Author: Gunner

Over the last week, Iran has been conducting military exercises in and around the Persian Gulf region and has issued claims of tested leaps in military technology. The message is obvious: think twice, Great Satan. This Pakistan editorial agrees.

On Wednesday, Iran tested a high-speed underwater missile called Hoot (fish) which it claims is the fastest in the world at 360 kilometres per hour and can avoid sonar (sound navigation ranging) detection. If the claim is correct then Hoot is three or four times faster than an average torpedo, and as fast as the world’s fastest known underwater missile, the Russian-made VA-111 Shkval, developed in 1995. Some experts think Hoot may be the reverse-engineered Iranian version of the VA-111.

The missile test is the second within a week of the exercises conducted by the Iranian army and navy in the Persian Gulf. Last Friday Iran claimed to have successfully test-fired Fajr-3 a domestically produced, radar-evading missile. No information was given on the missile’s specifications (range etc) but US sources described it as a 240 mm artillery rocket with a 40-kilometre range, one of a group of light rockets Iran has developed mainly for tactical use on the battlefield.

Is Iran signalling to the US? The answer is yes. Statements indicate that Iran wants to show its defensive capabilities at a time when the US-Iran standoff is heading up the escalatory ladder. Here are the facts.

The United States is bent upon preventing Iran from developing a nuclear capability. Iran says that it is not developing a weapons capability but that it will not relinquish its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium. But the issue is slightly more complex than this.

In 2003, an Iranian dissident group revealed that Tehran’s nuclear programme might not be entirely peaceful. This prompted the International Atomic Energy Agency to ask some questions and demand more intrusive inspections of the programme. This led to a confession by Iran that it had not revealed some aspects of its programme to the IAEA, which it was supposed to do under its legal obligation to the NPT. The US, which considers Iran an adversary, pounced on the information and since then has been trying to pin Iran down.

Most countries are convinced that Iran is not telling the truth and there is more to its programme than Tehran is prepared to admit. This suspicion is based on three facts: By its own admission, Iran did hide some aspects of its programme; why did it do that? Iran is rich in oil and gas; why is it prepared to stake so much on its nuclear programme if the programme is only for peaceful purposes? To what end is Iran developing its strategic missile capability? Strategic missiles need strategic warheads [emphasis added].

These are tough questions. But they are also linked to certain other issues. The US is constantly trying to put Iran down and has made no bones about it. This has created a psychosis of fear in Iran. Israel, the US protégé in the Middle East, has also declared Iran its primary threat. Iran, for its part, is adamant that Israel is a threat to it as well as to the rest of the Middle East. Plus, Israel is armed with nuclear weapons. Tehran’s position is that the US should be even-handed. If Washington wants Iran to forego any nuclear activities, then it should also accept the proposal by countries in the region and the IAEA that the Middle East should be declared a nuclear free zone.

There are a couple of key historical differences between Israel and its Islamic neighbors — it has neither expressed a desire to nor attempted to wipe another country off the map, nor has it acted from an motivation beyond a defensive posture.

Iran’s argument in this regard makes sense because the Bush administration has shown scant regard for disarmament contained in the NPT while emphasising the non-proliferation aspect of the treaty. Moreover, the technical-legal aspects of the game are underpinned by military-political realities. The latest US National Security Strategy has identified Iran as the biggest threat to the United States. That does nothing to improve the situation.

No, such labeling may not improve the situation, but that is not a statement against its accuracy. Some of the household cleansers beneath my kitchen sink carry warnings that they are poisonous. Those warnings may not improve the products’ ability to remove grime, but it is correct to say these common items can be dangerous. It is also correct to say that Iran, with its nuclear and martial ambitions, ominous announcements about its growing capabilities, and threats toward the U.S. and Israel, has rightly earned its assessment on the U.S. NSS.

The word on how the US wants to deal with Iran keeps fluctuating between some sort of compromise to the possible use of force. The US NSS has given a list of requirements that Iran needs to fulfil before it can be re-admitted to the comity of nations. But that is just the US perspective and Tehran has simply pooh-poohed it. Signalling military capabilities in the Gulf where the US navy is also based shows that Iran is not about to back down. A report in a US newspaper, quoting US intelligence sources, says Iran could hit back in a major way — within the US and Europe — if Washington chose to use force against Tehran.

[…]

The only two countries that can prevail upon Iran and the US to try and find middle ground are China and Russia. One thing is clear: Iran does not seem in any mood to kowtow to the US on the basis of the current US policy.

Iran cannot kowtow to the Americans on this issue if they hope to continue their ambitions of taking the reins of leadership in the Islamic community. That said, being embarrassed on the battlefield is not a course toward leadership either. The radical Iranian leaders had better be quite certain of their diplomatic skills, which have been successful so far against both a plodding Europe and a predictably timid United Nations, to either find a means to hamstring Western efforts or provide a suitably face-saving out. Should that fail, Iran has to be quite certain of its military capabilities to defend itself against forces that have already given lie to past claims of military prowess in the region.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon has issued statements on the Iranians test claims and military exercises, seeking to dampen concern about announced results and motives.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman responded Monday to Iranian claims that in recent days it has tested improved airborne and undersea missiles. He said Iran has conducted many tests during the past year of both ballistic and anti-ship missiles, and it would not be surprising if it has made some progress during that time.

“We know that the Iranians are always trying to improve their weapons systems by both foreign and indigenous measures,” he said. “It’s possible that they are increasing their capability and making strides in radar absorbing materials and targeting. However, the Iranians have been known also to boast and exaggerate their statements about greater technical and tactical capabilities.” [emphasis added]

Quite right. In a related issue, the U.S. spent decades overvaluing the effectiveness of Soviet tanks and several other vehicles. Simply put, claimed capabilities are not always accurate and oft only falsely boastful, and the results of controlled test are not necessarily good indicators of wartime performance.

Whitman says ballistic missiles have long been an important part of Iran’s military strategy, and that the country has the largest inventory of such missiles in the Middle East.

Iran has announced three weapons advances during war games it began conducting on Friday. The latest announcement involved a torpedo fired on Monday that Iranian state television says is capable of destroying enemy ships and submarines “at any depth and any speed.”

See my earlier “falsely boastful” comment.

The Pentagon spokesman said Iran’s war games and his comments on them have nothing to do with the effort by the United States and several other world powers to convince Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program.

Well, that’s diplomatic balderdash.

It should be noted that any truth behind the announced Iranian military advances, and it is probably that there is some, is most likely attributable to the Russians (hat tip to John Noonan at the Officers’ Club).

That’s because this Iranian weapon — called the “Hoot,” or “whale” — is based on the Russian Shkval, according to former Naval Intelligence Officer Edmond Pope. “I was informed in late 1990’s by a Russian government official that they were working with Iran on this subject,” he tells Defense Tech. “A cooperative demonstration/program had already been conducted with them at Lake Issy Kul in Kyrgyzstan.”

[…]

As the AP notes, the Russian-Iranian cooperation could have major strategic consequences for the U.S. navy, possibly keeping American ships from operating freely in the Persian Gulf. “The U.S. and Iranian navies have had brush-ups during the past.”

Gee, thanks, comrades. That’s a good way to endanger American lives and increase the future threat of Iran becoming a sharper thorn in the weak southern Russian underbelly, a region already exposed to the potential dangers of expansionist radical Islam.