Iranian Missle launch-what does it mean?

[rotorgun]

On May 20th 2009 the Iranians successfully launched a medium range ballistic missile. I am surprised to find little or no comment among the backroom gang. What do you guys think that this missile launch portends?

1. An increase in international tensions?
2. A threat to the region?
3. A threat to Israel?
4. How should the world respond to this new capability?
5. Does this say something about the Iranian developing nuclear technology?

These are just some of the questions that come to mind. Perhaps it is an indicator that maybe there is something more to Iranian nuclear ambitions than just mere peaceful industrial uses. This, coming on the heels of a satellite launch in February, while celebrating the opening of a "space agency" seem rather ominous to those who expound that Iran means to become a nuclear player. I am not sure how the Obama administration is coming to grips with this, but there has been very little press about it. Curious indeed. What say you Orgahs?

PS: here is the BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8059104.stm

[Hooahguy]

i think israel needs to start warming up its missile defense system...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

4. How should the world respond to this new capability?

Stop demonizing them and start ignoring them. This will make it harder for the mullahs and co to get Iranians to rally against a common enemy and increase the chances of meaningful political change there.

[Incongruous]

That US power is a discredited currency in the region?
That anything but a capitulation to the reality of an Iran capable of following its own agenda will continue to make the US look redundant in Mid East diplomacy.
That Iran is willing to put its own security fears above diplomatic niceties, something every neo-con can understand.

[Hax]

On the subject of Iranian nuclear power, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons, stating they were in conflict with Islam. If Iran is indeed the fundamental terroristic Islamic state it is often portrayed in the West there is no way that they would ever use nuclear weapons.

Owning them is another subject. I do not understand how the international community can tolerate Pakistan having a nuclear weapon (which is a far more unstable country than Iran). At the moment Iran has no nuclear weapons. I think that Iran with the capability of producing nuclear weapons will force the west into further dialogue with them, which will only improve the situation.

Or does anyone here actually believe that the Iranian government would be stupid enough to target Israel for example?

[Furunculus]

I support no action or stance that does anything to encourage or assist iran in acquiring nukular weapons.

i. don't. trust. them. with. nukes.

[Hax]

i. don't. trust. them. with. nukes.

The only thing a nuclear weapon is, nowadays, is a political tool. Or did you seriously believe that they would try to nuke an ally of the west?

[Fragony]

The only thing a nuclear weapon is, nowadays, is a political tool. Or did you seriously believe that they would try to nuke an ally of the west?

This is the era of proxy warfare 'they' wouldn't. Terrorists would.

attack, now.

[Hax]

Yes, except the Iranian government is not terroristic. On the same note you could see every government that has gone to war is terrorist.

People that critisize Iran always forget the fact that under President Khatami the Iranians assisted the Americans with information concerning the Taliban in Afghanistan. Iran isn't that anti-western as people think.

[Fragony]

Yes, except the Iranian government is not terroristic.

You got to be kidding me.

[Incongruous]

You got to be kidding me.

Define terrorist, because it does not just mean "opponent of U.S foreign policy".

[Andres]

This is the era of proxy warfare 'they' wouldn't. Terrorists would.

attack, now.

Yes! Let's ensure world peace by starting yet another war and by killing plenty of people That's the best solution! Another war! Yay!

[Fragony]

Yes! Let's ensure world peace by starting yet another war and by killing plenty of people That's the best solution! Another war! Yay!

well yes, that's the best solution, don't be such a wuss.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yes, except the Iranian government is not terroristic. On the same note you could see every government that has gone to war is terrorist.

People that critisize Iran always forget the fact that under President Khatami the Iranians assisted the Americans with information concerning the Taliban in Afghanistan. Iran isn't that anti-western as people think.

I've long been a proponent of dialogue with Iran and recognition of its place as the regional power (especially since the positive collaboration against the Taliban) but the above statement is disingenuous. Even if one could actually define the Iranian "government" from the many interest groups that wield power, it is very clear that Iranian policy uses terrorist groups to fight its proxy wars.

In addition, one needs to differentiate between the Iranian people (on the whole, quite pro-Western - at least, when we are not threatening to annihilate them) and the assorted nutjobs that make up their governing cliques. Khatami was one thing, Ahmedinejad quite another - and the clerical elite, yet another.

Define terrorist, because it does not just mean "opponent of U.S foreign policy".

Try Hizbollah, Hamas, the Iraqi Sadrists etc for exceptional definitions of terrorism by anyone's standards. All are Iranian proxies. You might support their goals, but it is difficult to argue that they do not use terrorism towards those ends.

[Incongruous]

Try Hizbollah, Hamas, the Iraqi Sadrists etc for exceptional definitions of terrorism by anyone's standards. All are Iranian proxies. You might support their goals, but it is difficult to argue that they do not use terrorism towards those ends.

Standards...
Interesting, when did the West ever really conform to its supposed set of standards, more specifically the U.S?

The supporting of what many call mass murder/genocide, illegal and agressive warfare, the killing of untold numbers of civilians during said illegal wars, the use of the mass media to nullify the horror of what is being done.

By these standards, no one is actually a terrorist...

[rory_20_uk]

Israel is so fixated with their own value as humans above all others that the best world would be everyone else living beneath Israel's guns to ensure there are no threats.

The other darlings of the nuclear club.

Israel has nukes. It also has attacked other countries without provocation bar them building something that israel doesn't like.

Pakistan has nukes. It is currently fighting a battle with Islamic insurgents and has a security force that back islamic insurgents

North Korea has nukes. They've just threatened war with anyone who touches their ships. They frequently ignore treaties they've signed including the armistace with South Korea.

Russia has nukes. It's hobbies involve proxy wars and invasions and the odd political assassination. Its military is underpaid and they've got thousands of them lying around.

Iran has a country that has a track record of attacking neighbours without warning if they develop anything that they don't like. This country also views international law as a guideline to be crossed whenever they feel like it. They currently occupy the land of other countries to ensure their own safety... which includes embargoes that include concrete and access by land, sea or air. Iran also has a Superpower invading a next door neighbour (who in turn was supported when fighting Iran), invaded a country to its North and has effectively given the Kurds independence although there are Kurds in Iran, causing problems.

And apparently Iran should be happy to let these other two countries surround it and not think at all of any weaponry to prevent it being attacked.

[Incongruous]

Israel is so fixated with their own value as humans above all others that the best world would be everyone else living beneath Israel's guns to ensure there are no threats.

The other darlings of the nuclear club.

Israel has nukes. It also has attacked other countries without provocation bar them building something that israel doesn't like.

Pakistan has nukes. It is currently fighting a battle with Islamic insurgents and has a security force that back islamic insurgents

North Korea has nukes. They've just threatened war with anyone who touches their ships. They frequently ignore treaties they've signed including the armistace with South Korea.

Russia has nukes. It's hobbies involve proxy wars and invasions and the odd political assassination. Its military is underpaid and they've got thousands of them lying around.

Iran has a country that has a track record of attacking neighbours without warning if they develop anything that they don't like. This country also views international law as a guideline to be crossed whenever they feel like it. They currently occupy the land of other countries to ensure their own safety... which includes embargoes that include concrete and access by land, sea or air. Iran also has a Superpower invading a next door neighbour (who in turn was supported when fighting Iran), invaded a country to its North and has effectively given the Kurds independence although there are Kurds in Iran, causing problems.

And apparently Iran should be happy to let these other two countries surround it and not think at all of any weaponry to prevent it being attacked.

Ahhh, the sweet smell of perspective.

[Andres]

You forget that far far away country on the other side of the ocean that has been almost constantly involved in numerous bloody conflicts all over the world for decades now. They have nukes too. A very long time ago, they even used them on civilians in another far away country.

[Kralizec]

I do not think that the Iranian government would proactively attack Israel with nuclear weapons. I don't think that there's a particulary great risk of terrorists getting their hands on fissionable material as long as Iran stays stable, nor do I think the Iranians would supply them voluntarily- it would be easily traced back to them and would have almost the same backlash as trying to nuke Tel Aviv.

The chief reason why Iran would want nukes is as an insurance against any other middle eastern adventures by the USA and Britain. I don't like the Iranian regime or the idea of them having nuclear weapons, but a preemtive strike isn't worth it IMO- unlike North Korea, wich ideally I'd like to see getting stomped.

Iran's rethoric about the US being the great satan or wanting to destroy Israel does not originate from a whim of the Ayatollahs deciding that they wanted to piss of the world for no good reason. Acknowledging them won't turn them into a bastion of liberty and tolerance but will accomplish a lot more than delivering suggestive and ultimately empty threats. If I'm not mistaken, Iran will have another presidential election this year, wich should be interesting.

[Incongruous]

Iran's rethoric about the US being the great satan or wanting to destroy Israel does not originate from a whim of the Ayatollahs deciding that they wanted to piss of the world for no good reason. Acknowledging them won't turn them into a bastion of liberty and tolerance but will accomplish a lot more than delivering suggestive and ultimately empty threats. If I'm not mistaken, Iran will have another presidential election this year, wich should be interesting.

I agree ith the point about a detterent against anymore attempts by the crazy co. to establish PEACE AND LIBERTY in a country where they helped to destroy it, common sense no?

Your point about the rhetoric also allows us to put things into perspective, the perspective of ones nation being demonised as evil by the most powerful and miliraily active nation on the planet, if I was an Iranian I would be bloody frightened as hell about the U.S & Co. invading with Captain Crazy in charge.

Counter-Rhetoric is natural. As are attepmts to prove one's ability to defend against military power, thus the issue of Iran getting involved in Iraq. Prior warning and all...

[Hooahguy]

Or does anyone here actually believe that the Iranian government would be stupid enough to target Israel for example?

it cant hurt to be careful. you really never know.

but its not the fact that they-Iran herself- will use them, its the fear that they will give nukes to hezbollah and similar terrorists groups.

remember when israel bombed the Iraqi reactor? widely criticized by the world, yet in Operation Desert Storm, the fact that israel had bombed the reactor made our job a lot easier and with less worries.

i honestly think that when iran is on the verge of getting nukes, i think we will see a similar type of raid like we did with the iraqi reactor.

[Fragony]

I do not think that the Iranian government would proactively attack Israel with nuclear weapons. I don't think that there's a particulary great risk of terrorists getting their hands on fissionable material as long as Iran stays stable, nor do I think the Iranians would supply them voluntarily-

I am not so sure, if you keep talking about whiping Israel from the map you have to please an audience. (and yes Hax I know there is no such thing such as 'whiping of the map' in Persian)

[Husar]

That Iran is willing to put its own security fears above diplomatic niceties, something every neo-con can understand.

That was a great comment and I can only agree.

[AussieGiant]

Bottom line is:

If you've just seen your neighbour invaded and taken to the cleaners, what's the one thing that would prevent this from happening to you?

A nuke.

That piece of technology is your key to maintaining your sovereignty and making sure you're not next on the list.

I find it one of the great geo-political ironies that at the time of the Iraq invasion, neither North Korea or Iran were spending too much time on this technology.

Then, due to the misguided "proof" that Iraq had WMD's and potentially a nuclear capability, it was invaded.

Low and behold, no WMD's in Iraq and the two other countries mentioned in the Axis of Evil then promptly got off their collective and said: "We better get some of that nuke pronto or we'll be facing the largest conventional military on the planet in the not to distant future!!"

Viola, both nations seem all but "complete" in their scramble to get this nation saving technology.

Nothing like a little motivation to spur on technological development.

It's perfectly rational and perfectly understandable.

Bottom line, I always find it ironic that those that have nukes are most perturb by nations that are actively trying to get it. While those nations that don't have them seem to not care as much.

Nothing like having nuclear capabilities to make your voice heard a little bit louder and clearer in the room your sitting conducting international politics.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them on regional and/or international targets equals power.

Most countries would not actually want to use their weapons -- lots of complications there -- but having that threat means that no other country can invade you or seriously threaten your regime save via economic/cultural competition.

Basically, its the power to tell the USA to go "**** themselves" and do thereafter as you think best for your own country.

[AussieGiant]

Nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them on regional and/or international targets equals power.

Most countries would not actually want to use their weapons -- lots of complications there -- but having that threat means that no other country can invade you are seriously threaten your regime save via economic/cultural competition.

Basically, its the power to tell the USA to go "**** themselves" and do thereafter as you think best for your own country.

That's a 10-4 Rubber Ducky!!

Thanks Banquo's Ghost for the language clean up. I'll make sure I post less high maintenance posts.

[rotorgun]

Thanks guys for all the many diverse and interesting points so far. I tend to agree that unless we actually directly intervene by invasion, and we all know what a serious matter that is for any nation to contemplate, then there is no alternative but to accept the fact and move on diplomatically in light of the facts.

1. Iran will likely become a nuclear contender.
2. How will this shift the balance of power?
3. How can we best counter a nuclear Iran with a mid-ranged delivery capability?
4. What measures can be taken to reduce tensions between Iran and Israel?

These are all tough questions. Whatever the answers I think that the world, led by the dominant nuclear armed countries should work together to reach out diplomatically and culturally to Iran. Isolation has only produced increased distrust and tensions in my opinion. At the same time, Iran must be made to recognize her new responsibilities as a nuclear player. I would recommend a summit between Iran and the western powers to inform their government exactly how the rules of the nuclear game work. A "speak softly, but carry a big stick" approach should serve to remind Iran that assured destruction is the only real consequence if she should ever actually use them against any nation without provocation.

Any thoughts? This has been an excellent debate so far don't you fellas think so?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Who cares. It's their country, let them deal with the consequences of their actions if they choose to wage war and/or supply terrorists with nuclear weapons.

[Fragony]

You make it sound like stealing a cookie.

Why would we allow this if we can stop it, why would we actually allow these guys to become world players, did something just happen and the world just became a civilized place? We should allow that because it seems fair in a debate? A nuke will end any debate. I can therefore I am, we have to power to dominate others, so why don't we.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You make it sound like stealing a cookie.

Why would we allow this if we can stop it, why would we actually allow these guys to become world players, did something just happen and the world just became a civilized place? We should allow that because it seems fair in a debate? A nuke will end any debate. I can therefore I am, we have to power to dominate others, so why don't we.

There is that attitude that dominated Europe throughout the 1500s through the early 1900s, which spurred on a World War which led to a second due to that same attitude again. Ever hear of "speak softly but carry a big stick"?