iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Iran Missile Launch Confirmed By US

PAMELA HESS and PAULINE JELINEK   05/20/09 10:25 PM ET   AP

Iran

WASHINGTON — The missile test-fired by Iran is the longest-range solid-propellent missile it has launched yet, a U.S. government official said Wednesday, raising concerns about whether the sophistication of Tehran's missile program is increasing. The U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss technical details of Iran's missile program, said Tehran has demonstrated shorter-range solid-propellent missiles in the past.

Solid-propellent rockets are a concern because they can be fueled in advance and moved or hidden in silos, the official said. Liquid-propellent rockets have to be fueled and fired quickly, which makes preparations for launches easier to monitor and would allow a preemptive strike if necessary.

But according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who Wednesday provided the first official U.S. confirmation of the Iranian launch, the Iranian missile had a range of 2,000 to 2,500 kilometers.

That translates to 1,200 to 1,500 miles, putting Israel, U.S. bases in the Mideast, and parts of Eastern Europe within striking distance.

"The information that I have read indicates that it was a successful flight test," Gates told the House Appropriations Committee nearly eight hours after the test was announced by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Gates added that "because of some of the problems they've had with their engines we think at least at this stage of the testing we think it's probably closer to the lower end of that range. Whether it hit the target that it was intended for, I have not seen any information on that."

U.S. officials said that government analysts and other specialists were still assessing information from the launch.

"Obviously, that's concerning," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said of the launch.

Iran's launch comes less than a month before Iran's presidential election and just two days after President Barack Obama declared a readiness to seek deeper international sanctions against Tehran if it did not respond positively to U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama said earlier this week that Tehran had until the end of the year to show it wanted to engage with Washington.

But both U.S. government officials and independent American missile experts said Wednesday that the Iranian missile itself did not appear to be a new model.

Charles Vick, a senior technical analyst for GlobalSecurity.org, analyzed photos and videotape of the launch released by Iran.

"I'm not all that impressed," Vick said. "It's just another test that confirms they've got the system that was operational last summer."

"Obviously, we've seen reports," Gibbs said. "You all know the concerns that the president has about Iran's missile development programs .... and the strong belief that the pursuit of those programs does not strengthen the security of Iran but instead make them less safe."

"Obviously, the president has been long concerned about it," he said. Gibbs noted that Obama and visiting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had "both agreed on Monday that engaging the people and the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran, something that hasn't been tried for the past many years, is something that makes sense."

Some dozen hours after the test was reportedly conducted, numerous U.S. defense and intelligence officials declined to even acknowledge the Iranian launch had occurred.

Some referred calls to the White House and State Department, a sign of how politically sensitive the development is to the Obama administration and its continuing efforts to deal with Iran's reported efforts to build nuclear weapons.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, appearing Wednesday morning before the Senate Appropriations Committee, said nothing directly about the Iranian launch when Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., raised the issue during questioning.

But Clinton did discuss the subject generally, saying that a nuclear-armed Iran would "spark an arms race" in the Middle East.

She referred to a host of threats to the United States that she said are "daunting." And Clinton reiterated that the administration opposes Iran getting a nuclear weapons capability and that it is relying for now on diplomatic pressure to stop it.

She described a nuclear capability as an "extraordinary threat." And Clinton said that the U.S. goal is "to persuade the Iranian regime that they will actually be less secure if they proceed with their nuclear weapons program."

In a breakfast meeting with reporters, Undersecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy spoke in general terms about Iran's missile program, saying that the Iranian efforts pose "a security threat to the region that we will have to, probably, to deal with it."

Flournoy said the administration is trying to present Iran with "a very fundamental choice between staying on the current path they are on, which I think is only going to hamper their security in the long term ... versus taking another path where if they were to reject support for terrorism and extremism, reject nuclear weapons, they could actually be on a path that would do a lot more for their ultimate security."

Trita Parsi, President and Founder of the National Iranian American Council, said Wednesday that the launch only complicates Obama's efforts to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear program and bring stability to the Mideast.

"With Israel pressing for short deadlines for diplomacy followed by sanctions and military action, with Iran testing additional missiles and continuing its tough talk, the Obama administration's best friend in this process will be patience and endurance," Parsi said.

__

Associated Press writers Anne Gearan, Lara Jakes and Matthew Lee contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

WASHINGTON — The missile test-fired by Iran is the longest-range solid-propellent missile it has launched yet, a U.S. government official said Wednesday, raising concerns about whether the sophi...
WASHINGTON — The missile test-fired by Iran is the longest-range solid-propellent missile it has launched yet, a U.S. government official said Wednesday, raising concerns about whether the sophi...
Filed by Stuart Whatley  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 34
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:04 PM on 05/22/2009
We test missiles all the time ... and we're the country that actually DOES launch "preemptive" wars that get tens of thousands of innocent people killed.

Where we get the gall to point a finger at Iran for taking their sovereignty as seriously as we take ours is beyond me.
Paulo1
Thanks for reading, (even if you disagree)
10:32 AM on 05/22/2009
It has now been two days since I reported that typo.

"Iranian Missile CABLE" instead of capable.

I can only assume you wish to leave it up
I am incredibly disappointed in Huff for not making the correction and will be trying desperately to reach Arrianna with a complaint.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:00 PM on 05/21/2009
This is dangerous posturing on Iran's part, one month before an election.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wisdo
semantics shamantics
12:12 PM on 05/21/2009
Obviously, we've seen reports," Gibbs said. "You all know the concerns that the president has about Iran's missile development programs .... and the strong belief that the pursuit of those programs does not strengthen the security of Iran but instead make them less safe."

This made me laugh heartily.

So, if you are Irans president, do you (a) Develop any and all weapons systems in order to protect your country from screaming christian lunatics in America who invade vountries at the drop of a hat, along with their messianic allies Israel who believe God has specifically granted them the middle East to be kings of

or (b) not have any waepons because you might be attacked for having them?

Seems you're damned if you do and vice versa. Id rather be able to mount some defence of my country than suffer american "liberation" or Israeli "defense"
09:05 AM on 05/22/2009
I agree.
I think we could do a booming business by opening a clinic specializing in pulling heads out of peoples a$$@$.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wisdo
semantics shamantics
12:09 PM on 05/21/2009
America tests ICBM's in pacific, missiles can reach Moscow, Tehran.

Israel conducts war manoevers in Med. Missiles can reach, Tehran, London.
12:15 PM on 05/21/2009
Exactly. So *$#%ing what if Iran has a missile that can reach US bases and Israel. Good for them. If they ever decide to use it they know the consequences. Every government (especially Iran) will do whatever is in its interest to maintain power. Thats what governments do, they think and act in terms of power. Iran threatens Israel because its popular in Iran and around the Middle East. They do it for power. They will not strike the US or Israel first. That would be irrational.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fein
Either everybody counts or nobody does.
11:19 AM on 05/21/2009
No rational person believes Iran would launch a First Strike against a nuclear power like Israel or the U.S..

The U.S. and it's croney Israel's, true concern is Iran being able to retaliate successfully against a first strike by Israel/U.S.. Becasue a 'Retaliatory Strike would be legal and therefore completely supported by the world states that respect law.

This is bad news for the U.S. and Israel RW. But it might be a deterrent to Israeli military aggression. Israel's meager 'missile defense' is in no way capable of protecting all it's assets from ballistic missle attack.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JoeSchmuk
07:17 AM on 05/21/2009
"a nuclear-armed Iran would "spark an arms race" in the Middle East."

how about an already nuclear armed Israel IS sparking a nuclear arms race in the middle east.

"a very fundamental choice between staying on the current path they are on, which I think is only going to hamper their security in the long term ... versus taking another path where if they were to reject support for terrorism and extremism, reject nuclear weapons, they could actually be on a path that would do a lot more for their ultimate security." Is this actually, like, a threat?

Lets see: a country brimming with nuclear arms; on the brink of economic disaster; religiously conflicted and with its share of fanatical adherents, one of which just exited power; spending, consuming and polluting more than its fair share; supporting a de facto ethnic cleansing, and presently engaged in two active wars and its own rationalized version of terror; is threatening yet another country which it had already destabilized (remember the Shah) years ago.

And they say Texas wants to secede from all of this good stuff?
09:30 AM on 05/21/2009
"how about an already nuclear armed Israel IS sparking a nuclear arms race in the middle east. "

Exactly.
04:31 AM on 05/21/2009
Both Israel and the US have Nukes so what's the hoopla about Iran? Israel ignores numerous UN resolutions and exhibits a total disregard of international law, because they are confident of the US vetoes. Israel ignores more UN resolutions than Saddam and Mugabe yet Saddam lost his life at the end of a noose, for the privilege. It is sheer hypocrisy now to point the bone at Iran.

Iran to date hasn't invaded any country nor have they fabricated evidence to justify any such invasion. We have stiffed them so many times, killed their beloved PM, blown up their airplane, unleash the Israeli Savak on their citizens etc. Israel still refuses to repay $millions they owe them on the Haifa pipeline deal and we are still holding their diplomats incommunicado since 2004.
What with all the Israeli saber rattling going on, Ahmadinejdad would have been stupid not to have implemented some serious sort of defense strategy. Bomb them and they'll bomb right back!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Khirad
09:49 AM on 05/21/2009
Amen lydia.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
joeinvt
the human being and fish can coexist
04:59 PM on 05/21/2009
You do know that Iran has killed more Arabs than Israel by far in the context of its border dispute with Iraq?And you know that during that same dispute Iraq killed more than a million Muslim citizens of Iran. Israel is small potatoes in terms of killing Arabs and/or Muslims compared to these guys.
07:16 PM on 05/21/2009
Yes, Saddam fought a proxy war for the West against Iran yet he still lost his head and his country got pummeled into dust with millions of Iraqis slaughtered and/or left incapacitated. Ahmadinejad probably feels in order to save himself from a similar faith to Saddam he will adhere to Bush's philosophy "Fool me once .. .. can't fool me 'gain."
03:16 PM on 05/23/2009
"border dispute with Iraq"...?

Do you mean the catastrophic eight year war supported by the US and Israel?

Israel sold weapons to Iran during the Iraq war. Are you aware of that?
03:01 AM on 05/21/2009
yep reaching out our hand to Iran is really working , they think Obama is weak and will not do anything. he needs to respond and defend our allies instead of making up to our enemies.
09:31 AM on 05/21/2009
Go back to Tiddly Winks.
photo
leonel
Lotus flower
12:15 AM on 05/21/2009
WE CAN'T AFFORD ANOTHER COMPLIANT CIA DIRECTOR LIKE GEORGE TENET RUNNING THE AGENCY.

The entire rationale for creating the CIA as a civilian agency after WW2 was to make sure that the administration got completely clear intelligence free of any biased sources.
photo
leonel
Lotus flower
12:04 AM on 05/21/2009
IS CIA AND ISRAEL HYPING ANTI-IRAN HOSTILITY? OBAMA AND ISRAEL ADMINISTRATIONS AND US CONGRESS SHOULD INVESTIGATE WHAT LOOKS LIKE IRRATIONAL AND NEEDLESS HOSTILITY.

The US Congress owes it to the American public to do a deep review of policy regarding Iran and entire Middle East. Bush administration was completely discredited in abusing the military and intelligence services and help prejudice them against openness, against actually winning war against terrorists, and needlessly escalating hostile relations with Middle East countries.

It makes no rational sense for Iran to be as hostile and evil as is been described. Obama administration should be extremely wary of CIA information. The only way to compromise the AF-PAK war is to keep up high civilian casualties and to be trash-talking the struggling government of Afghanistan. When Karzai complained against American bombing runs killing too many civilians, Condi Rice started hostile attitude against him that has continued ever since. The CIA is somewhat of a wildebeest that may be too rough for Panetta to tame.

Regardless, Congress will do itself and everybody else right if it helps the military run clean campaigns. The next two years can be harrowing if war planning is opaque due to mistrust of CIA. Middle East countries do not have complete confidence that new Obama administration has gotten to bottom of what went on with Bush administration.
08:00 PM on 05/20/2009
So what. The Israeli's have the missles to destroy Iran and have made it clear they want to 'obliterate' Iran.

Arab states and non-Arab states on the periphery of the Arab world have been living in the shadow of Israeli nuclear weapons for four decades.

Since 1979, the Islamic republic has gone to war only once, to defend itself against attack by Iraq in 1980, whereas Israel has invaded Lebanon twice (1982 and 2006), has attacked Syria once (when it bombed what it claimed was a nuclear site in September 2007) and Gaza many times, culminating in the three week onslaught beginning in late December 2008.

To this list must be added its undercover operations, including assassinations, in the occupied territories, Syria and Lebanon.

Going back to 1948, the rhetoric of imminent destruction has been deployed ahead of all of Israel’s wars. Even in the most favorable circumstances it is always Israel which is under threat.

The primary threat to peace in the Middle East is Israel and not Iran. When did Iran last set out to conquer areas of the Middle East? That was about 2300 years ago in the pre-islamic era.
05:27 PM on 05/20/2009
Big deal. They should already know how many missiles we and the Israelis have, as well as the fact that if they ever tried anything, they would be destroyed before their missiles hit their targets (if they don't go off course by themselves or get destroyed on the way). I don't care what they have, we will always have more. I'm much more worried about Pakistan building-up their arsenal at a time when the Taliban is slowly taking over. Not that we would need help from Tehran, but if we were on better terms with them, they might be willing to help us with Iraq, Afghanistan, and possibly Pakistan. The range is perfect for Pakistan anyway. Right now, Iran is a flea on the @ss of one of the three elephants in the room, and the 500lb. gorilla (the economy) is aggravating the elephants.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GZLives
05:27 PM on 05/20/2009
Who cares weahat he actually said .. his general just said yesterday it would take 11 days to destory all of Israel and that's good enough for me.

If someone was loading their gun while telling you they were going to blow you away would you wait until they were loaded or take them out before they did the same to you?

All the BS about lost in translation is exactly that. Iran has armed and trained Hezbollah and Hamas and has threatened Israel countless times and those who want to continue to make excuses for thjis regime can do so but israel doesn't have that luxury. "Never Again" is no empty promise. Give President Obama a chance to see if by some miracle they see a better path - but my guess is they won't and at the end of the day the US will have no other choice but to take out this regime once and for all
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
baba2nde
in search of the meaning of being
photo
MajorKong
If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally
08:01 PM on 05/20/2009
So, they're a big bad huge scary existential threat but they can be easily taken out with 3 days of airstrikes.

Got it.

They can't be a "grave threat" and a "pushover" at the same time.
05:09 PM on 05/20/2009
How many other countries have these type weapons? Some highlights of American foreign policy;

1) We armed the Afghans against the Soviets, now we are at war in Afghanistan!
2) We armed Pakistan (F16's) against India, now Pakistan makes deals with the Taliban and Alqeada!
3) We armed Iraq against Iran, now we are fighting in Iraq and sable rattling against Iran!

The U.S. played a pivotal role in destabilizing the middle east.