What Is Iran`s Emad Ballistic Missile Test Message after Nuclear Deal?
Emad missile`s objective is to present a post-strategic approach to ballistic missiles by indicating that although ballistic missiles themselves have a half-deterrence capability, but in case of adherence of countries to nuclear non-proliferation norms and treaty, not only their missile development as Inherently defensive weapons is not dangerous, but it is also a strategic support for nuclear arms non-proliferation norms,Hassan Molaii Arms Control and Disarmament Diplomacy expert wrote for Basirat.ir.
It is important to ask ourselves: what is Emad`s objective? Emad`s objective is to amend the discriminatory international security traditions. In this view, Emad intermediate-range ballistic missile doesn`t have very complex design and capabilities, but it is Emad`s diplomatic objective which is very complex. Therefore, Emad was not tested in order to target any country`s territory, but to target the enemy`s false perception of the non-proliferation concept.
We know that the non-proliferation concept is merely based on unacceptable features of the weapons of mass destruction, particularly on unacceptable destruction caused by the nuclear weapons as well as inhuman injuries resulting from the use of chemical and biologic weapons.
In this approach, this regime seems a wise one; one that every sane man would follow and support.
After the cold war and the birth of a unipolar world, however, past consultative international regimes were replaced by coercive, discriminatory regimes that use to threaten the national security of regional powers. On this basis, the United States intends to exclude or expel regional powers from participating in international regime-building processes concerning the international security, by imputing such concepts as rogue states or axis of evil to some countries which are against the present discriminatory trend.
It`s quite a simple matter: you can bargain about the types of weapons, but you can`t negotiate the national security of any country. Consequently, while almost every country in the world has accepted the weapons of mass destruction non-proliferation regime except the Zionist regime, all of them are against the expanding of the norms governing the weapons of mass destruction to include other conventional weapons, and therefore the applying of any new norms regarding conventional weapons must be negotiated globally in a place such as the UNGA, and by considering every country`s concerns about the issue.
bearing in mind this issue and by cooperating with like-minded governments, as an effort to present a non-discriminatory trend or approach concerning missiles, the Islamic Republic of Iran proposed "missile in all aspects resolution” to the UNGA, one which was approved. However, as it is indicated in some reports presented to the secretary-general of the UNGA by the governmental experts` panel, attention must be paid to some serious basic disagreements among countries regarding missiles in the
Should missiles be addressed in themselves or purely as delivery vehicles for weapons of mass destruction (priority)? Which categories of missiles from among an extraordinarily diverse spectrum from shoulder-fired rockets to intercontinental ballistic missiles should be addressed (comprehensiveness)? Should arrangements necessarily involve the entire international community or only some States (universality)?
Apart from that, past conflicts have shown that not only are the air-raids by airplanes far more destructive than the missile attacks, but also high-range bombers the most suitable delivery vehicles for weapons of mass destruction, both with respect to design and capabilities. Then why should only missiles be made to seem dangerous? Is it only because they are available for the weak? Whereas no missiles have been launched until today equipped with a nuclear warhead due to missiles` technical deficiencies, the United States` strategic bombers have already air-raided Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs. As a result, it should be noted that non-nuclear countries have their own concerns about the unpredictable behavior of the United States regarding this field, thus there is a powerful reason for imposing limitations on the production of bombers as vehicles particularly designed for delivering weapons of mass destruction, and also for taking the first step to nuclear disarmament of nuclear countries by citation to Article VI of the NPT.
However, since the production of modern bombers is only limited to super-powers due to its requirement of high technological levels as well as enormous costs, it is natural that these super-powers are unwilling to accept such limitations. Also because of the dependence on these powers, international organizations are unable to fulfill the demands of international society regarding this matter.
In this regard, Emad missile`s objective is to present a post-strategic approach to ballistic missiles by indicating that although ballistic missiles themselves have a half-deterrence capability, but in case of adherence of countries to nuclear non-proliferation norms and treaty, not only their missile development as Inherently defensive weapons is not dangerous, but it is also a strategic support for nuclear arms non-proliferation norms.
Indeed no capable country would waive its right for deterrence under any circumstances, but would at first try to achieve it at a minimum cost by causing minimum tension, and this is the legitimate right of every country to develop conventional weapons, but if countries` right for development of conventional weapons should be confronted by limitations and costs, not only will it not empower the non-proliferation norms, but also undermine the logical, normative and legal bases of non- proliferation.
Therefore the Islamic Republic of Iran, besides from its commitments to the JCPOA, tries to draw a valid legal border between the conventional weapons and the weapons of mass destruction and as a role model, withdraw from the international agenda the dependence of emerging powers on weapons of mass destruction to deterrence as before, and hence should be supported by international society.
Otherwise, if as a strategic support for long-term implementation of the JCPOA, the Islamic Republic of Iran`s missile program become subjected to sanctions resulting from silly pretexts mostly made for war making motives, these sanctions will be harmful to reasonable will of long term implementation of JCPOA commitments, that would in turn put the international society into crisis. In this view, the Islamic Republic of Iran`s missile program should be explained in framework of strategic, long term support for the JCPOA as well as international peace and security, and we should count on the hope that other emerging regional powers would never depend on weapons of mass destruction as means of deterrence, until the complete and universal disarmament for achieving fair international peace and security has been reached.
Hassan Molaii is graduated in the field of Arms Control and Disarmament Diplomacy from MUT and the main interest of the author is the study of non-proliferation norms and international peace and security.