Iran Launches Payload into Space

An anonymous reader writes "BBC is reporting that Iran has launched its first space rocket carrying a payload. Britain's former ambassador to Iran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC that, if confirmed, such a move could destabilise the Middle East: "It is a matter of concern. Iran's potential nuclear military programme, combined with an advanced missile capability, would destabilise the region, and of course if there were a bomb that could be placed on the end of this missile, it would in breach of Iran's obligations under the non-proliferation treaty." From the article: Iranian TV broke the news of the reported test saying :"The first space rocket has been successfully launched into space. It quoted the head of Iran's aerospace research centre, Mohsen Bahrami, as saying that "the rocket was carrying material intended for research created by the ministries of science and defence". In 2005, Iran's Russian-made satellite was put into orbit by a Russian rocket. But shortly afterwards Iranian military officials said they were preparing a satellite launch vehicle of their own and last month, they announced they were ready to test it soon."

Comments

Re:So...

[Bob Gelumph]

Why is this such a big deal?
Why can't Iran do all the things that the U.S. do all the time?
What is the problem with Iran investing in nuclear research and space technologies?
The U.S. has said that they basically don't give a shit about international treaties about the militarisation of space, and all Iran has done is launch a satellite and this is some big event?
The U.S. is still the only country to use a nuclear weapon on another country, so I'd highly recommend they stop their own "posturing" until they get some credibility.

I dunno...

[FatSean]

Probably because Iran has supported coups in other nations...no...US does that too..

Probably because Iran ignores the Geneva Conventions with regard to prisoners...no..US does that too...

Probably because Iran makes veiled threats to use Nuclear weapons if diplomatic demands are not met...no...US does that too...

I guess you're right!

Re:I dunno...

[shutdown -p now]

Probably because Iran has openly stated its desire to wipe Israel off the map should it ever have the means to do so. I'm not a big fan of US foreign policy, but I don't recall them ever making such statements.

Not to mention that Iran is widely known to fund and train terroristic organisations. Not the kind Bush scared everyone when he needed excuse for Iraq, but the real guys - Hezbollah, Hamas... how'd you feel about one or both of those getting an ICBM with a nuclear warhead at their disposal?

Re:I dunno...

[ultranova]

Iran is very, very close to "the bomb", or may already have it. US military intelligence has the exact locations of numerous nuclear facilities, which is why the Stennis aircraft carrier group was just moved withing striking distance.

And will these weapons of mass destruction actually be found this time ? Or is this just another lie to justify starting a war ? You know, the kind US used to justify attacking Iraq ? Maybe I'm too cynical, but I really don't think that US's claims about a country US has declared to be in the "Axis of Evil" are worth the paper they are written on.

But of course Iran is likely to either have the bomb or be developing it in a desperate race against time; after all, it is pretty obvious they'll be invaded next and their only hope to prevent that is to get a nuclear deterrent. That's why no amount of financial or other kind of pressure will stop them: they either do it or they'll get conquered and decimated, it's a matter of survival.

Yet another briliant strategic move from Bush, worthy of Paula herself. Let's see if the guy can actually start World War 3 before his term runs out. He's trying hard, at the very least...

Re:I dunno...

[Arker]

There's a really big difference between the two phrases. More than one, actually.

"Israel" could refer to the entire state, or its citizens. It can be interpreted in genocidal terms. What was actually said, however, was the occupying regime - a very different thing.

And for the verbal portion, "wipe off the map" is an English term that carries a rather violent connotation, again it can even imply genocide. The actual Farsi phrase used has no such connotation, it's more equivelent to the English phrase 'this too shall pass.'

So the bad translation wasn't 'tomeytoe tomahtoe' as you try to paint it, and it wasn't just a bad translation either. It was deliberately misleading. Reading the 'translation' that's been plastered all over our media, you hear violent, possibly genocidal threats against a nation. Read the original, or a decent translation, instead, and what you find is merely disapproval of a particular government, and faith that justice will eventually prevail over it.

Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ?

[Sj0]

Remember the history between Iran and the United States. About 50 years ago, the US went out and knocked out a 'too left' democratic government. About 25 years ago, the US gave weapons to Iraq to attack Iran, supporting a decade-long war. Today, Iran is supposedly next on the hitlist in the 'war on terror'.

If I were Iranian, I'd be pissed off at the Americans too! I'd be sitting there going "They're out to get us! They're terrorists and fascists!" too! I'd be working on getting the only weapon in the world powerful enough to get the US to stay it's hand too!

History: It doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme. If you refuse to learn about history, then you've got no foundation to build solid beliefs upon.