The Secret To Iranian Drone Technology? Just Add Photoshop

garymortimer writes "Earlier this month, Iran's news agency provided visual evidence that its government had figured out to make a fancy new drone that could take off and land vertically. What they didn't tell us is that they used Photoshop to make it stop taking off from the roof of Japan's Chiba University, which built the aircraft and never had anything to do with Iran's alleged version of it."

Comments

Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[crazyjj]

Though none of them are gay or drink alcohol, of course.

But seriously, everything Iran does these days is done with one thing in mind: sending the message that they're strong and won't be invaded easily. Their military bragging, their nuclear program, etc. are all aimed at this. That's why I don't worry about them nuking Israel of any of that nonsense. They're not crazy, they just want to make it clear that they're not going to be an easy pushover the way Saddamn Hussein was.

Look at it from their perspective. George W. Bush includes them as part of the "Axis of Evil" (and that speech one of the worst diplomatic blunders in the 21st century IMHO). Then he proceeds to invade one of the three members of said Axis, right next door. And this was just after the U.S. had invaded the country on the OTHER SIDE of them. It's little surprise that they went a little nuts and elected hardliners in the next election and really started ramping up their nuke program immediately following (or that North Korea followed suite). Let's face it, about the only way to ensure that the U.S. can't invade you is to have nukes.

Their nukes, their saber rattling, even their Photoshopping of fictional weapons--those aren't about Israel, they're about the U.S.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[zeroryoko1974]

Could have been shopped by the Chinese for them.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[FriendlyLurker]

They "they went a little nuts" and hardliners took power right after we brutally ransacked the country via a violent puppet regime.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[AntiBasic]

Oh yes, The shah was sooooo horrible compared to mossadegh who was friendly with the USSR. The islamists took power in 1979, not the decades prior. Your ilk is merely a cabal of useful idiots without a shred of historical perspective. Look at how the idiot liberals in Iran got "betrayed" by Khomeini right after taking power.

Stop blaming America for everything. Try to understand that history is more complicated than your cute little wikipedia articles.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing men walk hand-by-hand is common in Arabian streets.

That's not (always) because they're homosexual, men holding hands in Arabic culture is more an indicator of equality and that both are actually paying attention to what the other has to say than sexuality.

Not entirely unlike the behavioral difficulty when an Arabic person tries to confide in a foreigner, by getting REALLY up close, and the foreigner (who likes personal space or has had friends recently exploded) takes it the wrong way.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

What give the United States the right to decide who rules a country?

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[rahvin112]

Define "they". The US had a role in the Shah, primarily as an attempt to combat what they saw as a communist friendly regime, but the primary instigators of the Shah were the British who were trying to protect British Petroleum (formerly the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company) oil rights and revenues. Most of the worlds present conflicts tie back to historical meddling by European powers in the 19th and 20th centuries. US meddling started with the attempt to control the spread of communism and has persisted in various forms since but the primary conflicts of the present day are due to the former European actions.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[interval1066]

Being a player in geopolitics does, as it did the Soviet Union at the time. You have to remember during the Shah the US was embroiled in a deadly cold war with the SU. Every move in that war, including Iran, was a counter to some move the SU made. You can't look at the US as some lone power-hungry king maker in a vacuum, at least at that time.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[darkmeridian]

It is you who suffers from a lack of historical perspective, especially when you think you're so cute and intelligent for calling other people useful idiots. You imply the Mossadegh was a bad guy because he was friendly with the USSR, but you miss the fucking point that him being friendly with the USSR might be bad for the US, but it might have been good for Iran, you know, the country that he was leading.

The Shah was propped up by the United States, and his regime was brutal and corrupt. The Iranians supported Khomeini because of his anti-Western sentiment, which was there because, you know, we propped up a brutal and corrupt regime that had screwed their country over.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[tnk1]

Maybe. Honestly, I think the action we took was entirely legitimate as a course of action against the Soviet Union, and you can be sure that the Soviet Union would never have had a qualm about it. Nevertheless, valid actions for one purpose can have long term consequences that cannot be adequately foreseen at the time.

The Shah's regime was better than some, worse than others. They had a brutal secret police and persecutions of various left wingers and such. On the other hand, Iran had a very decent economy, more or less equal rights for women, and a Western outlook. If the Shah had been a better ruler, Iran could have probably eventually ended up like a South Korea or a Taiwan (other Western-aligned but not-quite free states in the past) and pulled out of their strongman state into something more constitutional and democratic.

Unfortunately, the more liberal elements, which could have been easily been influenced by the overthrow of Mossadegh, had their own Iranian Spring, and it turned out that they were betrayed by Khomeini and the religious leaders. In many ways, there are parallels between Iran and what is happening in Egypt right now, where relatively liberal protesters overthrow one dictator, only to see the Muslim Brotherhood in power. Obviously, it doesn't have to go down the same way, but the same off-ramp to a sharia state has now appeared in front of the Egyptians just like it did for the Iranians in 1979.

There are plenty of people who are mad at the US for supporting dictators, but the reality is that sometimes the only thing keeping a country's own population from turning their country into a pariah state is someone whose hand is on the wheel keeping it in line. Even in the developed world, we're only one or two bad democratic elections away from turning into aggressively expansionist or aggressively isolationist states. Usually the people are against wars like that in a democracy, but you beat them down enough and make them wish for control and the glory of victory over some external enemy, and it wouldn't take much for the armies to start marching.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[tnk1]

Iran isn't looking to attack. They're looking to make damn sure no one dares attack them.

Iran is definitely looking to attack. They're already attacking Israel with their own rockets by using their proxies in Hamas to do it.

Yes, Iran is not looking to start a war with the US or NATO. That would be moronic, and their leaders are not stupid. However, they are plenty interested in regional dominance, and they can't play that game until the US and the West can be deterred from a war with them.

Right now, Iran has the ability to shut down the Persian Gulf to shipping with anti-shipping missiles at the Straits of Hormuz, and the only thing preventing them from using that leverage against the Arab states and the West is the US guaranteeing the free passage of international waters through there. That is why the US has a very powerful naval presence in the Gulf. If Iran started firing on ships now, the US would probably launch air strikes on the missile sites and bomb Iranian military bases to end the threat. If Iran had nuclear weapons, the US would have to think at least twice about that course of action. The tension would be similar to something like the Cuban Missile Crisis because the US could not allow Iran to hold the world's oil hostage, but at the same time, they don't want to see mushroom clouds over Israel (or even the US, if Iranian ballistic missiles get to that point).

Let's be clear, two big states with nuclear weapons did not end wars in the 20th Century, all they did was move the wars away from the major powers into the smaller countries that were used as pawns. Iran doesn't purely want "safety" from the US, it wants a free hand to act.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[MightyMartian]

The Iranians supported Khomeini because they thought he would just fade into the background, which is basically what he promised. When he arrived in Iran, he used his influence to squash any notion of a democratic and modern state and used the same kinds of goons the Shah had used to continue, and in fact deepen the oppression.

One can say a helluva lot of bad things against the Shah, but at least the man had a progressive vision. Khomeini, on the other hand, was a power hungry religious fanatic determined to turn back the clock. I doubt there are many Iranians of the Revolution generation who probably feel inviting Khomeini back to Iran was a very good idea.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[interval1066]

It was only a deadly cold war in the eyes of the paranoid retard leaders in the US and USSR.

You seem to believe that the cold war could have been avoided had the US (and I supose the USSR) "done things differently"? Of course. But you types seem to be perfectly happy to rest the fault of that era soley on a very simplistic view of the world at that time. And it is, but to colour the US as wholly or mostly complicate is to completely misunderstand the cold war and how it started.
The Cold War is completely and wholly the fault of one Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin. His meglo paranoia led him to slaughter whole regions of his own country, swallow up whole countries out of eastern europe, and start fucking with other countries' politics behind the scenes. If you look at the stance and shape of eastern europe right after WWII its most obviously the stance of a defendable fortress whose enemy is directly from the west. This is the construction of an increadibly paranoid mind that controls the entire economy of the east. As proof I offer history as well as the outcome of the cuban missle crisis. Can you imagine the soviet ships turning back had Stalin still been in power? The cold war for the west was a response to a very diseased, paranoid mind armed with nukes, that's all. The US is not blameless, but less blameful than you seem to think.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[interval1066]

you have no damn clue what you're talking about

Oh? Well, enlighten me, oh scholar?

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[fyngyrz]

Being a player in geopolitics [give the US the right to decide who rules a country],

No. You're confusing the willingness to arbitrarily use power in service of one's own goals with the right to do so, which can only come from consent of the governed, which the US most assuredly did not get from Iranians, or pretty much anyone else it has interfered with.

Please stop doing that.

Aside from being wrong, it blinds you to why other countries resent the US, and why they feel they have legitimate reasons to act against US interests.

Our rights-free meddling has almost entirely stripped the legitimacy from our foreign policy.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[fyngyrz]

Why shouldn't we support someone favorable to our interests over someone favorable to our enemies?

There's a significant difference between "support" and "install by force."

As to why, once you really annoy them by imposing your will by force, they tend to respond. Not necessarily in ways you will see as reasonable or balanced. Like flying into buildings, killing thousands of people. At which point tertiary consequences arise, such as your own government going dumb-fuck-insane, stomping all over your constitutional rights, impeding travel, and generally fucking up life for everyone.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Runaway1956]

Stop blaming America?

I'm an American, and I've studied Operation Ajax. An awful damned lot of what is wrong in Iran is our fault. And, it was all done for the sake of saving a few cents on oil. Not dollars, but cents. Ajax happened just a little before I was born. Gasoline was selling for about twenty cents per gallon. Quarts of oil were little more than a gallon of gas - maybe a quarter. Crude was cheap, cheap, cheap back then.

And, we destroyed a legitimate democracy for the sake of the company that is now known as British Petroleum, or BP.

Profits before anything.

Capitalists can mock Iran, Iranian culture, camel jockeys, and anything else they care to mock. But, we murdered a legitimate democracy for the sake of oil profits, then we installed that puppet who eventually caused the revolution.

Go ahead, put the blame on the rag heads - no good capitalist is ever to blame for anything.

Iran and China, Best Buds for Life

[Revotron]

Nonsense, that photo isn't doctored. I heard that in building their new drone, Iran licensed the same technology that China used to build levitating engineers.

I call BS

[slashmydots]

Pics or it didn't happen! Oh wait...

So they don't want to show the "real thing" ?

[dryriver]

Iran's press service was probably given instructions to report on a new VTOL drone, without having been given actual images of said drone. So the press agency went online, found a drone image it liked, photoshopped out some wind turbines in the image, and ran the story that way... The "digital deed" in question may even be the handywork of a young intern at Iran's press agency, told to illustrate a story for which no real images exist. ---- Either way, I don't see why this is "big news" in any way. Its not as if the U.S. releases pictures of all its new military toys. Like the mysterious stealth chopper that crashed during the Abbottabad raid...

Re:So they don't want to show the "real thing" ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The USSR bluffed up its military by having dramatic parades of missile launchers (where the parade was just long enough that it could circle around 4 times to impress the spies in the crowd).

Iran bluffs up it military with photoshop.

North Korea skips the whole idea of bluffing up the military, but the Dear Leader is an excellent dancer.

China bluffs down their military, because some of them actually read "The Art of War." (makes sense, their ancestors wrote it)

The USA bluffs up, down and sideways its military without any effort by telling various press and blog factions "I am unable to confirm or deny that claim."

Japan just builds the giant robots "for peaceful purposes only."

TinEye

[MyLongNickName]

So, basically the secret to uncovering this is http://www.tineye.com/

Re:This reminds me of...

[fatphil]

Yeah, the Top Gun ones were funny! The level of gullability of some people is incredible.

But my favourites are the NASA moon landing ones! To all intensive purposes, that's never been bettered.