The article sounds pretty sketchy on evidence that Iran even performed that cyberattack in the first place: > "Mandiant, a leading U.S. cybersecurity firm, exp

The article sounds pretty sketchy on evidence that Iran even performed that cyberattack in the first place: > "Mandiant, a leading U.S. cybersecurity firm, expressed “moderate confidence” last month that the attackers were acting in support of Tehran’s anti-dissident efforts." A US based firm expresses mere "moderate confidence" that the attacks were meant to support Iran is being taken as confirmation? From the same country that claimed it was positive that Iraq had WMDs just to drum up support to go to war? Even the experts who don't like Iran say that the Iranian government is smart and only takes calculated risks when going on the offensive. Hacking a website for the sake of demanding a few bitcoins in "ransomware" hardly sounds like a surgical government led attack against it's opponents.