Iran tests missiles to show 'deterrence power'

neither does Saudi Arabia.
whom is building long range nuke platforms, as well the medium range SA-300's bought from Russia?
Iran sure looks like it's all in for an arms race - else why do this?

The Sauds are disproportionally armed by the West. Iran has every legal right to protect itself by means of conventional weapons.

the agreement is only good for 10 years out at the most - that is a very short time for R&D , and why they are building up lots of airpower now.
They have much more aero-space capability then SA, even down to their drone program..
'Tyrants' (sic) or not; I do not see SA tromping all over the Mideast like Iran is doing, and Iran has a history of Empire -
so whom is a more a threat to peace and stability?

The Sauds have invaded Yemen. Iran has invaded nobody.


SA has it's own Frankenstein program to deal with in ISIL -but they are at least willimg to go in with a viable coalition -against their own sect.
Iran is pressing up even against SA's belly in Yemen.. again which is the hegemony expansionist here?

Iranians in Yemen is a Saudi fantasy. The Sauds are doing Zionism's work every time they murder a Muslim.
 
The Sauds are disproportionally armed by the West. Iran has every legal right to protect itself by means of conventional weapons.



The Sauds have invaded Yemen. Iran has invaded nobody.




Iranians in Yemen is a Saudi fantasy. The Sauds are doing Zionism's work every time they murder a Muslim.
oh for f*cks sake..whom is supplying the Houthi's but Iran ?

Iranian support for Yemen's Houthis goes back years

Other reports of Iranian support for the Houthis:

• In March, Qatar's Al Jazeera and UAE's Al Arabiya reported that an Iranian cargo ship unloaded 160 to 180 tons of military equipment in the Red Sea port of Al-Saleef. Houthi militias closed the port to employees and unloaded the supplies, according to Al-Arabiya.

• In December, Reuters cited unnamed senior Iranian officials saying that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard had hundreds of military personnel in Yemen training Houthi fighters. About 100 Houthis traveled to Iran in 2014 for training, and the pace of money and arms transfers has increased since the seizure of Yemen's capital, Sanaa this year, the source told Reuters.

• In January 2013, Yemen's military intercepted a shipment of weapons that appeared to have come from an Iranian Revolutionary Guard source, according to reports by CNN and Reuters. The cache included surface-to-air missiles, high explosives and rocket propelled grenades and appeared destined for Houthi insurgents.

• In October, 2009, Yemen's navy seized an Iranian ship loaded with anti-tank weapons off its northwest coast in the Red Sea, according to Al-Arabiya. Five Iranians and one Indian aboard the ship were weapons experts sent to Yemen to replace other Iranians injured while fighting alongside Houthi rebels, Yemeni officials told the news agency.

David Weinberg, a Yemen watcher at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a think tank in Washington, said the Houthis could not have conquered Sanaa without massive support from Iran.

"Tehran does not exercise command and control over Ansar Allah (the Houthi militia)," Weinberg said. "But credible reports confirm that it has been providing on-the-ground advising ...training overseas, major sums of money and weapons by the literal ton."
 
are you seriously saying "SA invades Yemen" when it's border guards were being routinely killed?

There is much to criticize SA in that war -the massive air campaign, and the destruction of the Old City of Sana'a.
It goes to SA reluctance to use it'sarmed forces as an expeditionary force; but that doesn't let them off the hook either.

Iran has a huge military, what we are talking about here is the qualitative breakthroughs in missile technology,
married to a future nuclear capability, while tromping allover the Mideast in the present.
 
are you seriously saying "SA invades Yemen" when it's border guards were being routinely killed?

There is much to criticize SA in that war -the massive air campaign, and the destruction of the Old City of Sana'a.
It goes to SA reluctance to use it'sarmed forces as an expeditionary force; but that doesn't let them off the hook either.

Iran has a huge military, what we are talking about here is the qualitative breakthroughs in missile technology,
married to a future nuclear capability, while tromping allover the Mideast in the present.

Your loyalties to the Saudi royal family are most evident- but your description of events is sadly lacking in substance;

Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention_in_Yemen
 
Your loyalties to the Saudi royal family are most evident- but your description of events is sadly lacking in substance;

Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention_in_Yemen
my bad. the interventionism was concurent with the border wars
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/917791.shtml
Saudi border guard was killed by heavy fire and mortar shells launched from Yemen, the Saudi Interior Ministry said on Monday.

Houthis fired mortar shells on a border control site in Jazan Region late on Sunday, leaving two other border guards wounded, a spokesman for the ministry was quoted by Saudi Press Agency (SPA) as saying.

Earlier in April, the kingdom announced the death of five border guards and the injury of several others in heavy shootings across the Yemeni border by the Houthi group
.

++

none of which shows legitimacy as to why Iranian IRG forces and proxies are operating on SA's border.

It's a long, long civil war -various incarnations trace back to the 1960's..

I am not "loyal" to SA; being very open to criticizing them, and their posture in Yemen.
Trying to bomb a win in Yemen reminds me in some fashion of the US carpetbombing of N. Vietnam -at least their are similarities
But I'm not blind to Iranian mischief either, with all due respect I think you need to see this too.

Like every other conflict in the MS - there are layers of undercurrents

Saudi land forces have been clashing with Houthis along the border area in Jazan and Najran sectors since the start of an air campaign, dubbed Decisive Storm, on March 26.
 
I'm aware of it- but sometimes a state can be over-vilified and the balance needs redressing. I'm for giving Iran the benefit of the doubt.
 
I'm aware of it- but sometimes a state can be over-vilified and the balance needs redressing. I'm for giving Iran the benefit of the doubt.
fair enough; and the current climate in the USA is condemnation of SA for "beheadings" and "causing ISIL"-
which as you know is an internal matter for SA justice ( we don't condemn Chinese executions)
or even our own prison industrial complex.. while ISIL is an outgrowth of...many events.

I enjoy talking to you. you have a good understanding of the ME, and I accept your advocacy because I do think
in the long run you are honest about the complexities.. I get way tired of western "Russia has no legitimate role"
It's why the Russian reset failed; we wanted Russian cooperation on terrorism -but would not accept their strategic interests
as legitimate as ours are.
 
questions about UN/US sanctions

http://news.yahoo.com/iran-conducts-fresh-ballistic-missile-tests-state-media-085935504.html
- Iran conducted multiple ballistic missile tests Tuesday in what it said was a display of "deterrent power," defying US sanctions imposed earlier this year aimed at disrupting its missile programme.

State media announced that short-, medium- and long-range precision guided missiles were fired from several sites to show the country's "all-out readiness to confront threats" against its territorial integrity.

Pictures of the launches were broadcast and reports said the armaments used had ranges of 300 kilometres (190 miles), 500 km, 800 km and 2,000 km.

The United States hit Iran with fresh sanctions on its missile programme in January, 24 hours after separate sanctions related to Tehran's nuclear activities had been lifted under a landmark deal with world powers.

The latest tests, during an exercise named "The Power of Velayat", a reference to the religious doctrine of the Islamic republic's leadership, were undertaken by the Revolutionary Guards and its Aerospace wing.

Sepah News, the Guards' official media service, carried a statement confirming the tests, which come less than two weeks after elections in Iran delivered gains to politicians aligned with Hassan Rouhani, the country's moderate president.


The Revolutionary Guards report to Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, not Rouhani, and their influence dwarfs that of the army and other armed forces.

Ballistic missile tests have been seen as a means for Iran's military to demonstrate that the nuclear deal will have no impact on its plans, which is says are for domestic defence only.

Major General Ali Jafari, the Guards' top commander, and Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, spoke about the tests on television, with the latter downplaying the effect of US efforts to disrupt its activities.

"Our main enemies, the Americans, who mutter about plans, have activated new missile sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran and are seeking to weaken the country’s missile capability," Hajizadeh said.

"The Guards and other armed forces are defenders of the revolution and the country will not pay a toll to anyone... and will stand against their excessive demands."

..
Iran's ballistic missile programme has been contentious since the nuclear deal with the United States and five other powers was struck in Vienna on July 14 last year.

- 'Destabilising activities' -

On October 11, Tehran conducted the first of two ballistic missile tests which angered Washington. State television weeks later aired unprecedented footage of underground missile storage bunkers.

A UN panel said in December that the tests breached previous resolutions aimed at stopping Tehran from developing missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

Iran has always denied seeking an atomic weapon and argues that its missiles would never be designed to, nor ever carry, the bomb.

The nuclear deal was heralded by moderates such as Rouhani, who staked his reputation on the negotiations, but hardliners in Tehran said it damaged national interests.

Announcing the new missile sanctions on January 17, one day after the nuclear deal was implemented, US President Barack Obama said "profound differences" with Tehran remained over its "destabilising activities".

Five Iranians and a network of companies based in the United Arab Emirates and China were added to an American blacklist.

The White House had first threatened to impose the measures in December but withdrew them after Rouhani hit out at both their timing and intent. Missiles were not part of the nuclear agreement.

Asked before the missile sanctions were announced how Iran would react to fresh measures against it, Rouhani said: "Any action will be met by a reaction."

Those measures came after four Iranian-Americans, including Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian, left Tehran following their release in a prisoner swap with the United States. The exchange took place on the same day the nuclear deal came into force.
 
I have no clue. various sources say the January sanctions by the US were never imposed -to my knowledge that is correct.
There was much delay in deciding if the missile test violated UN sanctions ( but not the P+5 Nuke deal)..

It's clear Obama doesn't want to put his deal in jeopardy - obvious reasons why -and at the same time the "hardliners"
in Iran want to use the nuke deal to their domestic political advantage..

But I cannot figure out just where this all stands in US/UN Iranian legalistic relations..??
 
I have no clue. various sources say the January sanctions by the US were never imposed -to my knowledge that is correct.
There was much delay in deciding if the missile test violated UN sanctions ( but not the P+5 Nuke deal)..

It's clear Obama doesn't want to put his deal in jeopardy - obvious reasons why -and at the same time the "hardliners"
in Iran want to use the nuke deal to their domestic political advantage..

But I cannot figure out just where this all stands in US/UN Iranian legalistic relations..??

It's clearer if you can see Israel's obscured place in the equation.
Israel wants war with Iran- a war fought with American blood and treasure. Until recently, let's say pre-Obama- it could get what it wanted by turning the screws on its tame Congressmen and Senators. Obama is made of sterner stuff.
The US debt is astronomical and the deaths of over 5,000 US military personnel - not including Iraq post-conflict fatalities - and a hundred thousand permanently disabled soldiers has dampened the appetite for Israeli back-slapping. This reluctance to die for Israel has also permitted a better focus on neoZionist activities- illegal through and through and guaranteed to promote wars in the near future. Israel is being recognised as the bad boy, the cause of the problem. This isn't just wishful thinking on the part of anti-Zionists, such as myself. We're at a stage wherein peace with Iran is much more desirable than supporting Israeli criminality- with the international scorn that accompanies such a policy.

Also, it is doubtless the threat posed by Israel's covert nuclear arsenal that fuels desire for a suitable deterrent amongst other states. The stockpile also makes a mockery of US policy of not supporting nuclear proliferation. Israel shames America. Now that the US has assured that Iran does NOT pursue nuclear weapons it should turn its attention to disarming its rogue client state.
 
Last edited:
It's clearer if you can see Israel's obscured place in the equation.
Israel wants war with Iran- a war fought with American blood and treasure. Until recently, let's say pre-Obama- it could get what it wanted by turning the screws on its tame Congressmen and Senators. Obama is made of sterner stuff.
The US debt is astronomical and the deaths of over 5,000 US military personnel - not including Iraq post-conflict fatalities - and a hundred thousand permanently disabled soldiers has dampened the appetite for Israeli back-slapping. This reluctance to die for Israel has also permitted a better focus on neoZionist activities- illegal through and through and guaranteed to promote wars in the near future. Israel is being recognised as the bad boy, the cause of the problem. This isn't just wishful thinking on the part of anti-Zionists, such as myself. We're at a stage wherein peace with Iran is much more desirable than supporting Israeli criminality- with the international scorn that accompanies such a policy.

Also, it is doubtless the threat posed by Israel's covert nuclear arsenal that fuels desire for a suitable deterrent amongst other states. The stockpile also makes a mockery of US policy of not supporting nuclear proliferation. Israel shames America. Now that the US has assured that Iran does NOT pursue nuclear weapons it should turn its attention to disarming its rogue client state.
I do not see the Iraq war as "dieing for Israel", and much of US support is in technology, and yes funding ( the o called Iron Dome for ex).

Anyways....what I'm not clear about is what sanctions were opposed, or which are legal violations for the Iran missile tests.

Where I do agree with you is the myopic coverage of Gaza for ex. the policy of "mowing the grass" which means going in hell bent and taking out UN schools etc.
Israel ( IMHO) is definitely guilty of some war crimes there - but where we disagree is so is Hamas.

As I mentioned before I stay out of Israel discussions -
they inevitably become 1 sided with an advocate trying to paint the other side as "the problem"..

In truth the problem is constantly escalated by all the players - and peace talks are avoided in favor of more bellicosity..

It's not that I do not care - it's the fact I see no real solutions near.
 
The solution is in having Israel comply with international law. The key to that is having the US support UN resolutions to have Israel comply with international law. There's rumor that Obama intends something along those lines.
 
Back
Top