Missile Defense, Extended Deterrence, and Nonproliferation in the 21St Century
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Winning the Salvo Competition Rebalancing America’S Air and Missile Defenses
WINNING THE SALVO COMPETITION REBALANCING AMERICA’S AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSES MARK GUNZINGER BRYAN CLARK WINNING THE SALVO COMPETITION REBALANCING AMERICA’S AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSES MARK GUNZINGER BRYAN CLARK 2016 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS (CSBA) The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is an independent, nonpartisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s analysis focuses on key questions related to existing and emerging threats to U.S. national security, and its goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions on matters of strategy, security policy, and resource allocation. ©2016 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. All rights reserved. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Mark Gunzinger is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Mr. Gunzinger has served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Transformation and Resources. A retired Air Force Colonel and Command Pilot, he joined the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2004. Mark was appointed to the Senior Executive Service and served as Principal Director of the Department’s central staff for the 2005–2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. Following the QDR, he served as Director for Defense Transformation, Force Planning and Resources on the National Security Council staff. Mr. Gunzinger holds an M.S. in National Security Strategy from the National War College, a Master of Airpower Art and Science degree from the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, a Master of Public Administration from Central Michigan University, and a B.S. in chemistry from the United States Air Force Academy. -
Design Characteristics of Iran's Ballistic and Cruise Missiles
Design Characteristics of Iran’s Ballistic and Cruise Missiles Last update: January 2013 Missile Nato or Type/ Length Diameter Payload Range (km) Accuracy ‐ Propellant Guidance Other Name System (m) (m) (kg)/warhead CEP (m) /Stages Artillery* Hasib/Fajr‐11* Rocket artillery (O) 0.83 0.107 6; HE 8.5 ‐ Solid Spin stabilized Falaq‐12* Rocket artillery (O) 1.29 0.244 50; HE 10 Solid Spin stabilized Falaq‐23* Rocket artillery (O) 1.82 0.333 120; HE 11 Solid Spin stabilized Arash‐14* Rocket artillery (O) 2.8 0.122 18.3; HE 21.5 Solid Spin stabilized Arash‐25* Rocket artillery (O) 3.2 0.122 18.3; HE 30 Solid Spin stabilized Arash‐36* Rocket artillery (O) 2 0.122 18.3; HE 18 Solid Spin stabilized Shahin‐17* Rocket artillery (O) 2.9 0.33 190; HE 13 Solid Spin stabilized Shahin‐28* Rocket artillery (O) 3.9 0.33 190; HE 20 Solid Spin stabilized Oghab9* Rocket artillery (O) 4.82 0.233 70; HE 40 Solid Spin stabilized Fajr‐310* Rocket artillery (O) 5.2 0.24 45; HE 45 Solid Spin stabilized Fajr‐511* Rocket artillery (O) 6.6 0.33 90; HE 75 Solid Spin stabilized Falaq‐112* Rocket artillery (O) 1.38 0.24 50; HE 10 Solid Spin stabilized Falaq‐213* Rocket artillery (O) 1.8 0.333 60; HE 11 Solid Spin stabilized Nazeat‐614* Rocket artillery (O) 6.3 0.355 150; HE 100 Solid Spin stabilized Nazeat15* Rocket artillery (O) 5.9 0.355 150; HE 120 Solid Spin stabilized Zelzal‐116* Iran‐130 Rocket artillery (O) 8.3 0.61 500‐600; HE 100‐125 Solid Spin stabilized Zelzal‐1A17* Mushak‐120 Rocket artillery (O) 8.3 0.61 500‐600; HE 160 Solid Spin stabilized Nazeat‐1018* Mushak‐160 Rocket artillery (O) 8.3 0.45 250; HE 150 Solid Spin stabilized Related content is available on the website for the Nuclear Threat Initiative, www.nti.org. -
The China-Iran Partnership in a Regional Context
Occasional Paper Series No. 38 l September 2020 Last Among Equals: The China-Iran Partnership in a Regional Context By Lucille Greer and Esfandyar Batmanghelidj INTRODUCTION to reorient the balance of power in the Middle East in defiance of the United States, even In early June 2020, a scan of an 18-page though China’s policy is not to make alliances in document began circulating on Iranian social the region. media. Titled “Final Draft of Iran-China Strategic Partnership Deal,” the document, which While that the leaked document included no appeared to have been leaked from the Iranian financial targets, many news reports stated that Ministry of Foreign Affairs, immediately caused the deal would see China invest $400 billion in a firestorm among the general public and Iran, a completely fictitious number that can politicians alike. Soon, the international media be traced back to a dubious article published picked up the document and headlines blared in the spring of 2019.1 Such errors reflect the that Iran and China were forging a new “alliance” long-running overestimation of China’s economic Middle East Program Occasional Paper Series No. 38 l September 2020 engagement not just in Iran, but also in the wider China’s measured approach to building relationships Middle East. Reporting on potential or promised with several countries despite the mutual financing or investment is rarely balanced by the antagonism in the region. actual amount of capital committed and how it is applied across the region. This is the crucial context that is absent in most recent analysis of this deal and its ramifications. -
Iran's Ballistic Missile Programs: an Overview
Order Code RS22758 Updated July 21, 2008 Iran’s Ballistic Missile Programs: An Overview Steven A. Hildreth Specialist in Missile Defense and Non-Proliferation Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Summary Iran has an active interest in developing, acquiring, and deploying a broad range of ballistic missiles. This was spotlighted in mid-July 2008 when Iran launched a number of ballistic missiles during military exercises, reportedly including the medium- range Shahab-3. On July 18, 2008, a Pentagon spokesman said Iran was “not testing new technologies or capabilities, but rather firing off old equipment in an attempt to intimidate their neighbors and escalate tension in the region.” Subsequent analysis of the July 2008 missile launches also shows Iran apparently digitally altered images of those launches. This short report1 seeks to provide an overview of the reported or suspected variety of Iranian ballistic missile programs. Because there remains widespread public divergence over particulars, however, this report does not provide specificity to what Iran may or may not have, or is in the process of developing. This report may be updated. Iran’s ballistic missile program dates to the late 1970s after the Shah was overthrown and the Islamic Republic of Iran established. The new Iranian government embarked on a ballistic missile program marked by considerable secrecy. Many consider that Iran’s effort was in full force by the mid-1980s during its protracted war against Iraq, during which Iran reportedly launched more than 600 ballistic missiles. Today, there is little disagreement among most experts that Iran has acquired some number of ballistic missiles from other countries and has developed other ballistic missiles indigenously or in cooperation with others. -
Iran and the Gulf Military Balance - I
IRAN AND THE GULF MILITARY BALANCE - I The Conventional and Asymmetric Dimensions FIFTH WORKING DRAFT By Anthony H. Cordesman and Alexander Wilner Revised July 11, 2012 Anthony H. Cordesman Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy [email protected] Cordesman/Wilner: Iran & The Gulf Military Balance, Rev 5 7/11/12 2 Acknowledgements This analysis was made possible by a grant from the Smith Richardson Foundation. It draws on the work of Dr. Abdullah Toukan and a series of reports on Iran by Adam Seitz, a Senior Research Associate and Instructor, Middle East Studies, Marine Corps University. 2 Cordesman/Wilner: Iran & The Gulf Military Balance, Rev 5 7/11/12 3 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 5 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 6 Figure III.1: Summary Chronology of US-Iranian Military Competition: 2000-2011 ............................... 8 CURRENT PATTERNS IN THE STRUCTURE OF US AND IRANIAN MILITARY COMPETITION ........................................... 13 DIFFERING NATIONAL PERSPECTIVES .............................................................................................................. 17 US Perceptions .................................................................................................................................... 17 Iranian Perceptions............................................................................................................................ -
Iran's Foreign and Defense Policies
Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies Updated May 8, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R44017 SUMMARY R44017 Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies May 8, 2019 Iran’s national security policy is the product of many overlapping and sometimes competing factors such as the ideology of Iran’s Islamic revolution, perception of threats Kenneth Katzman to the regime and to the country, long-standing national interests, and the interaction of Specialist in Middle the Iranian regime’s factions and constituencies. Iran’s leadership: Eastern Affairs x Seeks to deter or thwart U.S. or other efforts to invade or intimidate Iran or to bring about a change of regime. x Has sought to take advantage of opportunities of regional conflicts to overturn a power structure in the Middle East that it asserts favors the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other Sunni Muslim Arab regimes. x Seeks to enhance its international prestige and restore a sense of “greatness” reminiscent of ancient Persian empires. x Advances its foreign policy goals, in part by providing material support to regional allied governments and armed factions. Iranian officials characterize the support as helping the region’s “oppressed” and assert that Saudi Arabia, in particular, is instigating sectarian tensions and trying to exclude Iran from regional affairs. x Sometimes disagrees on tactics and strategies. Supreme Leader Ali Khamene’i and key hardline institutions, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), oppose any compromises of Iran’s national security core goals. Iran’s elected president, Hassan Rouhani, and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif support Iran’s integration into regional and international diplomacy. -
Paper 2 1 Russian Missiles
Turkey’s Turbulent Journey with the EPAA and Quest for a National System By Nilsu Gören Executive Summary This paper provides an overview of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) missile defense debate from a Turkish perspective. While Turkey participates in the EPAA by hosting a U.S. early-warning radar in Kurecik, Malatya, its political and military concerns with NATO guarantees have led to the AKP government's quest for a national long-range air and missile defense system. However, Turkish decision makers' insistence on technology transfer shows that the Turkish debate is not adequately informed by the lessons learned from the EPAA, particularly the technical and financial challenges of missile defense. Introduction With Turkey being the closest NATO nation to the Middle East and lacking a robust integrated air and missile defense architecture, Turkish policymakers face decisions on continuing to rely on NATO resources, investing in indigenous capabilities, or procuring foreign systems. While the United States, Germany, and the Netherlands have historically provided Patriot systems to southeast Turkey, Turkey has political and technical concerns about NATO guarantees under the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA), leading to the proposition that Turkey needs to develop indigenous air and missile defense capabilities to reduce vulnerability. However, Turkey’s controversial tender for the foreign acquisition of a long-range air and missile defense system, dubbed the T-LORAMIDS process, has led to concerns within NATO about Turkey’s strategic orientation and intentions. This paper first identifies the missile threats to Turkey, mainly from Syria and Iran. It then defines Turkey’s role in the EPAA and the Turkish activities towards procurement of a national long-range air and missile defense system that would allow for technology transfer to eventually achieve indigenous design. -
Islamic Republic of Iran (Persian)
Coor din ates: 3 2 °N 5 3 °E Iran Irān [ʔiːˈɾɒːn] ( listen)), also known اﯾﺮان :Iran (Persian [11] [12] Islamic Republic of Iran as Persia (/ˈpɜːrʒə/), officially the Islamic (Persian) ﺟﻣﮫوری اﺳﻼﻣﯽ اﯾران Jomhuri-ye ﺟﻤﮭﻮری اﺳﻼﻣﯽ اﯾﺮان :Republic of Iran (Persian Eslāmi-ye Irān ( listen)),[13] is a sovereign state in Jomhuri-ye Eslāmi-ye Irān Western Asia.[14][15] With over 81 million inhabitants,[7] Iran is the world's 18th-most-populous country.[16] Comprising a land area of 1,648,195 km2 (636,37 2 sq mi), it is the second-largest country in the Middle East and the 17 th-largest in the world. Iran is Flag Emblem bordered to the northwest by Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan,[a] to the north by the Caspian Sea, to the Motto: اﺳﺗﻘﻼل، آزادی، ﺟﻣﮫوری اﺳﻼﻣﯽ northeast by Turkmenistan, to the east by Afghanistan Esteqlāl, Āzādi, Jomhuri-ye Eslāmi and Pakistan, to the south by the Persian Gulf and the Gulf ("Independence, freedom, the Islamic of Oman, and to the west by Turkey and Iraq. The Republic") [1] country's central location in Eurasia and Western Asia, (de facto) and its proximity to the Strait of Hormuz, give it Anthem: ﺳرود ﻣﻠﯽ ﺟﻣﮫوری اﺳﻼﻣﯽ اﯾران geostrategic importance.[17] Tehran is the country's capital and largest city, as well as its leading economic Sorud-e Melli-ye Jomhuri-ye Eslāmi-ye Irān ("National Anthem of the Islamic Republic of Iran") and cultural center. 0:00 MENU Iran is home to one of the world's oldest civilizations,[18][19] beginning with the formation of the Elamite kingdoms in the fourth millennium BCE. -
Iran's Ballistic Missile Program, Sanctions, and the IRGC
Testing the Limits: Iran’s Ballistic Missile Program, Sanctions, and the IRGC Michael Eisenstadt Kahn Fellow and Director, Military and Security Studies Program, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy Testimony submitted to the House Foreign Affairs Committee March 29, 2017 Iran has the largest missile force in the Middle East, consisting of thousands of short- and medi- um-range ballistic missiles, and possibly land-attack cruise missiles.1 Although its missiles are conventionally armed, many could deliver a nuclear weapon if Iran were to ever acquire such a capability. While the nuclear accord with Iran—the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which was given international legal force by UN Security Council Resolution 2231— will likely defer such an eventuality, it did not impose new constraints on Iran’s missile program. On the contrary, UNSCR 2231 loosened them—and included provisions for their lifting in eight years, if not sooner.2 At current production rates, Iran’s missile force could more than double in size by the time the major limits imposed by the nuclear deal are lifted at the fifteen year mark—in 2030. By then, Iran’s growing missile and cyber capabilities could pose major challenges to regional missile de- fenses, military and critical infrastructure targets, and civilian population centers. This could make preventive action by Israel or the United States, in the event of an attempted Iranian nuclear breakout, much more costly. Finally, an Iranian nuclear missile force would be highly destabilizing. Short missile flight times between Iran and Israel, the lack of reliable crisis communication channels, and the impossibility of knowing whether incoming Iranian missiles are conventional or nuclear could someday spur Israel—and any additional regional nuclear states that might emerge in the interim—to adopt a launch-on-warning posture, undermining the prospects for a stable nuclear deterrent balance in the region. -
Download/Print Version
MDAA Region Brief: Europe Summer 2016 Addressing the Air and Ballistic Missile Threat to Europe: Cooperating in a Shifting Strategic Environment Introduction Next month’s Warsaw Summit could prove to be one of the most consequential for the alliance since the end of the Cold War as leaders from member states convene to discuss a myriad of threats. NATO Summits are convened on an ad-hoc basis, as required by the evolving political and security situation. In recent years, summit locations have held some thematic significance. This year’s summit in Warsaw is indicative of the increasing threat the alliance faces from the east, particularly in regards to the air challenge. The proliferation of ballistic missile technology also continues to demand the attention of NATO members. In May of this year, two key milestones were achieved in the deployment of European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) capabilities, the plan put in place by the Obama Administration to protect Europe from a ballistic missile attack originating from Iran. On May 12 Phase II of the EPAA, the Aegis Ashore site in Deveselu, Romania, was deemed operationally certified. The following day on May 13, a groundbreaking ceremony took place for Phase III of the EPAA, an Aegis Ashore site in Redzikowo, Poland. When the work in Poland is complete, Phase 3 will provide the necessary capabilities to provide ballistic missile defense coverage of all NATO European territory and populations in the 2018 timeframe against intermediate-range ballistic missiles. Defending the air above NATO member states also remains a challenge, particularly from an increasingly modern Russian military. -
Recherches & Documents Cruise Missiles & Anti-Access Strategies
Recherches & Documents Cruise Missiles & Anti-Access Strategies Bruno Gruselle, Research Fellow, FRS (June 2006, 1) Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique • 27, rue Damesme • 75013 PARIS Tél. : 01 43 13 77 77 • fax : 01 43 13 77 78 • http ://www.frstrategie.org Siret 394 095 533 00045 • TVA FR74 394 095 533 • Code APE 732Z Fondation reconnue d'utilité publique – Décret du 26 février 1993 SOMMAIRE Definition ................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 4 A worrying proliferation….................................................................................. 5 ... Against which it is still difficult to produce responses....................... 6 Cruise Missiles as instruments of anti-access strategies ....................... 8 1 – Anti-access strategies............................................................................................. 8 2 – Motivations for the acquisition of cruise missiles............................................... 8 3 – Vulnerabilities of military dispositions and asymmetric policies and uses................................................................................................................... 9 3.1 – Possible action types, objectives and effects ............................................................. 9 3.2 – Typology of potential targets.................................................................................. -
B C1 COUNCIL DECISION 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010
2010D0413 — EN — 08.06.2013 — 011.002 — 1 This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents ►B ►C1 COUNCIL DECISION 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP ◄ (OJ L 195, 27.7.2010, p. 39) Amended by: Official Journal No page date ►M1 Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 L 281 81 27.10.2010 ►M2 Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 L 136 65 24.5.2011 ►M3 Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 L 319 71 2.12.2011 ►M4 Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 L 19 22 24.1.2012 ►M5 Council Decision 2012/152/CFSP of 15 March 2012 L 77 18 16.3.2012 ►M6 Council Decision 2012/169/CFSP of 23 March 2012 L 87 90 24.3.2012 ►M7 Council Decision 2012/205/CFSP of 23 April 2012 L 110 35 24.4.2012 ►M8 Council Decision 2012/457/CFSP of 2 August 2012 L 208 18 3.8.2012 ►M9 Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 L 282 58 16.10.2012 ►M10 Council Decision 2012/687/CFSP of 6 November 2012 L 307 82 7.11.2012 ►M11 Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 L 356 71 22.12.2012 ►M12 Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP of 6 June 2013 L 156 10 8.6.2013 Corrected by: ►C1 Corrigendum, OJ L 197, 29.7.2010, p.