As Trump grapples with Iran’s missiles, enter North Korea

The collaboration between Iran and North Korea on nuclear and missile development is murky at best and US intelligence says little on the matter.

Worrisome signs. A Ghadr-H missile (C) a solid-fuel surface-to-surface Sejjil missile and a portrait of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei displayed at Baharestan Square in Tehran, on September 24. (AP)


2017/10/08 Issue: 126 Page: 15


The Arab Weekly
Ed Blanche



Beirut - As Iran continues to defy US President Donald Trump’s drive to force it to halt its contentious nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, the Ameri­cans’ increasingly volatile stand-off with North Korea over its strategic military objectives is steadily be­coming an important element in the confrontation with the Islamic Republic.

This is complicating the mount­ing confrontation between Trump, an ardent opponent of the land­mark July 2015 nuclear agreement that the United States and five ma­jor global powers signed with Teh­ran, and an Iranian leadership that Washington views as bent on re­gional domination.

Whether the US campaign to force Pyongyang to halt its provoca­tive nuclear and missile testing will nudge North Korea into increasing its support for Iran’s efforts is not clear.

The collaboration between Iran and North Korea on nuclear and missile development is murky at best and US intelligence says little on the matter, fearful of divulging anything that could expose sources and methods.

But both are violent opponents of the United States and it has been widely understood that they have exchanged technological data for two decades. North Korea provided Iran with Scud missiles during the 1980-88 war against Iraq.

Michael Rubin, a former Penta­gon adviser and US specialist on what Washington deems as rogue regimes, warned that Tehran’s links to Pyongyang constitute a growing threat.

“When it comes to nuclear tech­nology, Iran and North Korea are like sorority sisters swapping clothes or an old married couple sharing a toothbrush,” he said.

Iranian scientists and technicians reportedly attended North Korean missile tests and adapted North Korean systems to accelerate their county’s ballistic missile project, in­cluding the latest variant, the Khor­ramshahr.

The Islamic Republic displayed the Khorramshahr in public Sep­tember 22 for the first time during its annual Sacred Defence Week parade, claiming it had successfully test-fired a medium-range, liquid-fuelled ballistic missile (MRBM).

Analysts say the Khorramshahr is based on North Korea’s intermedi­ate-range Hwasong-10, also known as the BM-25 Musudan. The Iranians say the single-stage, 13-metre-long Khorramshahr has an explosives payload of 1,250 kilograms and a range of 4,000km.

Iran first test-fired the Khorram­shahr in secret on July 11, 2016, said Washington-based analyst Farzin Nadimi, who specialises in Arabian Gulf security issues. It failed shortly after lift-off.

A Khorramshahr was reportedly tested on January 29 and suppos­edly flew approximately 1,000km, although there are suspicions Iran may have faked that launch using film from the earlier test.

The unveiling of the Khorram­shahr “indicates strong technical cooperation with Pyongyang, rais­ing concerns that Iran might be on the path to developing a nuclear-ca­pable ICBM (intercontinental ballis­tic missile) down the road,” Nadimi observed on September 27.

“If the Khorramshahr is indeed a variant of the Hwasong-10, that would be a worrisome sign, given reports that the North Korean mis­sile uses the same engine as its cur­rent ICBMs,” Nadimi said in a Wash­ington Institute for Near East Policy analysis.

Scientists say that the focus in the Iran-North Korea equation is two July test-firings of the Hwasong-14, intended as an ICBM capable of hit­ting the US mainland.

“The missile in its current form could reach the West Coast but not the East Coast,” said Michael Elle­man, senior fellow for missile de­fence at London’s International In­stitute for Strategic Studies.

Scientists, however, say develop­ment of the Hwasong-14 could be “a game changer.”

Hours after Iran claimed to have successfully tested the Khorram­shahr, Trump accused Iran of col­laborating with North Korea to im­prove its missile technology.

Under the terms of the 2015 agree­ment, which partially lifted US-led sanctions imposed on Iran in return for it curtailing its nuclear project, the United States must recertify the deal every three months.

Trump has twice endorsed the deal despite Iran’s continued mis­sile testing and efforts to develop nuclear warheads, even though on September 10 he branded it as “one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into.”

He is to report to Congress by Oc­tober 15 whether he will continue to adhere to the agreement, which amounts to US recognition of Teh­ran’s prominence in the Middle East, or scrap it and face an Iranian backlash that could impact heavily on a region long torn by conflict.

If Trump gives the deal a thumbs down, Congress has 60 days to de­cide whether to reimpose sanctions. If it does, the whole agreement, bit­terly opposed by Israel and Saudi Arabia, may well collapse.

That would alienate the co-signa­tories — China, Russia, Britain, Ger­many and France — which want the agreement to remain intact, in part for the economic benefits of deal­ings with Iran.

Renegotiating a deal that would impose tighter limitations of Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes would seriously worsen the security crisis in the Middle East and likely expose the region to more conflict, possibly dragging in US forces.

Trump has indicated he will not endorse the 2015 agreement this time, even though his military com­manders, who want to avoid a po­tentially calamitous open clash with Iran, declared on September 20 that Tehran was adhering to the letter, if not the spirit, of the nuclear pact.

“But, at the same time, they are rapidly, rapidly deploying and de­veloping a whole series of ballistic missiles and testing ballistic mis­siles at all ranges that provide signif­icant concerns to not just the Unit­ed States but our allies,” US Air Force General John Hyten, head of the US Strategic Command, conceded.

Trump’s military chiefs fear that if he carries out his threat to decertify the 2015 agreement, the Islamic Re­public will become another North Korea, leaving the United States locking horns with two rogue states bent on becoming nuclear powers.

Pyongyang is technologically years ahead of Iran in the develop­ment of both nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles to carry them and, some US officials say, has be­come a key element in Iran’s drive to acquire such weapons.

North Korea has conducted five nuclear tests and dozens of ballistic missile launches, but it has not yet demonstrated what one Western source described as “proficiency in mounting a so-called miniaturised nuclear warhead on a rocket, al­though its technology appears to be rapidly developing.”

South Korea’s military said avail­able data indicate North Korea has a new missile potentially capable of reaching the US mainland.

On May 14, Pyongyang claimed that it had test-fired a new missile that could carry “a large-size, heavy nuclear warhead” and could reach the US mainland.

The missile flew some 700km and reached an altitude of more than 2,000km. With a lower trajectory, analysts believe the missile could have a range of 4,500km, the Fi­nancial Times reported in May. That “would have covered US bases in Ja­pan, Guam and potentially Hawaii,” observed Bong Youngshik, a North Korean expert at Seoul’s Yonsei Uni­versity.

On top of that, on September 3, North Korea announced “perfect success” in the test of a hydrogen bomb they said could be carried atop a ballistic missile.

South Korea’s defence minis­try, hardly an unbiased observer, warned that Pyongyang “is very close to developing the technology needed to miniaturise nuclear war­heads.”

That could accelerate Iran’s ef­forts and dramatically change the strategic equation in the Middle East — a threat the United States could ignore at its peril.


Ed Blanche has covered Middle East affairs since 1967. He is the Arab Weekly analyses section editor.


As Printed
MENA Now
Editors' Picks

The Arab Weekly Newspaper reaches Western & Arabic audience that are influential as well as being affluent.

From Europe to the Middle East,and North America, The Arab Weekly talks to opinion formers and influential figures, providing insight and comment on national, international and regional news through the focus of Arabic countries and community.

Published by Al Arab Publishing House

Publisher and Group Executive Editor: Haitham El-Zobaidi, PhD

Editor-in-Chief: Oussama Romdhani

Managing Editor: Iman Zayat

Deputy Managing Editor and Online Editor: Mamoon Alabbasi

Senior Editor: John Hendel

Chief Copy Editor: Richard Pretorius

Copy Editor: Stephen Quillen

Analysis Section Editor: Ed Blanche

East/West Section Editor: Mark Habeeb

Gulf Section Editor: Mohammed Alkhereiji

Society and Travel Sections Editor: Samar Kadi

Syria and Lebanon Sections Editor: Simon Speakman Cordall

Contributing Editor: Rashmee Roshan Lall

Senior Correspondents: Mahmud el-Shafey (London) & Lamine Ghanmi (Tunis)

Regular Columnists

Claude Salhani

Yavuz Baydar

Correspondents

Saad Guerraoui (Casablanca)

Dunia El-Zobaidi (London)

Roua Khlifi (Tunis)

Thomas Seibert (Washington)

Chief Designer: Marwen Hmedi

Designers

Ibrahim Ben Bechir

Hanen Jebali

Published by Al Arab Publishing House

Contact editor at:editor@thearabweekly.com

Subscription & Advertising: Ads@alarab.co.uk

Tel 020 3667 7249

Mohamed Al Mufti

Marketing & Advertising Manager

Tel (Main) +44 20 6702 3999

Direct: +44 20 8742 9262

www.alarab.co.uk

Al Arab Publishing House

Kensington Centre

177-179 Hammersmith Road

London W6 8BS , UK

Tel: (+44) 20 7602 3999

Fax: (+44) 20 7602 8778

Follow Us
© The Arab Weekly, All rights reserved