Iran gets Witness protection

A few months ago I mentioned how Iran was trying to join the game of drones. The engineers of the Islamic Republic were attempting to build their own unmanned aircraft, possibly with some technical cannibalisation of an American RQ-170 Sentinel that crashed there in December 2011.

Well this week they have unveiled their masterpiece, which contrary to my expectations, has been named something fairly mundane: the Witness-129. They claim it has a range of 2,000 km and is capable of carrying a payload of bombs and missiles.

The two thousand click range technically means the drone could just about get to Israel and back to launch a payload. Of course, Iranian forces aren’t necessarily known for their concern over exit plans and casualty evacuation, so the operating radius expands as far as Athens, Cairo or western India.

Cue media panic and discussion about the RQ-170 Sentinel’s stealth capabilities and we trade up to invisible Iranian drones with nuclear warheads.

Iranian TV shows the Witness-129

Except that the Witness looks nothing like the Sentinel. Despite the Iranian’s wanting everybody to think they have back-engineered the American drone, their efforts more resemble models like the Predator or Reaper, albeit with a small jet turbine. The big wingspan and the spindly construction make me think that this is no high-speed stealth machine. Much more of a long-loiter surveillance aircraft for border and maritime duties.

In other words, the chances of the Iranian drone penetrating someone’s airspace and surviving more than a few minutes are pretty remote. It can’t take evasive action either, since when out of ground control range it must follow a series of pre-determined navigation points. To attack Tel Aviv the Witness would need to first fly over some combination of Iraq, Jordan and Syria, needing a blind eye from them before even entering the welcoming skies of Israel.

The main threat that this robot plane would pose is to shipping in the Straits of Hormuz. Armed with the right missile it could be used to target merchant vessels or smaller military ships. Again though, it’s hard to see that anyone would let it get close enough to do the job.

It’s all much ado about nothing. Many countries operate unmanned aircraft, and Iran having them is no great escalation.

And whilst the Witness was being witnessed at home, my favourite orator was rubbing shoulders with power-brokers like Julia Gillard at the UN this week. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad got to address the General Assembly and present his own flower power vision of how we should all just get along. He began by claiming Iran was the birthplace of pretty much everything:

“Coming from Iran, the land of glory and beauty, the land of knowledge, culture, wisdom and morality, the cradle of philosophy and mysticism, the land of compassion and light, the land of scientists, scholars, philosophers, masters of literature, and writers…I represent a great and proud nation that is a founder of the human civilization and an inheritor of the respected universal values. I represent a conscious nation which is dedicated to the cause of freedom, peace and compassion…”

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad address the UN GA. UN

The speech was heavy on religious overtones, but the key message he had was that the UN, as it stands, sucks. It is inefficient and true power lies in the hands of the permanent Security Council members and their veto right. This, according to Ahmadinejad, makes it impossible for other nations, particularly the non-aligned ones, to have any hope of justice or representation.

And he’s not wrong there.

Join the conversation

19 Comments sorted by

  1. Russell Walton

    Russell Walton is a Friend of The Conversation.

    Retired

    I'd say that Ahmadinejad has a point in regard to the UN. After WW2 the four main victors, with monumental hubris, appointed themselves veto holders and custodians of the international community. France, whose contribution to the war effort was negligible, was also given a veto, presumably on the rationale, "better inside the tent than outside". The organisation of the UN is very much past its "use by date".

    Ahmadinejad didn't actually claim that "Iran was the birthplace of pretty much everything:" His claims in regard to Iran's contribution to civilisation have some credibility( 'the world's first human rights legislation') for example.
    Sassanid Persia was a highly advanced civilisation and a super power rival to Rome.

    However, modern Iran's achievement are not quite so impressive.

    Let's hope the Israeli warmongers and their US patrons don't get their way again, and repeat the tragic debacle of Iraq on an even greater scale.

    report
    1. Ahmad Abu-tukit

      Plumber

      In reply to Russell Walton

      “not quite so impressive”?
      • Being a real challenge and scare to the ‘mightly’ Zionists
      • Topping the agenda of world news
      • Operating remote military operations worldwide by proxy (eg Jewish targets in Argentina)
      • Funding semi states in Gaza and Lebanon
      • Losing a million soldiers in a useless war with Iraq
      • Being on the verge of joining the nuclear club
      • Effectively controlling the behaviour of its population despite their will
      • Committing any human rights abuse in the process
      • Being a celebrated UN member
      And still making many in the west marginally sympathetic towards them!!

      report
    2. Russell Walton

      Russell Walton is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Retired

      In reply to Ahmad Abu-tukit

      When I wrote "not quite so impressive" I was referring to the country's human rights record.

      Since Iran is a nation state, it's difficult to take the moral high ground when the liberal democracies, particularly the US, have an appalling record of "interventions" in third World nations. The Iranians haven't forgotten US and British manipulation of their political process.

      "Operating remote military operations worldwide by proxy" so do other national governments, the CIA has no shortage of proxies…

      Read more
    3. Stiofán Mac Suibhne

      Contrarian / Epistemologist

      In reply to Russell Walton

      The link between Ye Olde Worlde Persia and Iran is what? They occurred on the same piece of dirt? What nonsense.

      As for ' Israeli warmongers and their US patrons'. Boring. Was that an attempt an analysis or just reflex break through of your anti-Semitism / anti-Zionist complex?

      report
    4. Michael Hay

      retired

      In reply to Stiofán Mac Suibhne

      One does not need to be an"anti-Semitist", Stiofan, to take note that the only wars fought since WW2 ended, have been the work of the USA. - Korea. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.
      The belligerence and the 'born to occupy' attitude of the Israelis is confrontational and entirely uncompromising.
      I do not like either, and I am convinced that the world will remain in turmoil unless or until these two aggressive peoples are somehow subdued.
      In the meantime, peace in our time is an impossibility, because power is all important.

      report
    5. Stiofán Mac Suibhne

      Contrarian / Epistemologist

      In reply to Michael Hay

      More nonsense. .... the only wars fought since WW2 ended have been the work of the USA. Are you really that ill informed / stupid? Perhaps.

      Did you miss: India vs Pakistan, Pakistan vs Bangladesh. Moroccan occupation of the Western Sahara, Chinese occupation of Tibet, Argentine occupation of the Falklands, France in Algeria, Armenia vs Azerbijan. Not to mention the countless civil wars.

      Even setting that aside, how does Israel get the blame for Korea, Vietnam, Iraq & Afganistan?

      report
    6. Ahmad Abu-tukit

      Plumber

      In reply to Russell Walton

      Mind you, you were the first to make reference to your views outside the context of the article (in this case anti American/Israeli).

      For what’s it is worth. Look at Iran for what it is, not in reflex comparison to your antis. It is an extreme religious totalitarian regime with little respect for human rights for its own citizens.

      In its aim to become a regional power it acts to militarise Shia and other factions which usually doesn’t add to regional ‘peace building’.

      It’s not about comparing its actions to others problematic regimes (assuming your comparison has any merits) but let’s assume you compared it to a more positive role model.

      Thus there is no reason to be apologetic or sympathetic towards this regime but fully critical of it.

      report
    7. Russell Walton

      Russell Walton is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Retired

      In reply to Ahmad Abu-tukit

      "...not in reflex comparison to your antis..."

      You should also avoid ad hominem attacks.

      "let's assume you compared it to a more positive role model." and "It’s not about comparing its actions to others problematic regimes"

      Well, that's not the point, you're trying to change the context. The West in general and the US in particular have supported or tolerated many brutal and oppressive dictators, including the former Shah, on the basis "Yeah sure, he's an s.o.b, but he's our s.o.b." So, I'm not going to support another hate campaign in order to make the ME safer for Israel.

      "Thus there is no reason to be apologetic or sympathetic towards this regime but fully critical of it." Straw man argument. I'm neither apologetic or sympathetic towards the regime

      Don't you think that the Israeli PM could improve his propaganda spiel? Cartoon bombs, jeeez.

      report
    8. Stiofán Mac Suibhne

      Contrarian / Epistemologist

      In reply to Russell Walton

      This is getting increasingly incoherent. Your off beam comments on Israel / USA have somewhat detracted from a very sensible article.

      report
    9. Yoron Hamber

      Thinking

      In reply to Stiofán Mac Suibhne

      Don't know what you try to prove here Stiofán. That only some nations are capable of idiocy? :) I say all are, and the more money involved the worse results from such a one. Looking at history all nations are perfectly capable of stupidities and atrocities, which shouldn't stop us from trying to prevent new ones coming. and that's the point here. Not to play some blame game.

      report
    10. Yoron Hamber

      Thinking

      In reply to Yoron Hamber

      Hmm, that was in reply to your first comment. From what transpires between you and Russel further down I would say you both sounf stuck a quagmire of emotions and beliefs. War is wrong, I can't express it simpler than that. And that's how I read Russel's first reply, as for what is the cradle of civilization?

      Anyone remember Africa`?

      report
    11. Stiofán Mac Suibhne

      Contrarian / Epistemologist

      In reply to Yoron Hamber

      Prove nothing. Just refute the nonsense in earlier posts that all wars post WW2 were American.

      report
    12. Yoron Hamber

      Thinking

      In reply to Stiofán Mac Suibhne

      Yes, you are perfectly correct Stiofán. To pint out one specific Country as 'the perpetrator' is wrong. War is in all our nature, and the more tribal a society the closer I would expect it to be to arms. Which doesn't exclude the way superpowers 'defend' their 'rights' in other countries, political or otherwise.

      There's a lot of 'forgotten', very ugly small arm wars around the world, some of them today. But I prefer to leave beliefs outside such a discussion, unless we're talking democracy, which I think is one of the best inventions since the wheel, when working :)

      http://books.sipri.org/files/misc/SIPRIBP0904a.pdf
      (Recent trends in the arms trade, by SIPRI)

      report