Ali Sanaei’s Personal Blog

Iran’s Shahab Missiles

Posted in Politics, Iran, Middle East, War and Military by Ali on the August 15th, 2007

After the Iranian revolution (1979), the Iran - Iraq war (1980) forced Iran to seriously develop its indigenous military forces. Especially that after the 1979 sanctions, USA double sanctioned Iran at 1984. Later on countries such as USSR, UK, Germany, France, Canada, Australia and others joint the scheme.

The 1980 Iran was not even able to fulfil its minimum need of simple bullets. After all, building on technology and experience obtained through the war, a full scale missile programme was developed to bring the country up to par, and ahead of its regional rivals. Nowadays Iran designs, manufactures and exports its own guns, missiles, tanks, armoured vehicles, radars, artilleries, helicopters, aircrafts, etc. Also interestingly having its self-designed world’s fastest under-water missile, the Hoot! A large number of Iran’s ballistic missiles and long-range artillery rocket systems currently possess the capability to deliver warheads with conventional high explosive, sub-munition, dispersion and etc. This development programme is still ambitiously continuing today. At 1997, I saw myself Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani stating on TV that “Iran has now the top 10 military forces in the world”.

In this article I’ll write the outcome of my researches on Iran’s Shahab family of missiles, which is all done based on my personal curiosity and interest.

:: Click on image to enlarge ::

To give a glimpse on all these missiles in a single look, I’ve made this following table:

	Shahab 1	Shahab 2	Shahab 3
Type	Tactical SRBM	Tactical SRBM	Strategic MRBM
Range (km)	385 - 330	500 - 750	2,100
Max speed (km/h)	Unknown	Unknown	5,500
Warheads (kg)	(1 x) 987 - 1,000	(1 x) 750 - 989	(1x) 990
CEP (Circular Error Probable)	450m	Unknown	190 - 250m
Fuel	Liquid	Liquid	Liquid & Solid
Height (m)	11.18	11.37 - 12.29	15.89
Diameter (m)	0.855	0.885	1.32 - 1.35
Weight (kg)	5,862 - 5,950	6,370 - 6,500	15,092
Payload (kg)	1,000	1,000	1,158
In service year	1987	1990	2003
..

	Shahab 4	Shahab 5	Shahab 6
Type	Strategic ICBM	LRICBM	Unknown
Range (km)	2,200-2,896	3,500 - 4,300	5,632 - 10,000
Max speed (km/h)	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Warheads (kg)	(1 x) 760 - 1,000	(1 x) 750 - 1,000	(1 x) 500 - 1,000
CEP (Circular Error Probable)	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Fuel	Liquid	Liquid	Liquid & Solid
Height (m)	25	32	32- 35
Diameter (m)	0.88 - 1.3	1.32 - 1.35	Unknown
Weight (kg)	22,000	60,000	Unknown
Payload (kg)	1,000	1,000	Unknown
In service Year	2004	2005	est. 2009 - 2011

(Most of this table’s data has been collected from Federation of American Scientists, GlobalSecurity and Wikipedia websites.)

In general the coverage range of Iranian potential ballistic missiles could be figured as follow:

In this between Shahab 4 programme is postponed or even shelved for the meantime. This missile was supposed to be Iran’s first missile to bring satellites into orbit In its place came the IRIS solid propellant missile. Iran has focused on its Shahab 3 and Shahab 6 at the moment. There are four Shahabs came out of Shahab 3, which are Shahab 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D. About Shahab 6; nothing further and accurate has spread out yet.

I will write further about Shahab 3 missiles next times.

40 Responses to 'Iran’s Shahab Missiles'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Iran’s Shahab Missiles'.

Zohre said,

on August 15th, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Proud to be Iranian …
Mahmouad Abbasi said,

on August 15th, 2007 at 2:22 pm

Ali please write something about Iranian combat fighter jets. thanks.
Sting said,

on August 15th, 2007 at 5:34 pm

welcome back ali, I see you’re back on stage!
Steve said,

on August 15th, 2007 at 5:37 pm

To be sure, the emergence of the triconical design is not new. However, to what degree is the true significance of its relation to a nuclear capability advancement? And, if this is so, why is it being put into such context now? Is there more recent footage of a new triconical design more advanced than the available 2004 images revealed?
Nicky oIoIo said,

on August 15th, 2007 at 5:39 pm

It is Iran’s undeniable presence at the epicenter of international terrorism that is at the center of the conflict and the heart of the dangerous threat. The concern is less the nuclear weapons than the nature of the regime pursuing them.

The race to develop nuclear weapons by both India and Pakistan, while troubling, did not cause the level of concern caused currently by Iran.
Paolo 222 oloaP said,

on August 15th, 2007 at 5:41 pm

Iran has held three large-scale military exercises last year. In its April exercises, Iran tested what it called an “ultra-horizon” missile, which is fired from helicopters and jet fighters, and the Fajr-3 missile, which can reportedly evade radar and use multiple warheads to hit several targets simultaneously.
Chris Mann said,

on August 26th, 2007 at 3:29 am

Oh My God, is Iran really this powerfull?! I see why Lebanon (”Hizbollah”) beated Israel in the 2006 war!
Xerxes said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:10 am

Enemies of Iran, watch out!
farrad02 said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:10 am

Any missle with range beyond 1000 KM invites nothing but trouble for our country and our people. Impress us by showing how many hospitals they built or how many oil refineries they have built so we won’t be at the mercy of other countries for the gasoline our economy needs for basic transportation!

Islamic Republic only cares about one thing and that is the regime’s survival. At any price!
Anonymous1 said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:10 am

Nonsense, these are ballistic missles without guidance systems. At 2K kilometers, you’d be lucky to hit a sprawling metropolitan area. Beyond that, the best you can do is to aim for the oceans.
Xerxes said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:10 am

Sorry man, I have to say that you both are wrong. The Iranian missles have the world worried. and Farhad, what kind of insane question are you asking? First of all you don’t need to be a brain surgeon to know that EVERY regime wants and will try to survive. Iranian regime is independent and that should at least boil some pride in to your American vain. Yes Iran has to defend herself, and should be prepared for those enemies as far as they might be. But Iran has declared and clearly is against any offense. I think Iranians have issues, they are so upset to see the country advancing because to many if the regime is bad, then nothing good could come out of it. I disagree with that one sided close minded mentality. relax, open your eyes and see in the foreign affairs who is actually dictating and being unreasonable. Be open minded and judge based on information rather than emotions. Googoosh will sing someday in Iran again, but do you think that’s all our problems? And please, please, don’t suck the Westerners balls. Have some pride.
WarNot said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:11 am

Iran is a formidable military power, second only to Israel in the Middle East. This is the judgement of most Western observers.
Unlike Israel, however, it has been denied access to American weapons, and indeed to most Western weapons, since the overthrow of the Shah by the Islamic Revolution 27 years ago. And, again unlike Israel, Iran has no nuclear bombs - at least not yet. Nevertheless, militarily, it is by no means backward or defenceless.
Largely through its own immense efforts - and with some help from Russia, China, Pakistan and North Korea - Iran has created a powerful military-industrial complex, which employs more than 200,000 engineers, technicians and skilled workers.
According to the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), Iran today produces almost two thousand defence items, from munitions to aircraft, and from missile boats to satellites. It exports military equipment to over 30 countries, including seven in Europe.
How would it fare if it were attacked by the United States alone — or indeed by the U.S. and Israel together. Could it defend itself? Could it strike back? To what extent has it acquired a capability for strategic deterrence?
These questions are relevant because, although there are now some slender hopes that the crisis over Iran’s nuclear programme might be resolved by negotiation, the possibility of war cannot be ruled out. American hawks, including John Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the UN, have made clear that they would prefer ‘regime change’ in Tehran rather than a negotiation which might result in Iran being allowed to continue some nuclear activities, even on a reduced basis.
In an interview with the Financial Times on 9 June, Bolton declared that ‘Our experience has been that when there is a dramatic change in the life of a country, that’s the most likely point at which they give up nuclear weapons.’ He added that U.S. security guarantees for Iran were ‘not on the table.’
There is undoubtedly a strong current of opinion in both the United States and Israel that, for geo-political reasons, would prefer the Islamic regime in Tehran to be destroyed, much as Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was destroyed.
Geo-political ambitions are, in fact, fuelling the dispute over Iran’s nuclear activities. The U.S. is concerned to control Middle East oil for at least the next decade or two. Israel, in turn — now that Iraq has been smashed — wants to consolidate its military dominance over the region, and be in a position to reshape the regional order to suit its interests. To both powers, therefore, Iran poses a strategic challenge.
Iran is at present considering the ‘package of incentives’ which six leading countries — the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia - have offered it, in a bid to persuade it to abandon its nuclear programme. Iran has not rejected the package outright, although it has said that it contains ‘problems and ambiguities’. It is expected to make a counter-proposal within the coming days or weeks.
The most important hurdle would seem to be the pre-condition insisted on by the United States. Washington has said that it will not join in the negotiations unless Iran first suspends its nuclear activities in a verifiable manner. Iran has rejected any such precondition and has declared that its right to enrich uranium is ‘inalienable’ and ‘not negotiable.’
Iran is determined to pursue its nuclear programme for what it claims is the purely peaceful purpose of producing fuel for nuclear power stations. It is fully entitled to do so under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The United States and Israel - with some support from the Europeans, and more ambivalent backing from Russia and China — are determined to shut down Iran’s nuclear industry altogether, because they believe it is a cover for a secret military programme.
Both the U.S. and Israel have, on several occasions, stressed that they would not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. On a visit to London on June 12, Israel’s Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, once again declared that Israel would not allow Iran ‘to cross the nuclear threshold.’ He warned that, equipped with nuclear weapons, Iran would pose a ’serious danger to the entire world.’
This is consistent with the usual Israeli argument that the problem does not concern Israel alone, but that the whole international community must, in its own interest, join in denying Iran nuclear weapons.
In pressing for the use of force to put an end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Israel betrays its fear that the U.S. might strike a deal with Iran which would undermine Israel’s strategic predominance, as well as its privileged status as America’s key Middle East ally.
In the Military Balance 2006, the IISS’s annual analysis of the world’s armed services, Iran’s military capability is described in some detail. Under the Shah, American firms such as Bell, Litton and Northrop, set up assembly lines in Iran for helicopters, aircraft, guided missiles, electronic components and tanks. During the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88) this military-industrial base was enormously expanded under the control of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and the Ministry of Defence.
Huge investment was poured into the missile industries, so that Iran today has an extensive arsenal of rockets and missiles, with ranges from 45 kms to 2,000 kms. There are today 19 state-owned centres in different parts of Iran involved in aerospace and related activities, employing over 100,000 technicians and engineers.
For example, a complex in Lorestan province is able to produce each year up to 80,000 aircraft tyres of various types, making Iran the first country in the Middle East, and seventh in the world, to acquire such technology.
Iran’s helicopter industrial infrastructure supports the third-largest helicopter fleet in the world. The Qods Aviation Industries produce a wide range of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for reconnaissance, combat and other roles. Iran has developed a diverse arsenal of anti-ship missiles, as well as midget and medium submarines, and fast and manoeuvrable missile boats.
The IISS conclusion is that the years of war with Iraq ‘turned the Iranians into military professionals’ who proceeded to develop an advanced and innovative defence industry. They were able ‘to create an industrial infrastructure which is capable of meeting nearly every requirement of the Iranian armed forces.’
What has been the purpose of this vast Iranian effort? Is it for offensive use or is it purely defensive? Should the Arab Gulf states be concerned at Iran’s military power? The IISS believes that Iran’s defence structure is based on a foundation of ’strategic deterrent defence.’ Iran’s strategy, it says, ‘is to absorb a first strike and then to initiate immediate retaliation with all means available, but only if such a move serves the political ends, and does not threaten the very existence of the Islamic regime.’ ‘Iranian leaders believe an effective defensive deterrence can force their enemies to relinquish their threats of pre-emption, believing that such a move would be too costly.’
What does this mean in the current situation? First, it suggests that Iran will not be bullied into abandoning its nuclear activities. Secondly, Iran’s considerable military strength is for deterrence purposes, to protect it against any aggression by the U.S. or Israel aimed at regime change.
Thirdly, if Iran is seeking to build an atomic bomb - which it strenuously denies - this could only be to strengthen its deterrent posture. It could not consider using such a weapon without risking national annihilation at the hands of the United States and Israel, both with nuclear arsenals infinitely more powerful than anything Iran could hope to produce.
Nuclear weapons have contributed to stability between the West and the former Soviet Union, and between India and Pakistan. Might they not serve a similar function between Iran and Israel?
Would an Iranian bomb really be such a disaster? History has surely proved that a balance of power creates peace, whereas imbalance causes war, as the more powerful side will inevitably seek to impose its will by force. Is not this the meaning of the current threats against Iran by the U.S. and Israel? End
Jesus said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:11 am

Something in the Iranian military might be ranked 10th, like the size of the belly of her illiterate and uneducated generals. But no one, not even the idiots running the regime truly believe that Iranian military is the 10th strongest force on the planet.
This is a military that still runs F-4 as a backbone of its airforce, and we know that effective tactical ground forces require an effective airforce cover, not SRBM or shahab missiles.
Even if Tehran’s military was #10, it would be like this: You have a student , your #1 student who has a 4.0 GPA, and than, you have your 10th ranked student, sure he is number 10th, but has a GPA of 0.5. The difference between the number 1 and number 10 is not linear, but in log measurement in the case of military powers.
So dream on Rafsanjani, and IR agents, and Xerxes(shameful to use such a beautiful name). It seems idiots in IR like this Xerxes dude, and idiots of the previous regime(Shah also claimed to have #4 military in the world) don’t seem to understand one really important thing about power.
Real power is not a measurement of your toys’ firepower on the battlefield, but the quality of the lives of your citizen. In that ranking, Iran is close to last in my opinion.
Shalom Goldsmith said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:12 am

blow these out-dated, obsolete, North Korean, 1930’s rocket technologies out of the sky! Only one fart!
mosleh said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:12 am

Come on guys lets face it. Iran’s armed forces (albeit a decent force) is not the 10th strongest in the world. it can still pack a decent punch yet it’s at least 2 decades away from challenging the might of the US armed forces. Believe me 2 years national service as an officer in that outfit taught me not to lose perspective by seeing a bunch of (unfortunately inaccurate) missiles. I doubt if the entire missile inventory of the Peoples republic of China can make a big difference in a long, protracted conflict against the US. The chinese know it, the russians know it, hell I’m certain the Iranian Army joint chiefs know it too. the joint chiefs are sensible people and know well that any missile attack on israel can be an invitation for extreme retribution by them or the Americans. you know I wouldn’t read much into what the grand strategist(!) rafsanjani has to say about Iran’s ranking in the worlds armed forces. His incompetency in 1982 cost us a great victory over the Iraqis. the guy should be shot just for that.
kjhfjdsyks said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:12 am

The Israeli fart didn’t even dare to come out in Lebanon. Don’t believe it? Ask Hezbollah. Perhaps only you can smell it Shalom.
Parsa said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:13 am

I’m quite sure their fart has affected your brain well.
Anonymous1 said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:13 am

There is you-tube video of the islamist thug, Shamkhani, admitting that these missles “can be built like Peykans in quantity, but not in quality”.
As for the war with Iraq, this was just an embarrassing exercise for Rafsanjani and alike to gain some basic military experience at such a disastrous cost. This is really the story of the hated Islamic republic; mullahs and others from the most despised socio-economic class gaining control of the country. Thru ignorance, bias (complex) and total incompetance, they brought untold disaster to the entire population. Using the vast resources of the country they have managed to stay afloat and are boasting about their “achievments”. …what a bunch of …
This was a country that could have been so much more than a complex_ridden Islamic state!
Parsa said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:13 am

maybe you could give us a link to that video first.
Anonymous1 said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:14 am

Try,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4074319044…

Or do a you-tube search for the title:
“Shahab-3 Development”
Parsa said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:14 am

Where is the video you referred to which Shamkhani compared Shahab with Paykan?!
Anonymous1 said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:14 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik-4WJ9YFLk

or google “Shahab-3 Development”

Trust me, its there.
Fair said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:15 am

Indeed military power is hollow when >50% of your population lives below poverty (by regime’s own statistics) and you have to import gasoline in a country awash in oil.

There are a bunch of holes in this assessment. First of all, define how you rank 1->10. Iran’s technology is very old and reverse engineered 70’s American technology in the best case. The Shahab 3 is based on North Korean copies of 50’s era Russian missiles. They can threaten major population centers but cannot hit any military target with much precision. Iran’s main advantage is in numbers of soldiers and many cheap, lo tech weapons. So as far as threatening an enemy with terrorist or insurgent tactics, I agree, Iran is in the top 10. But in terms of fighting a war army against army, it is pretty pathetic unless the enemy has no air force (like Afghanistan). If Iran ever had to fight the Saudi Air Force it would be in deep trouble, let alone Israel or the US. Also, in terms of production, could you kindly specify which aircraft Iran produces in numbers larger than 5? And as far as 3rd largest helicopter fleet in the world, that was during the Shah’s time. If Iran had so many helicopters today, where were they during the Bam earthquake? One of the biggest complaints of the relief agencies was that the roads were damaged, and that it took 16 hours to get into Bam from Kerman airport, and in earthquakes the first 24 hours are most crucial. So one would expect dozens of helicopters in the area rescuing people, but in the pictures you could only see one. So I think many of these claims are for propaganda and are not real.

Fortunately, Iran does not need to be a major military power today because the unprovoked threats it faces are much less. There is no Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq claiming the Shatt, there is no USSR wanting to invade to get to the Persian Gulf, and there is no cold war. This was not the case during the Shah’s time. Today, the threat Iran faces from the US and Israel is from its own making, since it insists on confrontation with Israel and the US (Death to America and Death to Israel are the official Islamic Republic policy), and insists on pursuing an unsafe and dangerous nuclear program.
Dariushagha said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:15 am

People, please, you can’t be this gullible to believe such a nonsense.
When the shah was in power, he used to say that we are at the threshold of fifth position in military might!
Those of you who may be old enough to remember that, can recall that.

Islamic republic bought those missiles in late 80′
and there were broken and outdated, they were acquired from north Korea and Russia for exchange for oil.

those drawing you see were originally made for Russian rockets in the sixty’s and seventy’s.

people, please. must we always gargoyle everything this terrorist regime says? We are not as dumb as we look!
Parsa said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:15 am

I assume you speak Farsi. What Shamkhani says is that Iran is able to produce the missiles like Paykan in terms of quantity, but not quality. he clearly means that the quality and capabilities are very high. Maybe you could refer to the subtitles!

And later he explains that the Shahab 3 missiles are completely produced, developed and strengthened locally in Iran with no external help.
Parsa said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:16 am

- Iran is not no 120.

- The drawings are not official ones, they’ve been sketched by an engineer, guessing how it looks like.

- But the technology is just similliar, not exact to the North Korea and Russian missiles.

- We are not dumb and we’ve never looked so.
Anonymous1 said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:16 am

Here’s the exact subtitle:

“Not in terms of quality, but in terms of quantity, and in terms of capability for local production, we can produce missiles like we produce cars.”

Unless he is admitting that Iran makes crappy cars (which probably does, but why should he admit to it!) any English speaking person will think these missiles are lower in quality than the Iranian made automobiles.

He says exactly the same thing in Farsi.

The problem is that these arabic thugs (Jebel Amel mullahs and their Lebenese hordes who took over in ‘79) never spoke farsi well. One would expect, at the very least, this particular illiterate thug to have learned how to speak properly in 28 years, much less an attempt to discuss a ballistic missile program.
Anonymous1 said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:16 am

Alas, Peykan, the jewel of industrial progress for 40 years has been such a disappointment that even the former defence minister jokes about it. This by itself is a sad commentary about Iranian pursuit of production quality.

I am afraid the problem is deeper when it comes to this type of vagueness in language. Knowledge, or technical competance has something to do with it.

To be honest with you, I am truthful, but I will not put up with Islamic republic’s lies, or forgive their murderous history.

This man is a thug, regardless of his Arab ethnicity. He is an Iranian thug. He is an early volunteer of the regime’s bloodiest organisation, IRGC. This murderous gang was organised by South Lebenese extremist thugs from the day they began stealing rifles from the armories on 21 of Bahman (1357). They maintained and expanded their external activities with Lebenese thugs and others. To me this is an Arab occupying force in Iran.
They were gun touting thugs that set up road blocks, conducted illegal search and seizures, illegal arrests and detentions, threatening and tormenting the populous for not being Islamic, particularly the women….And still goes on today, 28 years later.

They then graduated to shooting/executing members of the armed forces even the airforce, the navy and the former civil servants from ministerial level and below. All of this under the guise of Shia god. This was a foreign invasion!

Some of these civil servants were quite influential in those days. They were well respected and influential in important world capitals. This shitty Islamic republic has yet to produce a respectable diplomat.

The IRGC later achieved bigger things, no longer worthy of the title thug. From roughly, 1980 to 1983, their hooded murderers had repeatedly rampaged on the streets shooting at defenceless demostrators. Arresting any and all in sight, taking them to Evin and shooting them before sundown. So brazen that they would even anounce the names of the fresh kills on radio. Islamo-Barbaric rituals like raping virgin girls before shooting them was practiced in those years. These are not just thugs, these are crimes against humanity.

The thug Shamkhani is a founding member of this islamo-barbaric community and has instigated and participated in many of these crimes in Khouzestan and elsewhere.

There is a lot more and I have not even mentioned the ethnic conflicts in Mianeh, Baneh, Nagadeh, Gorgan……others, nor any details of their barbarism. Is this enough of a thug for you ?

Disgusted!
anti-mozdoors said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:17 am

کجای کاریم؟

این از وضع تولید ناخالص ملی:
قرمز: استکبار جهانی
آبی کمرنگ: ژاپن
آبی پررنگ: ژاپن اسلامی یا همان مملکت امام زمان

GDP and income per capita of iran is lower than Malysia for god sake. what the hell are you talking about:

http://mollah.blogspot.com/2007/11/blog-post_24.ht…
Fair said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:17 am

Well if you claim that my thinking is wrong, then provide proof. Where is the evidence of a large number (as in 3rd largest in the world) of operational helicopters in Iran? Tell us how many of what type of helicopter Iran has produced and operated on its own, and explain clearly why there were not hundreds of Iranian made helicopters operating over Bam and taking relief workers to the victims and saving lives. What more important missions were occupying the 3rd largest helicopter fleet in the world??.

And don’t mix things up with Katrina response - the US’s problem was not a lack of helicopters, in fact you saw much footage of helicopter rescues. Show me any such footage from Bam, where it was even more necessary to us helos (they couldn’t use boats for example). Otherwise, yes, Katrina and Bam were both victims of their governments’ sheer incompetence. But the latter was even more victim of their country’s lack of helicopters!

This seems to be a common pattern for defenders of the regime- any failure gets compared to a similar failure in the US. Well, the US also has a lot of successes, can we try to look at them also when we compare?

As far as airforce being useless in the long run, that is absolutely not true if you want to win. It is only true if you want to not lose and prolong a conflict, which seems to be fine with the mullahs. I prefer for my country either no conflict, or if there is one, it should be one that ends quickly in my favor. e.g. when Iraq crossed the border in 1980, we had a conflict that lasted 8 years and scarred us for generations. When they crossed the border in 1975, we had a conflict for 20 minutes, that ended decisively in our favor! And that stopped any illusions by Saddam Hussein to do such a thing until 1980… The main difference in these two cases was the existence of an air force. A powerful airforce will not guarantee you success on the ground in the long run if you are attacking someone else, but that is different than defending from invaders.

You also fail to share with us which aircraft Iran manufactures in numbers greater than 5. Also, this assessment claims Iran exports weapons to 30+ countries. Why don’t you share actually how many dollars of exports we are talking about here? Remember I can export 100 RPG’s to a country in Africa and call that 1 country. You are presenting a military assessment and claiming big things, so if you want to be credible you need to show the whole picture.
Parsa said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:18 am

- He didn’t make a joke of Paykan, don’t exaggerate. When they get realistic, you start bullying them.

- Would you please give us some references for what you’re claimin about those who you call Arab-Iranian thugs? I’m really interested to know more about it.

- Well mate, I think you’ve got America wrong with Iran! raping girls then killing them, etc etc. That’s their manner, not Iranians.
Parsa said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:18 am

Yes, that’s an unfortune fact my friend.

In many countries you may have higher incomes, but higher expenses at the same time. for instance, Electricity in Iran is only 12tomans per KW for end-users, while the government subsidises it by 60 tomans per KW. So if they wanted to have some profits on it too, they had to sell it for 80-90 tomans. Another example is Fuel which is “mesle rooz roshan”. etc etc.

However, I agree that the GDP is low, but it’s not as it initially shows.
Fair said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:18 am

Regarding the air force, what exactly did I exaggerate? And you didn’t say “air force is not everything”, you said “In long term it’s useless” (go read your own post). Maybe you should study before making such statements if you want to appear credible.

Regarding Iran’s weapons exports to all these countries and continents, did you mention the amount? I guess not- the numbers given by the regime itself are in the range of $100 million per year. That is peanuts, that means each of the 30-50 countries that Iran claims to export to buys on average $2-3 million, that is not enough even for one tank or one helicopter! So before you say the word “exaggeration” take a look at what you write/quote yourself.

And say again, which aircraft does Iran produce in numbers greater than 5?

I am not saying you are anybody’s representative here. I just question the claims that you put on a heavily read public forum, and the fact that you get defensive instead of stand behind your claims and answer shows how credible your claims are.

When you write here statements like “Iran is the number 10 military in the world” or “Iran has the 3rd largest helicopter fleet in the world” or “Iran has the second largest missiles after China” or “Iran exports aircraft”, someone will ask you to back it up. And if you don’t, any reasonable person will (rightfully) conclude that you don’t know what you are talking about.

Now let me answer a question you asked- about why Iran’s enemies are worried. The last thing Iran’s enemies are worried about are its armed forces. There is one thing that drives their fear- OIL. If that region did not have oil and an attack on Iran would not cause a spike in oil prices and threaten the world economy with depression, they would not even think twice about attacking. The only threat Iran poses to anybody militarily is its missile force, the use of which would cause a retaliation many many times more.
Anonymous1 said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:19 am

Listen, in Farsi he says his missiles are not the same as Peykan in quality. There is only two way about this; either Peykan is a low quality car, therefore his missiles are better OR, that Peykan is a high quality car, therefore his missiles are lower in quality. In any case, this was a vague and poor presentation by a person holding such a high office. This is not all that unusual from many of these thugs, who could never speak clearly 28 years ago and they have not changed much now, END OF DISCUSSION!

Do try to read the previous messages before asking questions about Arab-Iranian thugs. In my previous message I briefed the birth and early achievments of a shining example for you: IRGC, The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp. Arab-Iranian thugs are, in general, the fusion of Islamist Iranian and Islamist Arabs aspiring to form an Islamic state, since we have seen their handiwork in Iran, there is ample reason to call them THUGS!

So you figured there may be a few American thugs around, as well. What makes you think if there are American rapist thugs, then your countrymen are all innocent angeles ?

Yes, there are American murderers and thugs, about 1% of the population. But there is a difference:

The thugs in America are (not all but) mostly in jail. The prison guards are not allowed to rape and then shoot the female prisoners, not even in Guantanamo. The thugs who did so in Iraq are on trial already and more will go on trial. Unlike the islamic republic, which encouraged religion motivated murder, no judge in the civilised world has sent people to the firing squad for declaring themselves a non practicing muslim, but this happened in Evin, Karaj, Tabriz, Ghom and a few other places.

You should know that the Islamo-barbaric judges (Ghazi-e Shar-eh) were advocating the rape of the teens. Know why ? A virgin can never go to hell, ‘…rape them before shooting them so they will go to hell’. This is the legacy of the Irano-arabic thugs in ‘81-’83, and to a lesser extent today. Documented and filed by a number of governments and NGOs.
Anonymous3456 said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:19 am

To anonymous 1: Scathing rebuttle of this mozdoor bacheh agahzadeh ( aghazadeh). Please write your observations and history of what happened during the revolution and after. You should have your own blog. You’re one of the most informed posters on this site.
Anonymous1 said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:19 am

I would like to, when I get a chance.
In retrospect, keeping the dialogue open is more important. Although, the bitterness of our collective experience with Islamic republic may not be easy, or necessary to hide.

I am not making any assumptions about Ali, and wish him luck. I do understand, however, that many people born and raised in the Islamic system may not be aware of the bloody inception of this regime and the founding leaders. I will try to explain some of the early events, although somewhat anecdotally.
Hamvatan said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:20 am

he has “no time” and he does not respond to “essays” when he can not provide facts or proof to backup his claims. Please see this IRI by product’s views and beliefs on his holocust blog. He gives the exact answers and reasoning of the Antarinejad crowd. These Hezbolahis see the world only through the eyes of Islam (their interpretation of Islam that is). Their history starts 1400 years ago. They can not look back any further and they are trying to reinvent present history.

It is very scary to see what has happened to our fellow Iranians in the past 30 years. It is very scary and sad! A large part of our society has become extremely betamadon!
Anonymous1 said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:20 am

everything I said earlier about the crimes of this regime and the early days of the IRGC, I have witnessed myself, by close friends, or in Keyhan and Etela’at news papers at the time. This regime has committed these crimes and has bragged about them in public, throughout the world. Everyone knows. Which parts do you have trouble understanding ?
Anonymous1 said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:20 am

Hamvatan, consider this as performing public service; to educate and present facts. Engagement and dialogue is crucial. The alternative is antagonism and evetually death (marthyrdom), the ‘honor’ sought by islamists. We should uphold the historical facts and let people decide what they may. If they lose the battle of concious and embark on the path of death, then the world will bring them death.
Anonymous1 said,

on December 14th, 2007 at 10:22 am

I would like to add my 2 bit about the 1988 genocide which will take a few paragraphs. I think I will do so under a blog when I get a chance this weekend.

The fact that it was 20 years ago does not exonerate perpetrators of these crimes. Also, what goes on today is very much related to the events from ‘79 to now. Again, I’ll write it up in the next couple of day……back to work.

The Pages

The Search

The Associates

The Storage

The Categories

The Meta

Iran’s Shahab Missiles

40 Responses to 'Iran’s Shahab Missiles'

Leave a Reply