Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

[QWECXZ]

The price happens to be an integral part of the equation. It makes no sense to say "they can do it but they consider the price to be prohibitive, so Iran will lose / has lost". Actually, this is in line with what I wrote above: that the US has no cost-effective military option. If it's too costly, then they will not attack. And it's too costly precisely because Iran's military prowess will extract that heavy price from them. This is called deterrence.



It's not containment when Iran's reach has kept expanding for the past four decades. Also, the US's strategic goal is not to simply contain Iran: it is to finish Iran off.



All is far from being good for the US. The imperial oligarchy does not consider this status quo with Iran as satisfactory. It has no tolerance for independent states, let alone one that is seriously challenging their interests. Hence why they're going out of their way to exploit every realistic means at their disposal to achieve "regime change" in Iran. But are failing at it.



I addressed this above: by killers, the previous administration was meant, those who were directly involved in it. No negotiation took place with the Trump regime, and its attempts to force Iran back to the table were definitely unsuccessful.



JCPOA limitations were reversed to a significant extent, and surely that's not what the US was aiming for. So to me that equals another failure of the so-called "maximum pressure" policy of Trump.

Either way, the assassination of martyr Soleimani did really nothing to limit Iran's nuclear program, did it? Iran returning to the negotiation table has nothing to do with the assassination. QED.

You are missing the whole point of this "price" theory, I guess. All of that is based on the assumption that your opponent is a rational player. And "price" is a relative concept. What will happen when an irrational player like Trump takes power and he finds billions of dollars of damage and thousands of dead US soldiers a reasonable price to pay for completely neutralizing Iran's threat for a foreseeable future? Or even worse: a psychopath like Pompeo becomes the next POTUS. I have said it and I will repeat it again that Trump is in fact an angel when it comes to psychopath scumbags like Pompeo. And you think it is totally impossible for someone like Pompeo to become the next US president?

Iran hasn't expanded much in the last 10 years. Expanded in what sense exactly? Iran's economic growth has been halted since 2009. Our progress in science has been slowed down (partly due to the previous administration). One of our strategic allies in the region is in the middle of a civil war that seems endless and it cannot stand on its own feet yet. Our influence in Iraq surely has decreased, even though it remains very strong but it is nowhere near what it was before the assassination of Gen. Soleimani.

I am surprised that a person like you is unaware of the US regime change plans. The US is not seeking a military option with Iran because as I told you, there's no reason for that. Iran is a country of 85 million people that can defend itself to the point of inflicting hundred billions of dollars of damage to US assets and interests and a ground invasion of Iran is out of question. Iran is not an existential threat to the US and it cannot be anything like that for foreseeable future. You can chant "Down with the US" all you want but you cannot do anything to the US territory as we all know it (or at least anyone with a functioning brain knows). The US has chosen a different path. The US is using her media and cultural dominance to turn Iranians against their own country and they are focusing on civil disobedience, riots and ethnic tensions. Meanwhile, US sanctions ensure that Iran's growth will be halted and Iran will never dominate the Middle East. At the very same time, the US is stealing Iran's money under a unilateral sanction regime that is not even UN approved anymore but they have successfully convinced their allies to abide by them. It is not the US that should be dissatisfied with the status quo for sure.

General McKenzie, the US CENTCOM's commander that oversaw the US assassination of Gen. Soleimani under the Trump administration continues to be here in our region. If you want to say that the previous administration is out and now it's OK to sit at the negotiating table with the Americans, then sorry, but that's really lame.

Some of the JCPOA limitations are still in place. What happened to kicking the IAEA inspectors out? I thought we had an ultimatum and we were supposed to reduce IAEA inspections? Even the new administration has not fully executed the parliament's nuclear resolution.

What did Gen. Soleimani have to do with Iran's nuclear program? I never linked the two, I have no idea why you think his death must have an impact on our nuclear program.

@Arash1991 @Mata Elang @SalarHaqq We're off topic here. If you want to continue this discussion, mention me in the Iranian Chill Thread please.

 

[Mata Elang]

You are joking. Right? Please tell me that you are joking.
You are seriously talking about US ICBMs and equalizing them? As if that mattered? Iran just needs to equalize that? Please tell me you are joking.

Dude, the US has like 80 nukes stationed right here in our neighborhood in Turkey. How much do you think it takes for those missiles to reach Tehran? 5 minutes? The US carrier groups carry Tomahawk missiles which are capable of carrying nuclear warheads if needed. The US has over tens of stealth strategic bombers and tens of other non-stealth strategic bombers that each are capable of carrying a payload of over 20 tonnes. How do you want to equalize that when you cannot mass produce even F-5 at home after decades? Add to this their submarines that are capable of launching nuclear missiles. Are you f*cking kidding me?

Stop talking about equalizing the United States. It's ridiculous. All of these toys that currently Iran possess (and yeah, they are game changing weapons that can definitely hurt US interests in the region) are good only for a regional conflict. The US will remain out of our reach and we can never equalize their military prowess in our life times. Maybe 100 years later, who knows? But certainly not in our life times.

Israel is a different matter though. Israel lacks strategic depth and it's a small nation with limited resources. It doesn't take much to finish them off. But the US is a completely different beast. But even Israel is armed with strategic nukes in the order of hundreds of megatonnes and that gives them complete deterrence against Iran.

Now you are starting to look confused. How far is Turkey to Iran? the answer is 0 meters. If Traitor Turkey dares to give US permission to launch nuclear weapons from its territory into Iran, then Turkey must be prepared to feel a nuclear shock and become uninhabitable. Aircraft carriers, heavy bombers, stealth aircraft? Are you kidding? Even the US aircraft carriers do not dare to enter the Persian Gulf region, if it is proven that the US aircraft carriers launched nuclear weapons, Iran does not need to use BM with conventional warheads to destroy them but uses nuclear warheads. US heavy bombers will no longer be able to fly within 500 km of the Iranian border. Stealth aircraft? Are you kidding me again, I'm telling you they're not exactly stealth, and Iranian radars have proven that they detect and take them down. One more thing before their stealth planes fly, they will be destroyed at their base. You keep shouting incoherently and worshiping the US empire too much. Even a mighty lion could be killed by 100 bees that were 100,000 thousand smaller in size.

 

[QWECXZ]

Now you are starting to look confused. How far is Turkey to Iran? the answer is 0 meters. If Traitor Turkey dares to give US permission to launch nuclear weapons from its territory into Iran, then Turkey must be prepared to feel a nuclear shock and become uninhabitable. Aircraft carriers, heavy bombers, stealth aircraft? Are you kidding? Even the US aircraft carriers do not dare to enter the Persian Gulf region, if it is proven that the US aircraft carriers launched nuclear weapons, Iran does not need to use BM with conventional warheads to destroy them but uses nuclear warheads. US heavy bombers will no longer be able to fly within 500 km of the Iranian border. Stealth aircraft? Are you kidding me again, I'm telling you they're not exactly stealth, and Iranian radars have proven that they detect and take them down. One more thing before their stealth planes fly, they will be destroyed at their base. You keep shouting incoherently and worshiping the US empire too much. Even a mighty lion could be killed by 100 bees that were 100,000 thousand smaller in size.

No, you sound confused actually.
If they nuke Tehran, no nuclear fallout would reach Turkey. Not even close. Please do some research before saying uneducated things like this. Radiation won't go beyond normal levels even in the easternmost regions of Turkey. At most, they'll have to take iodine tablets but even that would probably not be necessary. Even Tabriz would be more or less safe, let alone Turkey.

Dude, what nuclear warheads are you talking about? Since when Iran has nuclear warheads? That's the whole point of my discussion. Iran needs nuclear warheads. Ever heard of B-2 Spirit? Do you know its operational range? Do you think the US needs to enter the Persian Gulf to nuke Iran?

 

[Mata Elang]

No, you sound confused actually.
If they nuke Tehran, no nuclear fallout would reach Turkey. Not even close. Please do some research before saying uneducated things like this. Radiation won't go beyond normal levels even in the easternmost regions of Turkey. At most, they'll have to take iodine tablets but even that would probably not be necessary. Even Tabriz would be more or less safe, let alone Turkey.

Dude, what nuclear warheads are you talking about? Since when Iran has nuclear warheads? That's the whole point of my discussion. Iran needs nuclear warheads. Ever heard of B-2 Spirit? Do you know its operational range? Do you think the US needs to enter the Persian Gulf to nuke Iran?

See, you don't understand what I'm saying, If Turkey allows the US to launch nuclear weapons from its territory, then Iran has the right to destroy Turkey with nuclear weapons too, remember Turkey's distance is 0 meters from the Iranian border, so Iran only takes seconds not minutes. You were the first to speak! You said even if Iran had ICBMs with nuclear warheads, they could not win against the US (then I answered your statement). Are you blind Iran has blatantly enriched 60% uranium, and that's not including the secret. B-2 Spirits? Did you not read what I wrote above?

 

[Titanium100]

While Iran is in the process of enriching its uranium and is therefore the actor that controls time (through the continuous enrichment of uranium) and is also the one that can vary the pressure at will and at the same time has countries like Russia and China on its side (this is due to the misbehavior of the West in Ukraine, among others), the West has no other option than to accept any condition of Iran that is not worth a war. This is also the reason why the West initially wanted to include militias and missile program in the negotiations and has now reached a point where they are only satisfied that Iran cannot build the bomb in the foreseeable future. So they are satisfied only with their minimum goal and had to deviate from all other points while Iran can hold on to all other points. That Iran is in the stronger negotiating position was also clear before the current negotiations because the West can no longer dictate the pace of the negotiations. Iran controls and dominates the negotiation like a strong soccer team playing against a second division team. Iran knows full well that the West has no leverage except war (which is not even sure of its outcome) and war is an option that the West could only implement if Iran did not meet the West's ultimate demand. Iran controls the time and thus the speed of the negotiations. Iran has all the leverage in its hand while the West has only the ultima ratio leverage which cannot be used for trivialities. And up to this limit, Iran will play the game down to the end.

Now to the military option: I don't have to say much about that, do I? Either you don't have any technical understanding, or you only read the cuddly toy department in this forum or what? But you have to browse around here a bit to read that this option would simply paralyze half the world.

I don't think you fully comprehend the military dynamics because a ground incursion will be a bonafida success without much issues and I mean as in liberation village by village it is conventionally achievable a multiple front storm from multiple sectors and after army is grinded down a civilian guerrila insurgency will emerge from different pockets subdue'ing them could take 2 years it won't be high intensity insurgency tho..

Israel is pushing for this type of invasion but some are holding this on pause because there is benefit in Iran for them and they hold all the keys for an easy successful invasion meaning they have the conventional manpower needed.. Iran has created nuclear proliferation in the region and honestly deal or no JCPOA it is the same shxt the profileration has started and in advantage for the region which means everyone will get his for asurance and it is not debatable.. The only thing that can reverse this is an invasion into Iran itself as the last option in 2025.. The profileration benefits them more in the long term so I could see them holding on pause an invasion until everyone gets what he wants which is the bomb and the region could become major power in the long term if things easily play out like that you can remove iran today but your future could be brighter like the shinning stars so you allow competition to silently go ahead..

 

[QWECXZ]

See, you don't understand what I'm saying, If Turkey allows the US to launch nuclear weapons from its territory, then Iran has the right to destroy Turkey with nuclear weapons too, remember Turkey's distance is 0 meters from the Iranian border, so Iran only takes seconds not minutes. You were the first to speak! You said even if Iran had ICBMs with nuclear warheads, they could not win against the US (then I answered your statement). Are you blind Iran has blatantly enriched 60% uranium, and that's not including the secret. B-2 Spirits? Did you not read what I wrote above?

You want to nuke Turkey with what? Your imagination? Iran has no nukes. That's the whole f*cking point of my posts.

The whole point of discussion is that Iran must obtain nuclear weapons. Even in your initial comment you said that you didn't disagree with it, which proves that it was the main point of the discussion.

You didn't say nuclear ICBMs, you said ICBMs. You said all Iran had to do was to equalize our number of ICBMs with the US! But even with nuclear ICBMs, Iran would lose to the US in a nuclear war for obvious reasons. Not only Iran, even China would lose. Russia can defeat the US, but that's it. No other country can come close to the US nuclear capabilities except for Russia. But the point is that a nuclear war where both sides are armed with +100 kilotonne weapons is incredibly unlikely to the point that one could claim it's impossible. Look at North Korea for example. They have an outdated army that stands no chance against even South Korea, yet even the US does not dare to mess with them.

What good is 60% enrichment if Iran does not plan to use it for nuclear bombs? What civilian application does 60% enrichment have for Iran at this moment? We don't have nuclear submarines. We don't have reactors that use 60%-enriched uranium. This whole 60% move is in fact quite stupid and lame if it's not meant for nuclear bargaining or nuclear weapons because if we don't use it for building nukes, we'll have to eventually dilute it back to 3.5% or 20% for using it in fuel rods or send it abroad after a new deal. And in reality, it doesn't reduce Iran's breakout time that much. 20% enrichment is much more useful than 60% enrichment. This 60% figure is rather a political statement than one with technical justifications in reality.

And please let's continue this discussion in the Iranian Chill Thread. We are off topic here.

 

[serenity]

There is a lot of "I think" in your post and not a lot of evidence. Why would China be fearful of "regional players"? Doesn't China also supply some of these "regional players" with lethal weapons as well? Isn't China in cold war with some of these "regional players"? Hasn't China also helped North Korea with their BM program, and they actually have nukes?

I admit when I say I think that this is purely personal take and no evidence. Otherwise I would not say I think.

In fact you owe yourself some modesty and admit the same. Everything you said... is it not also your totally unfounded opinion?

At least I gave my reasons. And here I will explain them again.

China doesn't like regional players friends or foe to have strategic weapons. China may have sold or given North Korea a version of DF-ZF HGV. This is possible but this means it is controlled by China is it not the case? How those North Korean HGV are launched (if given or sold to them by China) is decided by China. In fact the whole point of that may have been to be able to give Japan an escalation but without tying to back to China. As in the HGV weapons may be used in case Japan decides to get more involved with Taiwan, then North Korea on China's behalf (but without the connection) may be using HGV to attack Japan in a counter escalation move.

Have you noticed yet? This HGV (if sold to or given) is not developed by North Korea and if it was developed by North Korea alone, then it is shown again that China didn't help with them and clearly would prefer that regional players do not have high end strategic weapons.

China did not help North Korea with their nuclear program. China was extremely opposed to it and disliked North Korea gaining nuclear ability without direct Chinese control... unlike any case of Chinese given HGV to NK. There is no benefit to China with a nuclear armed NK. It only makes strategic calculus more complicated and unpredictable elements introduced while the inherent dangers with nukes exist.

Why would China help Iran with ballistic missiles?? That is up to you to prove not me.

I already explained that there is a big difference between weapons like SAMs and anti ship missiles and ballistic missiles. An arms dealer may sell you a pistol but that doesn't mean they will sell you a nuke even though both can be described as "deadly".

Sorry but I dont see any logic in why China wouldn't help Iran, considering both Iran and China know full well they won't be used against China but rather against a common enemy. China doesn't particularly care about angering "regional players", when it openly takes very sensitive intellectual property from "regional players" and uses it openly on their domestic goods.

What? Iranian regional ranged weapons won't be used against China yes with 99.999% certainty for foreseeable future but can you say the same for the next 500 years?

No one knows how these relations develop over time. Hopefully no need to war and tensions and hopefully peace between China and Iran till a stage when humans do not need such weapons. BUT you cannot be sure of any of this.

Also what common enemy? Israel? Saudi Arabia? Neither of those are Chinese enemies. China should not get involved in those politics. The more politicized a country becomes, the worse off it will become. And those things China needs to stay as far away from as possible. As for USA? Well those missiles cannot reach USA. So tell me which "common enemy" they are to be used on? I didn't say Iran will attack China with them. FAR from that! I said China like every other country, does not like regional neighbors to have very advanced strategic weapons whether those neighbors are friends or foe... of course rather they are friends but the rule is a principle with clear and obvious logic. No point your neighbors have strong weapons even if they are friendly neighbors because it NEVER benefits you. Therefore why would China have helped Iran with HGV?

If Iran were to be attacked it would totally be in China's interest for Iran to be able to defend itself so I dont see why ToT of HGV shouldn't happen to a non-nuclear 3rd world country. I know you want to paint a picture of China being forced to deal with Iran, but the fact China has signed a 25 year deal with Iran, defends Iran better than Russia in UNSC and nuclear talks, and is in a cold war with the west pours cold water on this. China and Iran are close allies, whereas China and these "regional players" are merely business partners. Massive difference.

Yes I agree. But this can mean other types and forms of support. If China directly gave them those missiles, then I can see the logic but here Iran can make those missiles themselves and these missiles are their own types. It shows they have independently already mastered the missile and HGV tech in this form. This contradicts what I said above about okay with giving it directly and then controlling use (like what could have been the case for NK) and no okay with allowing a regional neighbor to master the thing and be able to do it themselves. Therefore again it's unlike China to do such a thing. Selling anti-ship missiles and fast attack boats is not the same as selling or ToT on strategic weapons.

 

[Mata Elang]

You want to nuke Turkey with what? Your imagination? Iran has no nukes. That's the whole f*cking point of my posts.

The whole point of discussion is that Iran must obtain nuclear weapons. Even in your initial comment you said that you didn't disagree with it, which proves that it was the main point of the discussion.

You didn't say nuclear ICBMs, you said ICBMs. You said all Iran had to do was to equalize our number of ICBMs with the US! But even with nuclear ICBMs, Iran would lose to the US in a nuclear war for obvious reasons. Not only Iran, even China would lose. Russia can defeat the US, but that's it. No other country can come close to the US nuclear capabilities except for Russia. But the point is that a nuclear war where both sides are armed with +100 kilotonne weapons is incredibly unlikely to the point that one could claim it's impossible. Look at North Korea for example. They have an outdated army that stands no chance against even South Korea, yet even the US does not dare to mess with them.

What good is 60% enrichment if Iran does not plan to use it for nuclear bombs? What civilian application does 60% enrichment have for Iran at this moment? We don't have nuclear submarines. We don't have reactors that use 60%-enriched uranium. This whole 60% move is in fact quite stupid and lame if it's not meant for nuclear bargaining or nuclear weapons because if we don't use it for building nukes, we'll have to eventually dilute it back to 3.5% or 20% for using it in fuel rods or send it abroad after a new deal. And in reality, it doesn't reduce Iran's breakout time that much. 20% enrichment is much more useful than 60% enrichment. This 60% figure is rather a political statement than one with technical justifications in reality.

And please let's continue this discussion in the Iranian Chill Thread. We are off topic here.

Well, it seems you didn't read carefully. Try to read slowly and try to understand the whole, so that your speech does not go round and round and wishy-washy. Just look at the example of your comment about Iran's 60% nuclear enrichment, you look confused and making it up. Haven't you read, this comment of yours actually reinforces the allegation that Iran has nuclear weapons. With 60% enrichment Iran could have increased it much faster to 90% or maybe Iran already has 90% enrichment in a secret underground, (remember this is Raesi's hardline government, which has said it doesn't care if the JCPOA talks fail). Why did Iran make the super-fast IR-9 advanced centrifuge, if Iran only enriched 3.5% (following the JCPOA)? The answer is obvious if you try to reflect on it more deeply.

 

[Stryker1982]

I do believe the Haj Qasem missile is still being mass-produced, since as far as I understand, it is supposed to be Iran’s primary Israel-range missile for its underground missile canisters. When the missile was unveiled it got mentioned that a future version of Haj Qasem could have an extended range of 1800 km, for which most likely a HGV similar to the one demonstrated with Kheybar-Shekan would be necessary.

The reason I am suspicious is because I see no reason to produce it when the Kheybar-Shekan can be produced faster, cheaper and is lighter with the same or similar range. KS should be suitable for canister launch as well.

Maybe the version unveiled is under production but it's not deployed until it's range can be extended to 1800km using a conical or maybe if we are surprised, a wedge shaped glider. The glider for the KS, is clearly superior to the original HQ that was shown.

 

[Stryker1982]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1492589466229346304

View attachment 814953View attachment 814954View attachment 814955

How long you guys think this missile has been fully developed and deployed?

I'd wage 2 years perhaps assuming this is only a small part of the inventory.

They took their time unveiling this one lol.

 

[Hack-Hook]

How long you guys think this missile has been fully developed and deployed?

I'd wage 2 years perhaps assuming this is only a small part of the inventory.

They took their time unveiling this one lol.

honnestly I doubt that , other wise there was no reason to build Haj Qasem ( well actually there is one and that's faster reentry )
my guess is they built Haj Qasem but some newer technology become ready and since then they saw by applying those technologies to Dezful they can build a similar missile but a more mobile and far cheaper one so they changed production line to Kheybar-Shekan .
the missile must be fairly (some time after Haj- Qasem so I doubt the inventory is much larger at the time

 

[QWECXZ]

Well, it seems you didn't read carefully. Try to read slowly and try to understand the whole, so that your speech does not go round and round and wishy-washy. Just look at the example of your comment about Iran's 60% nuclear enrichment, you look confused and making it up. Haven't you read, this comment of yours actually reinforces the allegation that Iran has nuclear weapons. With 60% enrichment Iran could have increased it much faster to 90% or maybe Iran already has 90% enrichment in a secret underground, (remember this is Raesi's hardline government, which has said it doesn't care if the JCPOA talks fail). Why did Iran make the super-fast IR-9 advanced centrifuge, if Iran only enriched 3.5% (following the JCPOA)? The answer is obvious if you try to reflect on it more deeply.

Dude, your whole posts are so empty of logic and new content for me that even in normal speed, I am reading your posts too slowly for the time they deserve.

My comment is quite clear for anyone that actually understands the matter. The 60%-enriched stockpile of uranium that Iran has at the moment is of no use to Iran if it's not intended for nuclear bombs. It has no civilian application for Iran and if we reach a deal with the West, we'll have to dilute it down to 3.5% again, or send it abroad. Can we use it to make bombs? Yes, but not when the IAEA inspectors are measuring every gram of it and report it 24/7. How can we use it to make nuclear bombs? Well, at the very least, we must kick the IAEA inspectors out and leave the NPT officially. Leaving the NPT officially requires a 3 month notice to the agency. As long as our enrichment facilities are under 24/7 surveillance and we are publicly saying that we do not seek nuclear weapons, this whole 60%-enrichment is nothing but an expensive political statement which is expiring and losing its importance as time passes by. This is a great move only if Iran shows determination to further escalate things to get what it wants. Otherwise, it's lame.

And there isn't much difference between 20%-enriched uranium and 60%-enriched uranium in terms of the time it takes to reach 90%. 20%-enriched uranium is right on the edge of moving towards HEU. Once you've enriched uranium to 20%, you've already done like 83% of the job. Going to 60% does not really give you much advantage in comparison to going from 3.5% to 20%. And considering its costs and Iran's clear lack of use for it, it is not a sustainable move in the long run.

The "super-fast" IR-9 has not been mass-produced yet. In fact, it may have not been fully tested yet unless you can show me reports that they have injected gas into cascades of it. Iran's most-efficient centrifuge in use at this moment that can be mass-produced is IR-6. But that's not the point. Iran has already good enough centrifuges for uranium enrichment. The problem is not with Iran's inventory of centrifuges anymore. The problem is with poor decision making and lack of a clear strategy regarding the nuclear program.

Anyway, we are polluting this thread with off topic stuff. Next time please continue this discussion in the Iranian Chill Thread or the thread we have for Iran's nuclear program.

 

[Mata Elang]

Dude, your whole posts are so empty of logic and new content for me that even in normal speed, I am reading your posts too slowly for the time they deserve.
My comment is quite clear for anyone that actually understands the matter. The 60%-enriched stockpile of uranium that Iran has at the moment is of no use to Iran if it's not intended for nuclear bombs. It has no civilian application for Iran and if we reach a deal with the West, we'll have to dilute it down to 3.5% again, or send it abroad. Can we use it to make bombs? Yes, but not when the IAEA inspectors are measuring every gram of it and report it 24/7. How can we use it to make nuclear bombs? Well, at the very least, we must kick the IAEA inspectors out and leave the NPT officially. Leaving the NPT officially requires a 3 month notice to the agency. As long as our enrichment facilities are under 24/7 surveillance and we are publicly saying that we do not seek nuclear weapons, this whole 60%-enrichment is nothing but an expensive political statement which is expiring and losing its importance as time passes by. This is a great move only if Iran shows determination to further escalate things to get what it wants. Otherwise, it's lame.

And there isn't much difference between 20%-enriched uranium and 60%-enriched uranium in terms of the time it takes to reach 90%. 20%-enriched uranium is right on the edge of moving towards HEU. Once you've enriched uranium to 20%, you've already done like 83% of the job. Going to 60% does not really give you much advantage in comparison to going from 3.5% to 20%. And considering its costs and Iran's clear lack of use for it, it is not a sustainable move in the long run.

The "super-fast" IR-9 has not been mass-produced yet. In fact, it may have not been fully tested yet unless you can show me reports that they have injected gas into cascades of it. Iran's most-efficient centrifuge in use at this moment that can be mass-produced is IR-6. But that's not the point. Iran has already good enough centrifuges for uranium enrichment. The problem is not with Iran's inventory of centrifuges anymore. The problem is with poor decision making and lack of a clear strategy regarding the nuclear program.

Anyway, we are polluting this thread with off topic stuff. Next time please continue this discussion in the Iranian Chill Thread or the thread we have for Iran's nuclear program.

From this I can tell, you know nothing about Iran's nuclear program. The current President of Iran is Ebrahim Raesi not Hassan Rouhani (Liberal, sycophant and worshiper of JCPOA). Iran has distrusted the US for breaking promises in terms of the JCPOA (there is no guarantee that the next US administration will comply with the JCPOA). So Iran's 60% nuclear enrichment is not for political purposes but on the contrary as you said "it was meant for nuclear bombs". The West has said Iran is slow down negotiations so it can stockpile and enrich its nuclear arsenal. The IAEA is currently blind to the exact amount of Iran's nuclear enrichment. The IAEA itself suspects that Iran has a secret nuclear enrichment facility (so Iran is 'smart' toying with the IAEA, Iran does not need to announce its nuclear bomb program if it only troubles Iran, so once again Iran is smart to hide it). Your comment about the IR-9 centrifuge is funny, so I don't need to comment on it. You can reply to what I wrote in the Iran nuclear thread.

 

[QWECXZ]

From this I can tell, you know nothing about Iran's nuclear program. The current President of Iran is Ebrahim Raesi not Hassan Rouhani (Liberal, sycophant and worshiper of JCPOA). Iran has distrusted the US for breaking promises in terms of the JCPOA (there is no guarantee that the next US administration will comply with the JCPOA). So Iran's 60% nuclear enrichment is not for political purposes but on the contrary as you said "it was meant for nuclear bombs". The West has said Iran is slow down negotiations so it can stockpile and enrich its nuclear arsenal. The IAEA is currently blind to the exact amount of Iran's nuclear enrichment. The IAEA itself suspects that Iran has a secret nuclear enrichment facility (so Iran is 'smart' toying with the IAEA, Iran does not need to announce its nuclear bomb program if it only troubles Iran, so once again Iran is smart to hide it). Your comment about the IR-9 centrifuge is funny, so I don't need to comment on it. You can reply to what I wrote in the Iran nuclear thread.

I have already explained to you that Iran's 60%-enriched uranium is under 24/7 surveillance and continuous inspections by the IAEA. Not even a gram of it can be moved out of our nuclear facilities without the IAEA getting informed. And I have already explained to you that stockpiling 60%-enriched uranium is nothing to brag about without a clear strategy because it is nothing but an expensive burden that will be either handed over to Russia or diluted down to 3.5% after a deal is signed, rendering it a complete waste of money and energy. And Rouhani is already out, but we haven't seen much from Raeesi since August that shows a different path has been taken by the Iranian leadership. Even the parliament's resolution that was passed last year has not been implemented even by half and it was supposed to get fully implemented by the end of this year. The reconstruction of the IR-40 reactor has not even started yet and even the new administration does not intend to stick to the old design. I have already explained everything that there is to explain to someone like you, if you can't get it, then it's not my problem. This is the end of this discussion.

 

[Messerschmitt]

The reason I am suspicious is because I see no reason to produce it when the Kheybar-Shekan can be produced faster, cheaper and is lighter with the same or similar range. KS should be suitable for canister launch as well.

Maybe the version unveiled is under production but it's not deployed until it's range can be extended to 1800km using a conical or maybe if we are surprised, a wedge shaped glider. The glider for the KS, is clearly superior to the original HQ that was shown.

I remember Patarames mentioning in a blog post that Haj Qasem’s stabilizer fin configuration indicate that the missile is specifically designed for launch from missile containers. While Zolfaghar, Dezful and Kheybar-Shekan can also be launched from missile containers, it makes sense to have a missile dedicated and tailored to that specific launch method. Kheybar-Shekan appears to have the same diameter as Zolfaghar/Dezful, while Haj Qasem has a bigger diameter and thus more room to grow both in range and payload. When Haj Qasem was presented to the public, its MaRV was a variant of the same reentry vehicles being used by Zolfaghar/Dezful. Now that the IRGC-ASF has proven HGV technology with Kheybar-Shekan, we should expect them to be working on using it for Haj Qasem if they haven’t succeeded in it already. A large number of Haj Qasem missiles with carbon-fiber filament motor casings similar to those used by Zoheir (Raad-500) and HGVs derived from Kheybar-Shekan, ready to be fired at any time from underground missile farms would have a great deterrence effect against regional powers. Kheybar-Shekan is more like an upgraded Dezful, while Haj Qasem is a niche weapon designed for Iran’s missile farms with more room for improvement, atleast to my understanding.