22 ms·

That's pretty screwed up to kill an asset like that. I doubt Iran could have unraveled the plot so quickly and I'm not sure how they could benefit from killing

That's pretty screwed up to kill an asset like that. I doubt Iran could have unraveled the plot so quickly and I'm not sure how they could benefit from killing him.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
AlecSchueler 3y ago
The US/Israel benefits because he's no longer around to talk about it.
- rustcleaner 3y ago
  This one sees!
- michaelt 3y ago
  Or it wasn't Van Sabben, and the US/Israel just picked some random dead guy to pin the blame on. These stories are all "according to intelligence sources", they can really anonymously brief out anything that serves their needs.
  - runjake 3y ago
    After a quick public records search, it looks like he was a real person -- or a real identity with a tangible history. It appears he was formerly married to an American woman in his first marriage.
    - pedalpete 3y ago
      The comment isn't suggesting that he didn't exist, but rather that after he died in the motorcycle accident, it was possible to say that he was the actor and protect the people who were actually involved. All this requires is to understand who died shortly after Stuxnet who could have feasibly been involved.
    - ARandomerDude 3y ago
      It’s been done before. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mincemeat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mincemeat
  - someuser2345 3y ago
    > it’s unclear if Van Sabben knew exactly what he was doing, but his family said he appeared to have panicked at around the time of the Stuxnet attack. It was his family who said that he started panicking, so he was probably involved.
- oh_sigh 3y ago
  Talking about it would have painted a huge target on his back for retribution from the Iranian government. It would have also put a target on his wife's back, as well as all of her family that is presumably still in Iran. Killing him also would make it much harder to recruit assets in the future, if it became common knowledge that you will be offed after your mission is complete. It seems much more likely that he actually did die in a random motorcycle accident (not uncommon), or he was entirely uninvolved and a dead man was chosen to pin blame on in order to hide the real method(or, to make Iranians stop trusting foreign contractors, making them do everything in-house with higher costs and worse quality).
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    Not if he was going to defect.
  - timv 3y ago
    It doesn't even have to be a totally "random" (unrelated) motorcycle accident. If he panicked after the Stuxnet attack, as his family is reported to have said, then it's likely he has behaving erratically and was fearful for his life. That could easily translate to circumstances where he rides a motorcycle in a particularly dangerous manner - e.g. fleeing from someone he thought was Iranian/Dutch/US/Israeli intelligence (even if they weren't).
  - HFguy 3y ago
    Or he didn't die and is off hiding somewhere. Also, reasonable chance this entire story is fabricated and this was done a different way.
- ghufran_syed 3y ago
  In general, intelligence agencies don’t tend to kill their assets to keep them quiet, because that “benefit” is massively outweighed by the negative effect when trying to recruit the next 1000 assets over the next few years - pragmatism and self-interest, not morality. So its much more likely Iran did it - if a foreign engineer who worked at the attacked site suddenly decides to leave the country, it doesn't take 2 weeks to identify him as a suspect, more like 2 seconds. And if they kill him, it at least sends the message to other potential assets who might work against the interests of Iran. I’m sure Iran would have preferred to capture and question him to try unravel the rest of the network, but they’d settle for killing him I think?
  - vkou 3y ago
    It's much more likely that they just pinned this story on some guy who died in a motorcycling accident. The point of killing someone over some wrong they did you is publicizing it after the fact. If you don't take credit for it, it doesn't have any deterrent power.
    - RationalDino 3y ago
      Or alternately, they staged what appeared to be a fatal accident to put him in a witness protection program. Or alternately, he did it and then tried to back out of the deal. Now arranging an apparently accidental death then became the best way to keep security intact. The one theory that makes no sense is that they intended his death from the beginning.
      - op00to 3y ago
        All believable scenarios. I personally am fond of the "pin it on a dead guy" story. I want to believe that western security services have some sense of elegance.
    - LanceH 3y ago
      The problem with killing an asset is that you've now involved multiple more teams of assets who now know that you kill assets. This is not how you keep secrets, nor how you retain people who keep secrets. Like the JFK assassination theories that involve killing off an additional dozens of people. You can't cover up one murder by involving an extra 1000 people.
lostlogin 3y ago
> I'm not sure how they could benefit from killing him. It’s a pretty strong signal to others that there are consequences.
- bostonsre 3y ago
  Wouldn't they have to take credit for it and announce it if that's the case?
goles 3y ago
The idea that someone would use their real identity, or not disappear and get a new identity, while on covert action against America enemies is so absurd it's almost a great skit idea. "We successfully attacked the nuclear facility!" "Oh Van, by the way what name did you sign in the log book?" "...Oh no" I imagine there are a non-zero amount of readers (but not commenters) who find these stories comments extremely funny.
- b4ke 3y ago
  maybe the death was an implementation detail?
  - wddkcs 3y ago
    Gallows humor, we' be dead without it
    - throwaway_08932 3y ago
      _he said, his face deadpan._
  - goles 3y ago
    Sorry, I’ll respond seriously because re-reading my comment sounds like a bit of a cheap shot at P, et al. From the report in Dutch, they raise the point he may not have even known the magnitude of what he was doing. Until it already had been done and he realized what happened. Even AIVD/MIVD may have not known…or so they say. But we will probably never know.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- stordoff 3y ago
  It sounds like something out of Four Lions - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okGgkfDy4bc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okGgkfDy4bc
- 3y ago
ibejoeb 3y ago
He must've fucked up big time even to have been recruited. That was a kamikaze mission from the outset. It amazing he got it done at all.
SCM-Enthusiast 3y ago
This is Iran priority #1. I'm surprised it took Iran two weeks. They benefited by sending a message.
- lostlogin 3y ago
  > I'm surprised it took Iran two weeks. I’m not clear on the timeline. As I understand it, the hack went on for ages before it went malignant and started damaging stuff. Is it 2 weeks from being deployed, or 2 weeks from wrecking equipment?
- bostonsre 3y ago
  Is a car accident and not publicly announcing it as a reprisal sending a message? Seems a little too quiet for that and like it might be cleaning up loose ends by someone else instead.
4death4 3y ago
Maybe he just got a new identity.

That's pretty screwed up to kill an asset like that. I doubt Iran could have unraveled the plot so quickly and I'm not sure how they could benefit from killing him.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

AlecSchueler 3y ago

The US/Israel benefits because he's no longer around to talk about it.

rustcleaner 3y ago
This one sees!
michaelt 3y ago
Or it wasn't Van Sabben, and the US/Israel just picked some random dead guy to pin the blame on. These stories are all "according to intelligence sources", they can really anonymously brief out anything that serves their needs.
- runjake 3y ago
  After a quick public records search, it looks like he was a real person -- or a real identity with a tangible history. It appears he was formerly married to an American woman in his first marriage.
  - pedalpete 3y ago
    The comment isn't suggesting that he didn't exist, but rather that after he died in the motorcycle accident, it was possible to say that he was the actor and protect the people who were actually involved. All this requires is to understand who died shortly after Stuxnet who could have feasibly been involved.
  - ARandomerDude 3y ago
    It’s been done before. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mincemeat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mincemeat
- someuser2345 3y ago
  > it’s unclear if Van Sabben knew exactly what he was doing, but his family said he appeared to have panicked at around the time of the Stuxnet attack. It was his family who said that he started panicking, so he was probably involved.
oh_sigh 3y ago
Talking about it would have painted a huge target on his back for retribution from the Iranian government. It would have also put a target on his wife's back, as well as all of her family that is presumably still in Iran. Killing him also would make it much harder to recruit assets in the future, if it became common knowledge that you will be offed after your mission is complete. It seems much more likely that he actually did die in a random motorcycle accident (not uncommon), or he was entirely uninvolved and a dead man was chosen to pin blame on in order to hide the real method(or, to make Iranians stop trusting foreign contractors, making them do everything in-house with higher costs and worse quality).
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  Not if he was going to defect.
- timv 3y ago
  It doesn't even have to be a totally "random" (unrelated) motorcycle accident. If he panicked after the Stuxnet attack, as his family is reported to have said, then it's likely he has behaving erratically and was fearful for his life. That could easily translate to circumstances where he rides a motorcycle in a particularly dangerous manner - e.g. fleeing from someone he thought was Iranian/Dutch/US/Israeli intelligence (even if they weren't).
- HFguy 3y ago
  Or he didn't die and is off hiding somewhere. Also, reasonable chance this entire story is fabricated and this was done a different way.
ghufran_syed 3y ago
In general, intelligence agencies don’t tend to kill their assets to keep them quiet, because that “benefit” is massively outweighed by the negative effect when trying to recruit the next 1000 assets over the next few years - pragmatism and self-interest, not morality. So its much more likely Iran did it - if a foreign engineer who worked at the attacked site suddenly decides to leave the country, it doesn't take 2 weeks to identify him as a suspect, more like 2 seconds. And if they kill him, it at least sends the message to other potential assets who might work against the interests of Iran. I’m sure Iran would have preferred to capture and question him to try unravel the rest of the network, but they’d settle for killing him I think?
- vkou 3y ago
  It's much more likely that they just pinned this story on some guy who died in a motorcycling accident. The point of killing someone over some wrong they did you is publicizing it after the fact. If you don't take credit for it, it doesn't have any deterrent power.
  - RationalDino 3y ago
    Or alternately, they staged what appeared to be a fatal accident to put him in a witness protection program. Or alternately, he did it and then tried to back out of the deal. Now arranging an apparently accidental death then became the best way to keep security intact. The one theory that makes no sense is that they intended his death from the beginning.
    - op00to 3y ago
      All believable scenarios. I personally am fond of the "pin it on a dead guy" story. I want to believe that western security services have some sense of elegance.
  - LanceH 3y ago
    The problem with killing an asset is that you've now involved multiple more teams of assets who now know that you kill assets. This is not how you keep secrets, nor how you retain people who keep secrets. Like the JFK assassination theories that involve killing off an additional dozens of people. You can't cover up one murder by involving an extra 1000 people.

lostlogin 3y ago

> I'm not sure how they could benefit from killing him. It’s a pretty strong signal to others that there are consequences.

bostonsre 3y ago
Wouldn't they have to take credit for it and announce it if that's the case?

goles 3y ago

The idea that someone would use their real identity, or not disappear and get a new identity, while on covert action against America enemies is so absurd it's almost a great skit idea. "We successfully attacked the nuclear facility!" "Oh Van, by the way what name did you sign in the log book?" "...Oh no" I imagine there are a non-zero amount of readers (but not commenters) who find these stories comments extremely funny.

b4ke 3y ago
maybe the death was an implementation detail?
- wddkcs 3y ago
  Gallows humor, we' be dead without it
  - throwaway_08932 3y ago
    _he said, his face deadpan._
- goles 3y ago
  Sorry, I’ll respond seriously because re-reading my comment sounds like a bit of a cheap shot at P, et al. From the report in Dutch, they raise the point he may not have even known the magnitude of what he was doing. Until it already had been done and he realized what happened. Even AIVD/MIVD may have not known…or so they say. But we will probably never know.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
stordoff 3y ago
It sounds like something out of Four Lions - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okGgkfDy4bc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okGgkfDy4bc
3y ago

ibejoeb 3y ago

He must've fucked up big time even to have been recruited. That was a kamikaze mission from the outset. It amazing he got it done at all.

SCM-Enthusiast 3y ago

This is Iran priority #1. I'm surprised it took Iran two weeks. They benefited by sending a message.

lostlogin 3y ago
> I'm surprised it took Iran two weeks. I’m not clear on the timeline. As I understand it, the hack went on for ages before it went malignant and started damaging stuff. Is it 2 weeks from being deployed, or 2 weeks from wrecking equipment?
bostonsre 3y ago
Is a car accident and not publicly announcing it as a reprisal sending a message? Seems a little too quiet for that and like it might be cleaning up loose ends by someone else instead.

4death4 3y ago

Maybe he just got a new identity.