This story, like speculation related to the network intrusion/corruption of computer networks at the pentagon, requires such a huge amount of forensic labor to investigate, that maybe a year from now the specialists will decide they’re confident enough to say for certain one way or another what they believe occurred and why/how. We could all toss out speculative guesses as to why such a complicated operation might be worthwhile for this or that government to undertake, and maybe someone would guess correctly. But “terrorists”? In three different parts of the worlds shipping lanes? Very very unlikely.

a) The Jimmy Carter doesn’t cut cables when tapping them.

b) IF we were to disrupt Iran’s internet activity, it would be 30 seconds before the bombs drop.

Conspiracy theories are so hard to fight.

Adrian raises a good point - Data are data, as the old saying goes, and there are two general methods for deciding whether they represent truthful or false information. The first is by comparing them to one’s existing orientation and throwing out what doesn’t fit - we call this “ideology” - and the other is by comparing the implications of the data with the developing situation. In this case, one usually changes both orientation and the data that are accepted as valid (let’s face it, when dealing with national security stuff, a lot of data is either wrong or noise).

In this situation, there appear to be more, and more severe, mismatches with the conspiracy theory than with the natural causes theory, at least until more data become available. The point is to keep observing, keep looking for data, and keep exploring for mismatches. Only the paranoid, as the new saying goes, survive — with apologies to Andy Grove, who is not a Southerner as y’all already knew.

Twenty seconds with Snopes or Google can filter out a large fraction of noise. A healthy skepticism can probably filter out more.