History in the making. A network used as a strategic advantage.
As I read about the part a fiber network played in the recent outbreak of violence in Lebanon I realize that this episode is of historic significance. While communications channels have always been of strategic and tactical importance this is the first modern instance I know of where the construction of a network led to direct violence as well as a major shift in the political structure of a country leaving a militant organization, Hezbollah, in a position of greater power. Of course Lawrence of Arabia, come to think of it, helped the Bedouin tribes during WW I in an insurgency against the Attaturk in part by cutting telegraph lines connecting the region.
Chris Soghoian spells it out in his blog where he coins the term fiber warfare. Hezbollah has built a network connecting Southern Lebanon with Syria and has declared it untouchable. The WSJ today quoted Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah:
Calling the system Hezbollah's "No. 1 weapon," the black-turbaned leader declared that "it is forbidden to touch [anything] linked to the networks, whether an engineer, a company or a mayor. Touching them is like touching me."
(For some reason Google has not indexed the article. There is a pirated version here. )
So, when the government of Lebanon realized just how important the network was they ordered it destroyed which led to an immediate backlash. Hezbollah instigated violence that led to the deaths of 67 people. The government rescinded their demands and now has struck a deal with Hezbollah granting them a two thirds majority in the government. Who says violence is not effective?
I think it bears noting just how important network communications are to an insurgency. Also, if militant groups, assisted by Iran, are growing their network expertise it does not bode well for the future when it starts to dawn on them that they could do much more to hurt their enemies by attacking their networks than by attacking their office buildings.
About Stiennon
Richard Stiennon is a security industry analyst. He is currently consulting, speaking and writing on all manner of security topics for IT-Harvest, the IT research firm he founded to cover the security space. He was most recently chief marketing officer for Fortinet. He has served stints at PricewaterhouseCoopers, Gartner, and Webroot Software.
The opinions expressed in this Weblog are those of the writer and may not represent the opinions of Network World.
|
|
Several facts are wrong in your article
While your excitement about your area of expertise is understandable, your overzealousness has led you to totally misunderstand what's happened on the ground. The most glaring example is the fact that Hezbollah did NOT get two thirds majority in the new government. Hezbollah and allies will be getting no more than 11 seats out of 30, which is not even half of the seats of the government.
Not to burst your bubble totally, Hezbollah exaggerated the importance of their "weapon" (the fiber network) and used hyperbole to achieve political gains. The fiber network was no more than an excuse. It carries a lot less importance as a strategic weapon than you, I and lots of other techies were originally led to believe.
You are right
You are right. 11 out of 30 which effectively allows the opposition, led by Hezbollah, to vetoe any legislation that needs a two thirds majority.
Actually I too am dubious about how strategic a network is to Hezbollah. But you have to admit that they have already used it stage rioting, murder, and greater control of Lebanon.
-Stiennon
Post new comment