by Pierre-Emmanuel Dupont
In a document released on March 29, 2007 (1), The U.S. State Department attempts to justify its planned deployment of an anti-missile shield in Eastern Europe by claiming that the existing NATO missile defense system could only provide protection against shorter range threats and would not be capable of defending against longer range missiles launched from the Middle East to Central or Western Europe (2). The proposed system by the United States is designed to counter long-range threats to protect all NATO countries facing long-range missile threats from the Middle East (3), as well as contributing to the protection of the national security of the US itself (4). It is directed against North Korea, but the main object is claimed to be protection against “Middle Eastern threats” (5), this in reference to the Islamic Republic of Iran which is portrayed as one of the world’s most threatening and least responsible regimes (6). On February 27th, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, John Rood, the Head of the “Bureau of International Security and Non-proliferation” in the State Department, said publicly in a speech delivered in London, that there is a « growing Iranian missile threat (7).
The problem is that the available technical data on the different types of Iranian ballistic missiles contradict the claims of the U.S. diplomacy.
We have consulted an official U.S. report, issued in 2004 by the Washington Library of Congress, on Iran’s Ballistic Missile Capabilities (8). If we take into account the origin of this document, which relies mainly on American (including C.I.A) reports and British sources, we can confidently state that the performances of Iranian missile arsenal in this report is unlikely to have been underestimated. According to the report, Iran owns a significant number of various types of short range missiles (range below 1000 km), including the famous Scud-B (range 300 km) and the North-Korean and Chinese-designed Scud-C (range of 500 km). Although, Iran possesses only one type of long range missile, which is Shahab-3.
The experts estimate that Shahab-3 is capable of reaching a target distance of 1300 kilometers, and “might” possibly be capable of carrying a nuclear warhead (9). Let us bear in mind, in this regard, that up to the present day, there is no credible evidence that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
Speculations by some experts, purporting that Iran is currently working on, on the one hand, improving the range and accuracy of Shahab-3, and on the other, upgrading versions of the Shahab – the so-called Shahab-4, 5 and 6 – with a longer range, seem lacking in evidence, according to the terms used by the author of the above-mentioned report (10). The claim that the Iranian space program, announced by Tehran in 2004, would be used as a cover for the development of an intercontinental missile, also lacks credibility (11).
It is therefore understandable that the Russians, and also many European officials, had a negative reaction to the U.S. proposal. As acknowledged by the strongly pro-U.S. French daily, Le Figaro, the U.S. claims do not convince many in Europe (12). Louri Balouïevski, the Chief of Staff of the Russian Army, declared on May 10, 2007 in Brussels, that the Iranian ballistic threat is largely overestimated and cannot justify the deployment of the strategic forces of the American missile shield in Europe. He also estimates that Iran is not in a position to possess intercontinental missiles before 2030, because of the technological difficulties involved (13).
With regard to Iran itself, Ali Larijani, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, reminded German Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, during a recent meeting with him in Berlin, that Europe is Iran’s biggest commercial partner. Larijani spoke of “the joke of the year“ in relation to the alleged justification by Washington for the deployment of its Missile Shield; and added : “These days Americans are cracking a lot of these jokes.“ (14).
FOOTNOTES
1. Office of the Press Secretary, U.S. Department of State, “Missile Defense Assets To Provide Protection in Central Europe”, Washington, DC, March 29, 2007, http://usinfo.state.gov.
2. Ibid. “Current NATO missile defense efforts provide protection against shorter range threats only, and would not be capable of defending against longer range missiles launched from the Middle East to Central or Western Europe”.
3. Office of the Press Secretary, U.S. Department of State, “U.S. Has Offered Russia Role in Missile Defense Since 2001”, Washington, DC, April 4, 2007, http://usinfo.state.gov.
4. Office of the Press Secretary, U.S. Department of State, “Missile Defense Assets To Provide Protection in Central Europe”, Washington, DC, March 29, 2007, http://usinfo.state.gov.
5. USINFO, March 2, 2007, “European Missile Defense Would Protect Against Mideast Threats”, http://usinfo.state.gov.
6. Ibid. “Not only is the threat from numbers and capabilities of ballistic missiles growing, but the group of countries possessing ballistic missiles includes some of the world’s most threatening and least responsible regimes, such as North Korea and Iran”.
7. USINFO, March 2, 2007, “European Missile Defense Would Protect Against Mideast Threats”, http://usinfo.state.gov.
8. Congressional Research Service, CRS Report for Congress, Iran’s Ballistic Missile Capabilities, by Andrew Feickert, Library of Congress, 23 août 2004, fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/39332.pdf.
9. Ibid., p. 4.
10. Ibid., pp. 5-6.
11. Ibid.
12. Le Figaro, 19 avril 2007,
http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/20070419.WWW000000402_bouclier_antimissile_l_otan_affronte_moscou.html
13. RIA Novosti, 10 mai 2007, « ABM américain: la menace balistique iranienne est surévaluée », http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070510/65263924.html.
14. Iran Daily, 6 juin 2007, “Larijani : US Missile Defense Claim Joke of the Year”, http://www.iran-daily.com/1386/2860/html/national.htm
Photo source : see www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2447144,00.html.
