Iran Launches Payload into Space 698
An anonymous reader writes "BBC is reporting that Iran has launched its first space rocket carrying a payload. Britain's former ambassador to Iran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC that, if confirmed, such a move could destabilise the Middle East:
"It is a matter of concern. Iran's potential nuclear military programme, combined with an advanced missile capability, would destabilise the region, and of course if there were a bomb that could be placed on the end of this missile, it would in breach of Iran's obligations under the non-proliferation treaty."
From the article:
Iranian TV broke the news of the reported test saying :"The first space rocket has been successfully launched into space.
It quoted the head of Iran's aerospace research centre, Mohsen Bahrami, as saying that "the rocket was carrying material intended for research created by the ministries of science and defence".
In 2005, Iran's Russian-made satellite was put into orbit by a Russian rocket.
But shortly afterwards Iranian military officials said they were preparing a satellite launch vehicle of their own and last month, they announced they were ready to test it soon."
So... (Score:2, Interesting)
No pictures of the reported launch have been shown on Iranian state TV, and no Western countries have confirmed tracking any such test-firing.
While they're at it, where's that cure for AIDS?
Excuse me if I'm not impressed by this posturing.
It was Iran.. (Score:4, Interesting)
They did claim recently to have a cure for aids..
TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- After 7 long years of arduous work, Iranian scientists here on Saturday introduced a herbal medicine which cures Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=851114 0239 [farsnews.com]
is there a treaty which says they shouldn't? (Score:4, Interesting)
Mind you I think we need to wait for independent confirmation, could just be political bluffing. The Iranian government knows that if they can get something into orbit and a successful nuclear weapons test done then the USA will back away from hawkish talk of using 'whatever means necessary' and suddenly become all friendly and overlook any issues to get round a table and trade for future oil supplies.
We all know the number one reason any nation tries to get a satellite into orbit is so the rest of the world knows that they can drop a bomb onto anybody else's doorstep / president's country retreat if they feel they need to.
Re:Heh (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only that; they must have known darn well that Russia and China would never vote for particularly strong sanctions. Therefore, they knew they could get away with it for a certain amount of time. If this is confirmed, and if they can repeat (ie they didn't just buy a functional rocket from Russia or something), then they are in a much stronger position now than they were. The amount of fear that the idea of even a small, half-assed nuke dropping in their favorite city will put in the hearts of every American means no invasions for Iran any time soon.
That aside, the condition of the world oil market right now means that every oil importing country will think twice before annoying the Iranians too much with (sanctions/missile strikes/pick your provocation). It's widely suspected that no OPEC country has the capacity to increase production right now, so if somebody (Iran) decides to stop exporting for a few months, we'll all (Americans) be paying $5 a gallon for gas by June (worse in places with gas taxes high enough to provide a disincentive to SUVs). I don't know whether Bush can whip up enough fear among Americans to get them to stand for that.
In what is that a danger? (Score:2, Interesting)
> if there were a bomb that could be placed on the end of this missile, it would in breach of Iran's obligations under the non-proliferation treaty
Sir Richard Dalton's declaration is nothing more than propaganda. Basically he is saying that IF those rockets were armed with nuclear heads, then it would be a breach of the non-proliferation treaty. So Iran's space program is in nothing a breach to any treaty. Then why would it be tagged as dangerous to us western countries?
Re:Heh (Score:1, Interesting)
The land called Palestine was deolate for centuries, save for a few tens of thousand of nomads. The Jews started moving into this barren waste during the 1800s, and began building and reinvigorating the land. Seeing as how it was becoming prosperous, many Arabs from neighboring areas began migrating to this once deserted, forgotten, place. A very sizeable chunk of the so called Palestinian refugees have an ancestry that goes back to neighboring Arab countries only 60-70 years ago... they most certainly haven't been living their for centuries.
On top of that, the Jews were a *constructive* force. They came in and began building, and planting and breathing life into the waste. By the time the British moved out the Jews had 95% of a state and were ready to go autonomic. Contrast that to the Palestinians, the very epitome of a *destructive* force. Instead of building their lands (such as the Gaza strip) and readying them for the day they are granted a country, they prefer to mop around and constantly whine at their ill fate, all the while suffereing disease and poverty due to their own inability to get off their collective arses and actually create the rudiments of a state.
Stop whining and crying, and start creating.
Re:Confusion? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not necessarily. I'm not saying nuclear war is good, but if there were a nuclear exchange that didn't involve either th US or former Soviet Union, it's quite possible (not certain, but possible) that it wouldn't escalate to a full scale nuclear world war. We might all survive and just get cancer from the fallout.
And even the rather scary folks in charge of Iran know this. If they start a nuclear war, at the very least Iran will get blasted with several hundred megatons. That's not what they want (I think). They'd much rather have a long range nuke to hold over the heads of their enemies.
What this does do, however, is to give Iran a certain amount of credibility as a leader among Islamic countries. Don't think that's a small thing. Right now, the apparently most powerful Islamic country is Saudi Arabia, who are arm-in-arm with the Bush administration (when they feel like it). If Iran appears to be militarily on par with the western powers (which is how every anti-western media outlet will spin it) that will really change the dynamic of the whole region (and Islamic countries outside the region). I don't know what the result of THAT will be, but I don't think I'll like it.
Re:Confusion? (Score:2, Interesting)
We're not grotesque super-mutants, [Yet.
Am I worried that Iran might nuke someone? No. That'd be suicide for them. What would they have to gain? A giant radioactive hole where their country used to be? What I am, is overjoyed to see yet another nation joining the space club. The more the merrier in my eyes, things have kinda stalled since those lunar landings.
Re:Don't forget.. Iran also cured AIDS. (Score:3, Interesting)
State-run media in many places (I don't know much about that in Iran) can tell both kinds of lies freely. They don't expect to always be believed, and most people in countries where only state-run media is available will tell you that, but the fact is that most people actually do believe a large fraction of what they hear from such sources, and it shapes their world view.
Then again, I'm sure my worldview is largely shaped by the corporate media. Dang.
Re: What we really need to worry about.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yep. And now the Neocons are whining because Iran is filling the power vacuum that we created by knocking off Iraq's government.
For some reason they think the cure is to knock off Iraq's government too.
Re: Sheesh... (Score:2, Interesting)
Israel is an apartheid state that picks a fight with its neighbors every time things quieten down, and responds with vastly overproportionate force when they are provoked. (Look at how many Lebanese civilians died when a handful of Israeli soldiers were kidnapped last year.)
Israel will pop a nuke in a heartbeat if they think they are about to lose a war that will cost them their regional hegemony or apartheid lifestyle.
Most Americans are blind to Israel because they read about it in the Bible. They should pause and look at how the modern State of Israel actually behaves.
Re:So... (Score:3, Interesting)
The NPT gives Iran the right to develop civil nuclear technology, and until proven otherwise, this is what they are doing.
Re:I dunno... (Score:3, Interesting)
Iran funds and trains terrorists? You mean like Osama Bin Laden, a terrorist in the 1980s who was going to take down the soviet-sponsored Afghan gov't?
If Hezbollah or Hamas got an ICBM that could reach the USA, then I'd be concerned. But they don't. They can't even reach Europe right now. I know those two groups have no love for the USA, but they are hardly Al-Quieda! They have more regional goals.
I just don't buy into the fear-mongering.
Re:So... (Score:1, Interesting)
--> Spend your money in Israel to keep the zionist catastrophy afloat!
Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Iran actually does have a far more liberal and effective system of HIV prevention that the US. Known Islamist sympathisers like the World Bank and Lancet recently wrote:
"Several factors helped catalyze change and explain Iran's current progressive (HIV prevention) policies: (i) the important role NGOs and civil society played in advocacy and implementation of successful programs that reached vulnerable groups; (ii) the close cooperation and common understanding between the Ministry of Health, the prison department health authorities, and the judiciary authorities and other stakeholders, on drug treatment and HIV/AIDS, leading to increased government support for implementation of evidence-based harm reduction policies; and, (iii) informed advocacy among senior policy-makers paving the way for adoption of harm reduction measures in early 2000. A national harm reduction committee has been established with representatives from various ministries, academic centers and NGOs.
Harm reduction programs are now implemented by both government and non-governmental facilities. A program recognized as a best practice, is the triangular clinic which integrates services for treatment and prevention of STIs, injecting drug use and HIV/AIDS.17 These clinics are set up in prisons and by NGOs to effectively reach IDU communities. A unique model for comprehensive harm reduction is being implemented by the Persepolis NGO. It provides needle exchange, methadone maintenance treatment, general medical care, and referral for voluntary counseling and testing. It runs drop in centers for street-based IDUs as part of a continuum of care, and services extend to the provision of food, clothes and other basic needs."
(HIV/AIDS Prevention among Injecting Drug Users: Learning from Harm Reduction in Iran, World Bank 2006) http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTSAREGTOPHIV
Google for harm reduction and HIV in the US. Judge for yourself where HIV prevention is more effective.
I guess the lesson is this: there is active propaganda campaign being waged by the US and its allies against Iran at the moment. As in the case of the USSR, everything is being painted black. Laughing at "cures for AIDS" is part of this propaganda campaign.
Judging by HIV prevention evidence at least, it is pretty clear where religious fundamentalist nutsos are doing the damage.
Re:In what is that a danger? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sheesh... (Score:2, Interesting)
In the last 60 years, the Israeli state has launched many wars and invasions of its neighbors unilaterally; Iran has not waged a war of aggression in over 200.
Essentially, the only meaningful difference is that Israel is an extension of American global hegemony, and Iran is resisting it.
Re:Not on the US (Score:3, Interesting)
That's no more likely than nuking each other.. because if one starts losing badly enough, they enter the "nothing left to lose" phase of desparation. No one will risk that. That's why China will never invade america, or vice versa. That's why Pakistan and India are not engaged in full-out war. It's why Israel still exists at all.. either because of their own, or our own nuclear arsenal.
As far as I'm concerned... and it seems Iran probably feels this way as well... Nukes are peacekeepers rivalled by nothing else. You simply cannot push around a nuclear power to the point of breaking. It's probably done more for regional stability in Europe, for instance, than anything else including democractic reform.. which, if memory serves, occurred in germany BEFORE WWII, and did not stop a massive conflagration there.
Nothing more than relatively low-level conflicts are possible between two nuclear powers. Invasion or decimation of one side or the other is no longer an option once they have an "end game" weapon.
That said, I would expect the current state of conflict between Israel and Iran to continue if Iran had nukes. If Iran, say, smuggled a nuke into israel to wipe it out in a surprise attack, it knows damn well that would result in a nuclear exchange with america they are simply not capable of "winning", which would wreck any chance Iran has at being top dog in the middle east, which is what they are really shooting for. America may not be able to invade Iran and hold it, but it is certainly capable of an utterly devastating retaliatory strike, and if a nuclear weapon went off in Israel, it would be able to do so with the moral high ground in the world political theatre. Condemning Israel in its conflict with Palestine is one thing, but NO nuclear power is going to stand for a little guy (relatively) taking such extreme disregard for their nuclear arsenal.
Re:I dunno... (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, the US has declared Iran to be part of the "Axis of Evil". While it's not clear exactly what that means, one of the three countries in the Axis of Evil has been invaded by the US and its government toppled.
Re:I dunno... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think this is good. I think having nukes in Iran would do great things for peace in the middle east.
Re:Confusion? (Score:2, Interesting)
The Samson Option link you have provided says nothing about triggering a world war or attacking Europe and Russia. Seymour Hersh is not taken seriously by anyone who really knows. As you are such an expert you will know that 1 nuclear missile hitting us will basically mean lights out, so there's not much follow-up potential.
If we are more dangerous than Iran why haven't we flaunted, sold, demonstrated or even used our nuclear weapons? How exactly are we more dangerous?
Anyway, keep up with the demonization and vilification, keeps me focused on why I moved here.
Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ? (Score:5, Interesting)
As Scott Ritter pointed out recently in an interview, whose statements are more likely to be true?
That of George Bush and Dick Cheney, who demonstratively LIED about EVERYTHING connected to Irag and are continuing to do so with respect to Iran.
Or that of Ayatollah Khamenei who has issued a direct Islamic fatwa proclaiming that nuclear weapons are not consistent with the Muslim religion.
As Ritter pointed out, Khamenei is not a "mad mullah" nmeaning that Khamenei does take his religion seriously. For him to issue a fatwa like that while knowingly pursuing a nuclear weapons program would be LESS likely than the opposite situation.
This is not to say, of course, that religious leaders don't delude themselves or others. I don't trust anything a religious leader - or ANY religious person - says. However, Ritter does have a point.
More importantly, we don't HAVE to rely on Khamenei. The IAEA has repeatedly stated that there is absolutely NO evidence that Iran has ANY nuclear weapons program. The ONLY thing the IAEA is concerned about are some questions about what was done in Iran in the PAST - certain documents that apparently were received by Iran from the A Q Khan network in Pakistan, and certain projects that might have been conducted by the Iranian military - all in the PAST.
I repeat - there is NO evidence WHATSOEVER that Iran HAS or HAD a nuclear weapons program.
None.
Nada.
EVERYTHING the IAEA has actually seen in Iran is legal and permitted under the NPT.
EVERYTHING that Iran IS doing with their civilian nuclear program is under the eyes of the IAEA inspectors.
Furthermore, the notion that even IF Iran HAD a nuclear weapons program - which by the way if they started TODAY, would not be for another ten years - since, as Ritter points out, that's about how long it takes to GET a nuclear weapon - that they could threaten Israel, whhich has an estimated 100-400 nuclear weapons, including nuclear-tipped cruise missiles on submarines - let alone anyone else - is laughable.
No, there is absolutely no doubt in this situation as to what is going on. The US government intends to widen the war in the Middle East by starting one with Iran - as a result of neocon ideology and war profiteering goals.
There are TWO aircraft carrier battle groups and two other Naval strike groups in or near the Gulf now. The USS Reagan is reportedly on its way to join them. The Enterprise could be returned there in a matter of weeks. That makes FOUR aircraft carrier battle groups and two strike groups - plus mine-clearing ships plus thousands of Marines plus newly distributed strike aircraft in the region. An additional "surge" of three additional aircraft carrier battle groups could be performed within a month or so if ordered.
Bush intends to start a war with Iran, most likely in the next ninety days, although of course one can't be sure of the timing. What is nearly certain is that he will start one before he leaves office - and that means probably before the election campaign actually begins in 2008 - which means he will do it this year. And if HE doesn't, the Israelis have basically said they WILL in 2007.
The result will be thousands or even tens of thousands of US soldiers killed, hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of Iraqi and Iranian civilians killed, a ballooning war cost into the trillions, the destruction of the US economy via $150-250/barrel oil and possibly the dumping of the dollar by the Chinese (who will be seriously pissed if they can't get oil from Iran due to the war), massive terrorism against the US and Israel throughout the world - including inside the US (which is MADE for car bombs and suicide bombs) - the complete destabilization of the Middle East, and conceivably the destruction of a major Israeli city by one of ITS OWN nuclear weapons (obviously the best tactic any terrorist could use.)
And your Congress is not prepared to stop it. Without the immediate impeachment of Bush and Cheney - which simply is not possible given a reasonable time frame - it can't be stopped.
Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ? (Score:2, Interesting)
That said, as far as I understand Iran is within its rights to develop nuclear power options for civilian use.
Iran, unlike Iraq, is not the loser in any recent war and has no requirement not to develop whatever the hell nuclear weapons it wants. ;)
Yes, it's signed the non-proliferation treaty, under which it's limited to civilian uses, but it can exit that at any time with a three month window, and it's not in violation until it actually start building nukes. Here, I'll quote 'Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.'
And even then there's no actual penalty for breaking the treaty except that you get kicked out. Which means...well, the only advantage of being in the club is that nuclear powers are legally required to sell you cheap nuclear devices for no-weapon use, such as blasting mountains and stuff.
Anyway, Iran's not like Iraq, which had signed a surrender agreement that included not building WMDs. Even if Iran came flat out and said 'We're making nuclear weapons, bitch, what are you going to do about it?', it's not actually engaged in any illegal behavior.
Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Ahmadinejad doesn't run Iran, you lunatic. The Ayatollah Ali Khamenei(1) runs Iran, and he's repeatedly said relations with Israel should be normalized and has supported the Arab League's quite sane position on Israel and Palestine. He's also said that any use of nuclear weapons is inconsistent with Islam.
But keep drinking the Kool-Aide, buddy.
1) It's not damn rocket science, his title is 'Supreme Leader'.
Second-guessing Iran's intentions (Score:3, Interesting)
Yet I can't, for the life of me, see any facts to back up these assertions. It's beginning to feel as if Chicken Little has taken over the US and UK governments. Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has scrupulously observed its provisions. (Relatively easy, when you don't have any nuclear weapons). It says that it wants to acquire nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and that it does not intend to build any nuclear weapons.
So our governments declare (with no evidence whatsoever that I can see) that the Iranians are lying, and that they are working on a nuclear weapons program. Therefore the UN must pass resolutions telling them to stop enrichment, and if they don't the USA will do what it usually does to countries that don't knuckle under and obey its instructions.
How does this stack up with Pakistan, which acquired nuclear weapons and has a stack of them ready to use? Or Israel, which AFAIK has not signed the NNP Treaty and has ignored more UN resolutions than I've had pizzas, and yet is assumed to have a stock of nuclear weapons ready to use? Or, come to that, with the USA and UK which plan to continue enhancing their nuclear weapons capability, in spite of their obligation under the NNP Treaty to work towards getting rid of it?
As the Iranians point out, their country has not attacked any other nation for at least 300 years - at which time it was under the control of foreign rulers anyway. How can it profit them laboriously to construct a paltry few crude, low-yield nuclear weapons, when the USA is ready to hit them with the full thermonuclear force it prepared for a war with the USSR?
I know which scares me more - the medium-sized nation with a track record of peaceful behaviour and no WMDs, or the big nation with tens of thousands of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons, massive stocks of biological and chemical weapons, a defence budget about the size of the rest of the world's combined, and a record of attacking close to 2 dozen other nations since 1945, at the cost of 4 million or more lives.