Why Iran's Ballistic Missiles Have Become a Problem

(Part Two) - Iran's missile arsenal and its entire defensive structure have been rebuilt after eight years of war with Iraq. For various reasons, Iran has been under various sanctions and arms export and import control regimes, and thus it has tried to build its defensive capabilities by circumventing those sanctions. One way to do this was to get closer to countries like China, Russia, or North Korea. For ideological and political reasons, Iran has placed its verbal dispute with Israel at the forefront of its psychological warfare program over the past thirty-seven years, and with every step taken in building or testing a missile, Iran's propaganda announced that Tel Aviv would be within their reach. This has heated up support for Israel in Europe and America at Iran's expense, and Iran has attributed its propaganda slogans to its strategic success. Gradually, these slogans reinforced the belief that Iran seeks the destruction of Israel and that the purpose of its conventional arsenal is to equip itself with nuclear warheads and then proceed to destroy Israel. In other words, Iran has created strategic enemies for itself with political slogans that, completely contrary to Iran's military capabilities, are capable of targeting all nuclear activity centers and parts of Iran's military-defense centers. Miscalculation The purpose of propaganda is to create belief in both domestic and foreign audiences. However, once this belief is established, reversing it is not easily possible. Propaganda is presented in two forms: one through direct broadcasting and the other through the dissemination of rumors, but both forms create belief over time. Propaganda can be based on existing realities, but it can also be based on an exaggerated and deliberately magnified perspective of a smaller reality. Any form of propaganda in the field of weapons aims to instill fear and terror in the heart of the enemy. It seems that all these factors have worked together to feed Iran's propaganda style. Rumors and Propaganda Propaganda and rumors present reality in a shadow of ambiguity, and naturally, the ambiguity of the issue makes it appear more frightening. It is said that Israel has more than 200 nuclear warheads. In this context, the official Israeli government has never explicitly confirmed the existence of such terrifying weapons, which could even pose a danger to its allies. The result is that the hypothetical enemy continually and necessarily considers the factor of Israel's nuclear weapon in its military calculations and asks itself, 'What if it is true?' Iran's response is clearly seen in its slogans: 'We will use conventional missiles until our destruction, and we will erase Israel from the geographical map!' It is said that Iran has thousands of ballistic missiles with conventional warheads, and a significant portion of them is likely targeted at Israel or can be quickly targeted. Unlike Israel, Iran emphasizes its ability to target Tel Aviv. The hypothetical enemy (here Israel) asks itself, 'What if it is true?' The clear answer is that the ambiguity of Israel's nuclear arsenal will deter the hypothetical enemy. Furthermore, Israel's Western allies will support it. Therefore, the only thing that must be prevented is Iran's nuclearization. However, in the meantime, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, whose leaders are financially supported by Iran, also ask themselves what will happen if Iran's missiles kill Palestinians. Is Iran's ballistic missile smart enough to only target Israelis and exclude Palestinians? And of course, there is currently no answer to this question. Conclusion Undoubtedly, if Iran decides to enter a war against nuclear weapons with conventional weapons and missiles, the nuclear-armed party will win the conflict. However, if Iran can equip its missiles with nuclear warheads, the entire calculation will fall into a vicious cycle and a confusing puzzle. Iran is a committed member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, while Israel is not. Deviating from commitments within the framework of this treaty would result in a Security Council mandate against Iran. In Iran, there is a religious fatwa that prohibits the production of weapons of mass destruction, while no such fatwa has been issued in Israel. In Iran, the slogan 'Death to Israel' is shouted every day, while in Israel, even if this desire is part of some political leaders against some Iranian leaders, it has not yet turned into a 'Death to Iran' slogan. Ultimately, this calculation leads nowhere from a military or international political perspective and is fundamentally flawed. More importantly, Iran has accepted the Vienna Agreement to halt its nuclear activities diplomatically and has legitimized it at the Security Council level, taking steps toward implementing the agreement. Thus far, these missiles cannot be equipped with nuclear warheads for another 10-15 years. Moreover, Iran is currently under a Security Council regime that has accepted a commitment, and deviating from it could have serious international consequences, including the return of sanctions and, under certain conditions, military reactions. Western observers believe that the accuracy and targeting of Iran's conventional (non-nuclear) ballistic missiles are weak and ineffective. In contrast to this view, the Islamic Republic of Iran believes that its missile capabilities, regardless of the type of warhead, can act as a strong deterrent against hostile countries in the region. At the same time, Westerners believe that Iran possesses significant engineering capabilities that it will utilize over time in missile launch programs and strengthening its missile capabilities. Therefore, as we observed in the side discussions of the nuclear agreement, pressure for export controls that apply to military and missile industries will increase. While there is a possibility that such pressures could slow down Iran's progress in missile industries, they certainly cannot stop it. With the lifting of sanctions, new avenues for purchasing missile tools and equipment will open, and as a result, Iran's missile capabilities will develop in the coming years. Westerners point to the existence of reasons and evidence indicating Iran's relentless actions toward producing medium-range and intercontinental missiles. However, if Iran wants to extend the range of its missiles to reach the United States, it must achieve a range of 9,000 kilometers (or 5,600 miles). To achieve this goal, two factors must be considered: first, how much is the current range of missiles thirty years after the war with Iraq? And second, in addition to industrial capabilities and advanced technology, is there political will and strategic justification in Iran to achieve intercontinental missiles?