North Korea's Missile Sales

So when the Obama administration decided to continue the Bush administration's plan to put US missile defense sites in Europe to counter Iran's military capabilities, was it because of North Korea's alleged sale of 19 long-range ballistic missiles to Iran? 

While Iran is believed to be developing nuclear weapons, intelligence experts do not believe the country has yet developed a warhead that could be fitted to a missile.

However there has been speculation that North Korea may have sold Iran components for missiles based on a Russian design called the R-27, once used by Soviet submarines to carry nuclear warheads.

In fact, a cable dated February 24 this year, makes clear that US intelligence believe the North Korea have shipped complete versions of their more powerful BM-25, based on the Russian design.

The cable, reported by the New York Times, gives details of a meeting between senior Russian officials and an American delegation led by Vann Van Diepen, an official with the State Department’s nonproliferation division, in which the Americans outline their concerns.

The range of the Russian R-27, when launched from a submarine, was said to be up to 1,500 miles but experts say the BM-25 is longer and heavier, and carries more fuel, giving it a range of up to 2,000 miles.

So here's something funny - a 2006 paper from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs stating that "Iran acquired eighteen BM25 land-mobile missiles with launchers from North Korea which can strike targets in Europe." How old is this intel, and is really from a reliable source? One has to wonder.

I wonder how the Iranians can trust North Korean technology, but that's a story for another day. Now I could understand a level of concern if Iran had a capability to make nuclear weapons - but they don't. And I could understand a higher level of concern if Iran demonstrated it had the technology to shrink a nuclear warhead to fit on top of a ballistic missile - but they don't. And I could understand the desire to install a missile defense system, if the technology worked and it was affordable - but it isn't. So what's all the hubbub about?

The Obama administration believes it can intimidate the Iranian regime to abandon its pursuit of a nuclear weapon and a delivery system that could threaten Europe and possibly the United States. However, this proposed missile defense system isn't going to do it. Iran's leaders have a burning desire to ensure that it isn't invaded again and doesn't suffer a million casualties in efforts to repel invaders. It's hard to believe that we have foreign policy makers who don't understand this basic fact, and national security analysts who can't tell the president that there are other options to counter Iran's military ambitions. 

No, bombing Iran isn't one of them, Senator McCain. And Sarah Palin says "we gotta stand with our North Korean allies." Yeah, you can pretty much write off any Republican advice on this topic. 

UPDATE: Rob Farley casts doubt on the missile story - score 1 for the WaPo, 0 for the NYT.

Comments

[CounterThreat]

It's not the payload... It's the delivery vehicle. A conventional warhead on these missiles is more likely than anything else. LRBM technolgy transfer from North Korea to Iran worries Israel.

[sheerahkahn]

Actually, considering that the surface to surface missiles such as the FROG should be far more worrisome than a medium ranged BM. Also, with the development and employment of cruise/drone missiles me thinks Israel should be looking in that direction rather than "18 ballistic missiles" that are of dubious quality to begin with.
Not to say those things can't be upgraded, but that takes a special form of know-how that Iran hasn't demonstrated...yet.

[Robert Farley]

It's interesting; the Russians in that meeting pretty much flat out say that they don't believe there was any transfer. Without commenting on the overall veracity of US vs. Russian intelligence, at the very least that brings the assertion into question.