On October 11, Iran test-fired a new generation of surface-to-surface ballistic missiles capable of hitting Israel.
The Emad, as the long-range weapon is called, is a variant of Tehran’s Shahab-3, has a range of 1,700 kilometers, and is accurate to within 500 meters, according to Anthony Cordesman, a researcher at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. For those who might have missed it, here is the clip:
As we said at the time, the embarrassment for The White House in the wake of the "historic" nuclear accord continues as Iran will apparently continue to exploit any and all ambiguities to its advantage up to and including building new ballistic missle systems, an act which certainly goes against the spirit of the deal if not the letter.
As it turns out, the Emad launch may in fact have represented more than a symbolic violation of the July nuclear accord. As Reuters reports, "Iran violated a U.N. Security Council resolution in October by test-firing a missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead," a team of sanctions monitors says.
As we noted at the time of the launch, the test-fire didn't technically violate the terms of the P5+1 nuclear deal, but a report from The Security Council's Panel of Experts suggests that the Emad launch "is a violation by Iran of paragraph 9 of Security Council resolution 1929."
This puts the Obama administration in a decisively precarious position. Congress is now calling for more sanctions but hitting Tehran with further punitive measures risks derailing the deal altogether. "If Washington failed to call for sanctions over the Emad launch, it would likely be perceived as weakness," For his part, Democratic U.S. Senator Chris Coons (who supported the nuclear deal) said that in the absence of Security Council action, the US should impose direct sanctions on those responsible for the missile tests.
Indeed, attemps by the Security Council to expand the Iran blacklist would likely run into stiff opposition from Russia and China.
Ultimately, this is a dispute about nukes versus Tehran's arsenal of missiles. As we documented extensively in "Inside Iran's Secret Underground Missile Tunnels," Iran has the largest ballistic missile cache in the Mid-East. Here's a rundown courtesy of The US Institute of Peace:
- Shahab missiles: Since the late 1980s, Iran has purchased additional short- and medium-range missiles from foreign suppliers and adapted them to its strategic needs. The Shahabs, Persian for “meteors,” were long the core of Iran’s program. They use liquid fuel, which involves a time-consuming launch. They include:
- The Shahab-1 is based on the Scud-B. (The Scud series was originally developed by the Soviet Union). It has a range of about 300 kms or 185 miles
- The Shahab-2 is based on the Scud-C. It has a range of about 500 kms, or 310 miles. In mid-2010, Iran is widely estimated to have between 200 and 300 Shahab-1 and Shahab-2 missiles capable of reaching targets in neighboring countries.
- The Shahab-3 is based on the Nodong, which is a North Korean missile. It has a range of about 900 km or 560 miles. It has a nominal payload of 1,000 kg. A modified version of the Shahab-3, renamed the Ghadr-1, began flight tests in 2004. It theoretically extends Iran’s reach to about 1,600 km or 1,000 miles, which qualifies as a medium-range missile. But it carries a smaller, 750-kg warhead.
- Although the Ghadr-1 was built with key North Korean components, Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani boasted at the time, “Today, by relying on our defense industry capabilities, we have been able to increase our deterrent capacity against the military expansion of our enemies.”
- Sajjil missiles: Sajjil means “baked clay” in Persian. These are a class of medium-range missiles that use solid fuel, which offer many strategic advantages. They are less vulnerable to preemption because the launch requires shorter preparation – minutes rather than hours. Iran is the only country to have developed missiles of this range without first having developed nuclear weapons.
While Iran vigorously denies that its scientists have pursued a nuclear weapon, Tehran has made it abundantly clear that it will continue to pursue its missile program unimpeded. As Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan said on the heels of the Emad launch, "...we don’t ask anyone’s permission to enhance our defense power or missile capability and will firmly pursue our defense plans, particularly in the field of missiles."
Although a new IAEA report clearly suggests that Iran pursued a nuclear bomb at least until 2003, the Agency's Board of Governors passed a resolution on Tuesday to close its investigation into the history of Tehran's nuclear program. "The decision by the Board of Governors will open a new chapter for cooperation between Iran and the agency," Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, Reza Najafi said on Tuesday.
Others aren't so sure. "Iran's cooperation was certainly not sufficient to close the overall PMD file," Reuters quotes the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, as saying.
So ultimately, this is just a game of cat and mouse between Tehran and the Western powers - as clear cut as the question might seem (i.e. "are you developing a nuclear bomb or aren't you?"), the Emad launch suggests that implementing the nuclear deal may prove to be nothing short of impossible. For instance, it's nothing short of absurd that Congress is now debating whether to slap Iran with more sanctions in connection with the missile launch less than a month before existing sanctions are set to be lifted.
At the end of the day, perhaps the US should consider whether Washington's relationship with Tehran needs to be fundamentally rexamined, and on that note, we close with what we said in October:
"...imposing crippling economic sanctions on countries in order to deter their defense buildup (Iran) or otherwise force them into acting in a way that fits your definition of being an internationally responsible country (Russia) is a fool's errand to the extent that it only serves to aggravate the situation and perpetuates still more of the very same behavior you're trying to deter in the first place. Need proof? See the video shown above."