Print
E-mail
Iran Satellite Causes Fear
 |
| This photo claims to show an Iranian satellite launching rocket named "Safir-2," translated in English as "Ambassador-2", carrying the satellite "Omid," or “Hope” in English, photographed prior to launch on Monday. (Fars News Agency/Associated Press) |
Obama, Biden Opposed Missile Defense System
By Michael P. Tremoglie, The Bulletin
By MICHAEL P. TREMOGLIE
The Bulletin
Iran successfully launched its first domestically made satellite in orbit Monday. This has caused concern among the U.S. and other world powers because this technology can also be refined to deliver warheads.
The Iranians have been working for the past decade to develop a national space program. The telecommunications satellite called “Omid,” or “Hope,” in Farsi was launched after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave the order to proceed, according to a report on state radio.
Iranian media praised the launch as part of festivities marking the 30th anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which brought hard-line clerics to power.
But it has created worries in the United States, Europe and Israel about ties between the satellite programs and missiles technology.
“There’s almost always a link between satellite programs like this and military programs and there’s almost always a link between satellites and nuclear weapons. It’s the same delivery vehicle,” said James Lewis, an expert on defense technology at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
State Department spokesman Robert A. Wood accused Iran of using the space-launch program as a technological stepping-stone to develop long-range ballistic missiles.
“Iran’s ongoing efforts to develop its missile delivery capabilities remain a matter of deep concern,” Mr. Wood said.
“Iran’s development of a space-launch vehicle capable of putting a satellite into orbit establishes the technical basis from which Iran could develop long-range ballistic missile systems U.N. Security Council Resolution 1718 prohibits Iran from engaging in missile-related activities.”
This advance in orbital technology by Iran poses an early dilemma for the Obama administration. President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden, along with congressional Democrats, who routinely and vehemently criticized former President George W. Bush’s plans for a missile shield.
The International Herald Tribune reported last August, “As the Bush administration speeds ahead with plans to construct a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, some Democrats in Congress want to put on the brakes, saying it has not been adequately tested. Democrats are now questioning all that spending as premature.”
Last spring the Democratic-controlled House Armed Services Committee withheld authorization for most of the requested funds for the missile shield construction in Poland. They proposed language that would have barred spending to build the system, until the Defense Secretary certified that it was reliable. They took this action despite the warnings of Lieutenant General Henry Obering III, director of the Missile Defense Agency.
He said that the system, called the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System, should not be deployed in Europe until the testing was complete - about 2010 - but construction should proceed, he said.
Gen. Obering said, “We can’t wait until the Iranians launch a long-range missile and then start worrying about building out the site. If you do that, you are way behind the curve.”
But waiting is what the Obama-Biden campaign said they wanted to do. During the presidential campaign the Obama-Biden website declared their opposition to missile defense. It said, “An Obama-Biden administration will support missile defense, but ensure that it is developed in a way that is pragmatic and cost-effective; and, most importantly, does not divert resources from other national security priorities until we are positive the technology will protect the American public.”
Mr. Biden’s more than three decades opposition to missile defense is self-evident.
During the 1980s Mr. Biden opposed President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) saying at the time,”The president’s continued adherence to [SDI] constitutes one of the most reckless and irresponsible acts in the history of modern statecraft.”
In 1999, Mr. Biden opposed the National Missile Defense Act, which would have allowed deployment of the yet undeveloped and untested National Missile Defense system. He said the bill was “a political document, not a substantive piece of legislation that adds anything to the concept of what our strategic doctrine should be.”
During a September 10, 2001 speech at the National Press Club Mr. Biden said, “Missile defense has to be weighed carefully against all other spending and all other military priorities. And in truth, our real security needs are much more earthbound and far less costly than national missile defense.”
The Obama administration’s strategy for dealing with Iran is also quite clear. It relies on sanctions.
During the campaign the Obama-Biden team said it “would offer the Iranian regime a choice.” They would give Iran incentives like “membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations” for abandoning its nuclear program and support for terrorism.
The campaign said Iranian non-compliance would be met by increased economic pressure and political isolation.
During a June 2000 speech at the Cato Institute Mr. Biden said, “Similarly, in Iran, while conservative clerics still view America as the Great Satan, other clerics with overwhelming popular support - are slowly moving Iran toward a more rational view of the world.”
Despite misgivings and threats of increased sanctions from European nations, Iranian Presiden Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said yesterday the satellite launch will enhance the country’s standing in the world. He said developments in nuclear and space programs as a matter of pride and a sign of its independence from Western countries.
Michael P. Tremoglie can be contacted at mtremoglie@thebulletin.us
The Bulletin
Iran successfully launched its first domestically made satellite in orbit Monday. This has caused concern among the U.S. and other world powers because this technology can also be refined to deliver warheads.
The Iranians have been working for the past decade to develop a national space program. The telecommunications satellite called “Omid,” or “Hope,” in Farsi was launched after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave the order to proceed, according to a report on state radio.
Iranian media praised the launch as part of festivities marking the 30th anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which brought hard-line clerics to power.
But it has created worries in the United States, Europe and Israel about ties between the satellite programs and missiles technology.
“There’s almost always a link between satellite programs like this and military programs and there’s almost always a link between satellites and nuclear weapons. It’s the same delivery vehicle,” said James Lewis, an expert on defense technology at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
State Department spokesman Robert A. Wood accused Iran of using the space-launch program as a technological stepping-stone to develop long-range ballistic missiles.
“Iran’s ongoing efforts to develop its missile delivery capabilities remain a matter of deep concern,” Mr. Wood said.
“Iran’s development of a space-launch vehicle capable of putting a satellite into orbit establishes the technical basis from which Iran could develop long-range ballistic missile systems U.N. Security Council Resolution 1718 prohibits Iran from engaging in missile-related activities.”
This advance in orbital technology by Iran poses an early dilemma for the Obama administration. President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden, along with congressional Democrats, who routinely and vehemently criticized former President George W. Bush’s plans for a missile shield.
The International Herald Tribune reported last August, “As the Bush administration speeds ahead with plans to construct a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, some Democrats in Congress want to put on the brakes, saying it has not been adequately tested. Democrats are now questioning all that spending as premature.”
Last spring the Democratic-controlled House Armed Services Committee withheld authorization for most of the requested funds for the missile shield construction in Poland. They proposed language that would have barred spending to build the system, until the Defense Secretary certified that it was reliable. They took this action despite the warnings of Lieutenant General Henry Obering III, director of the Missile Defense Agency.
He said that the system, called the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System, should not be deployed in Europe until the testing was complete - about 2010 - but construction should proceed, he said.
Gen. Obering said, “We can’t wait until the Iranians launch a long-range missile and then start worrying about building out the site. If you do that, you are way behind the curve.”
But waiting is what the Obama-Biden campaign said they wanted to do. During the presidential campaign the Obama-Biden website declared their opposition to missile defense. It said, “An Obama-Biden administration will support missile defense, but ensure that it is developed in a way that is pragmatic and cost-effective; and, most importantly, does not divert resources from other national security priorities until we are positive the technology will protect the American public.”
Mr. Biden’s more than three decades opposition to missile defense is self-evident.
During the 1980s Mr. Biden opposed President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) saying at the time,”The president’s continued adherence to [SDI] constitutes one of the most reckless and irresponsible acts in the history of modern statecraft.”
In 1999, Mr. Biden opposed the National Missile Defense Act, which would have allowed deployment of the yet undeveloped and untested National Missile Defense system. He said the bill was “a political document, not a substantive piece of legislation that adds anything to the concept of what our strategic doctrine should be.”
During a September 10, 2001 speech at the National Press Club Mr. Biden said, “Missile defense has to be weighed carefully against all other spending and all other military priorities. And in truth, our real security needs are much more earthbound and far less costly than national missile defense.”
The Obama administration’s strategy for dealing with Iran is also quite clear. It relies on sanctions.
During the campaign the Obama-Biden team said it “would offer the Iranian regime a choice.” They would give Iran incentives like “membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations” for abandoning its nuclear program and support for terrorism.
The campaign said Iranian non-compliance would be met by increased economic pressure and political isolation.
During a June 2000 speech at the Cato Institute Mr. Biden said, “Similarly, in Iran, while conservative clerics still view America as the Great Satan, other clerics with overwhelming popular support - are slowly moving Iran toward a more rational view of the world.”
Despite misgivings and threats of increased sanctions from European nations, Iranian Presiden Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said yesterday the satellite launch will enhance the country’s standing in the world. He said developments in nuclear and space programs as a matter of pride and a sign of its independence from Western countries.
Michael P. Tremoglie can be contacted at mtremoglie@thebulletin.us
 |
||
| Obama Nominates Porn Lawyer |
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of thebulletin.us.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
