on the left attacked him and said that he was to blame for every bump in the road due to his stances. History has proven the former U.S. leader correct, but the similarities are lost on the left today as they claim that “Iran may soon start to ramp up cyberattacks on the United States in the wake of President Trump’s decision to pull out of the nuclear deal with that country,” Yahoo News reports.
The warning comes from “former top White House cyber chief under President Barack Obama,” Michael Daniel, coordinator. Considering that Iran had already broken the terms of the nuclear deal and has voiced all-out disdain for the U.S., the likelihood that such attacks would not have happened anyway is slim, at best. This is being paraded by some on the left as if it were a new threat.
“I think we should expect to see an increase in Iranian cyberactivity against us,” Daniel’s predicted on Skullduggery.
Hackers known to work with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard “were indicted by U.S. officials in March 2016 for” cyber attacks against the United States, a fact conceded by the former coordinator. This travesty took place long before Mr. Trump removed America from the faulty deal, a nuance that only a leftist like Daniels could omit from the debate against White House actions on the matter.
That attack was no small affair since it led to “service attacks on major U.S. banks and other financial institutions, shutting down computer networks and causing millions of dollars in lost business.”
When Daniels does admit the facts, he still somehow manages to imply that Obama’s deal was working, which is a stance that has a mutually exclusive foundation. “Saudi Aramco has continued to be under attack even subsequent to the nuclear deal,” he said. “If you look at what happened in Qatar, there was a disinformation campaign that was carried out there that many people ascribe to and attribute to Iranian actors.”
So is he saying that, like a beaten housewife, America would have been abused less if Uncle Sam had not complained about the abuse thus far?
Obama’s computer guy also said, “From my perspective, it’s a strange signal to send, and the way it was communicated doesn’t seem to indicate they are putting a high priority on the topic. If anything, the threats we face are going to continue to get more intense and worse in cyberspace before they get better.”
He speaks as though if Mr. Trump had allowed the deal to remain, Iran would’ve waved Ol’ Glory, sing praises, and no longer chanted for America’s death in the street.
That is also unlikely.
Daniel also said that he felt as though Iran would attempt now to meddle in the coming elections. Perhaps so, but would they have just sat back if the deal was in place? If so, what proof is offered to show this?
Beyond that, the U.S. is likely to be a pretty tight ship in light of what Russia tried to do during the last election cycle, so any attempt by Iran will be stopped like a moth in a bug light.
…sort of like the nuclear deal was.