Tag: Iran

The Engineer Who Built Iran’s Missile Force Could Not Make It Invulnerable

Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam helped turn Iran’s wartime missile unit into a lasting force. Foreign technology, continuing imports, and the wars of 2025–26 complicate the story of self-reliance and dominance.

By Muhammad Munaeem Jamal

In October 2024, I watched footage of missiles crossing the night sky over Israel. The bright trails made Iran’s reach plain. They did not tell me how many missiles hit their targets, what each one cost, or whether Iran could replace them after a war. Those questions matter more than the spectacle.

The man often placed at the centre of this story is Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam, an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander who helped turn a small wartime missile unit into a lasting military enterprise. Iran calls him the father of its missile programme. He deserves a serious account. A story in which one engineer beats every sanction and gives his country strategic dominance hides the people, foreign designs, and industrial supplies that made the programme possible.

The wars of 2025 and 2026 have made that distinction urgent. Iranian missiles struck despite powerful defences. Iran’s own launchers and production sites also came under attack. Moghaddam built something consequential. What, exactly, did he build, and how well has it survived?

A commander sent to learn

Iran’s search for missiles grew out of the war with Iraq. Saddam Hussein’s forces struck Iranian cities, while Tehran had limited means to answer at comparable range. Iranian officials sought missiles abroad. According to Iran Watch’s missile chronology, Mohsen Rafiqdoost led a delegation to Syria and Libya in August 1984.

The IRGC formed a missile team that October and named Moghaddam its commander. He led 13 members to Syria for training on Scud-B and Frog-7 weapons. The early organisation had other people whose names rarely appear in accounts of the “father” of the programme. Amir Ali Hajizadeh served as Moghaddam’s deputy and helped establish a missile base near Kermanshah.

That sequence tells us something about the first stage. Iran did not begin with an independent design bureau that suddenly discovered long-range missiles. It sought foreign weapons and trained personnel to operate them. Libya supplied Scuds in the following period; Iran later acquired more missiles and technology from elsewhere. The pressure of war gave this effort political priority, but outside help gave it a starting point.

Moghaddam’s contribution was to help turn an emergency unit into an organisation that could learn, produce, and endure. A commander who sustains that work can matter greatly without personally inventing every weapon his country later fields.

The foreign foundations of a domestic industry

Iran’s Shahab family shows how imported technology and local production developed together. The Shahab-1 drew on Scud-B technology. The Shahab-2 derived from North Korea’s Hwasong-6, a longer-range Scud variant. Iran’s Shahab-3 drew on North Korea’s Nodong.

These were substantial gains. A country that learns to operate, adapt, and manufacture missiles develops skills that an overseas seller cannot simply deliver in a crate. Engineers need production equipment. Military units need launchers, crews, and maintenance. Commanders must decide how to protect the force and use it. Iran built organisations around those tasks over many years.

The North Korean link also unsettles the neat tale of self-reliance. Tehran did not advance through “pure engineering determination.” It used foreign designs while building the capacity to produce and change them. Later Iranian systems included solid-fuel missiles, which offer different operational advantages from older liquid-fuel Scuds. Their development required another body of industrial work.

In November 2011, an explosion at a military facility near Tehran killed Moghaddam and dozens of others working on the programme. Iran Watch records his death but does not establish the cause of the blast. Calling it a “mysterious explosion” is fair; assigning blame without evidence is not.

The programme continued. That continuation may be the clearest measure of what Moghaddam helped create. Its work had spread across units, factories, and research organisations. No single engineer could carry all of it, and no single death ended it.

Sanctions changed the route, not the need for imports

Sanctions have made Iran’s missile procurement harder and more expensive. They have not sealed the country off from foreign materials. Nor does the record prove the attractive claim that every restriction made Iran stronger.

Consider the supplies needed for missile fuel and structures. In April 2025, the U.S. Treasury identified a network that it said procured missile propellant ingredients from China for the IRGC. In May, Treasury targeted procurement of carbon fibre and related equipment. These actions describe continuing efforts to obtain specialised inputs abroad, decades after Iran began building missiles at home.

Treasury’s account is a government enforcement account. It identifies alleged networks and their roles; a designation alone does not measure the output of an Iranian factory. Still, repeated cases make one point difficult to ignore. Domestic production and foreign dependence can exist in the same programme.

Iran has shown an ability to keep building under pressure. Front companies and indirect purchasing routes have helped it seek restricted goods. Sanctions may slow a project, raise its cost, or force a change in suppliers without stopping every missile. We cannot measure their success by counting sanctions notices. We must ask which materials reached Iran, which facilities operated, and how many usable weapons emerged.

The same test applies to Iran’s underground facilities. Shelters can protect stockpiles and complicate an attacker’s work. Public claims about the depth or invulnerability of all “missile cities” go beyond what open evidence supports. A tunnel can protect a missile on one day and still leave the launch route, support equipment, or production line exposed on another.

What the missiles proved in combat

Iran’s October 2024 attack on Israel involved roughly 180 ballistic missiles, according to Iran Watch’s chronology. Israeli and American systems intercepted many. Others landed at military sites. The attack showed both the reach of Iran’s force and the difficulty of judging its effectiveness from night-sky videos.

Some readers call every Israeli defence “Iron Dome.” That name obscures how the system works. The U.S. Missile Defense Agency describes Arrow as the upper layer of Israel’s air and missile defence architecture, alongside David’s Sling and Iron Dome. American support adds further capacity. A claim that Iron Dome intercepts only 20 or 30 percent of Iranian ballistic missiles assigns a rate to the wrong part of the defence network.

Iran’s Fattah presents another problem of labels. Tehran unveiled the solid-fuel missile in 2023 and called it hypersonic. Iran Watch described its distinctive feature as a re-entry vehicle with a steerable rocket motor. Ballistic missiles can reach hypersonic speeds; speed alone does not establish that a weapon has the flight characteristics often associated with a hypersonic glide vehicle. Nor can a claimed top speed tell us how reliably it strikes through defences. I would leave the claim of superior battlefield performance out until independent evidence supports it.

The larger test came in June 2025. CSIS estimated that Iran fired about 550 ballistic missiles and more than 1,000 one-way attack drones during its 12-day war with Israel. Its analysis put missile interception at roughly 85 to 90 percent. That is an estimate for that conflict, not a permanent rating for every weapon or defensive layer. Missiles still got through.

By 2026, the other half of the military equation had become stark. Strikes targeted Iranian launchers, stocks, and production facilities. Iran Watch’s March assessment reported sharp declines in daily missile and drone launches and relayed Israel’s claim that it had neutralised 70 percent of Iran’s missile launchers. The figure is an Israeli wartime claim, not a verified inventory count. Damage assessments remain uncertain, and a decline in launches can have several causes.

Even with those limits, the distinction is plain. A missile’s ability to reach a target does not tell us whether its country can preserve launchers, replace spent weapons, or sustain production through a long conflict.

Power beyond Iran’s borders

Iran has also shared missile capabilities with armed partners. CSIS’s survey of Iranian missiles describes supplies to Hezbollah in Lebanon and increasingly advanced ballistic and cruise missiles to the Houthis in Yemen. Those transfers can stretch an opponent’s defences across several places at once. They also give the groups that receive weapons their own choices about when and where to fire.

The original version of this story assigned Moghaddam a personal role in establishing Hezbollah’s first missile units and gave a precise figure for the group’s arsenal. I have left both claims out. Neither is needed to explain Iran’s strategy, and an undated estimate that combines simple rockets with more capable missiles can mislead readers about what the force can do.

There is a wider cost. Missile attacks put civilians at risk, and retaliation can draw more countries into a fight. Calling the transfer network “strategic brilliance” settles a moral and military argument in two words. It is more useful to ask what leverage Iran gained, what control it retained over its partners, and what damage followed.

Moghaddam’s real legacy

Iran did not turn spare parts into a missile superpower by force of will. It used wartime urgency to organise a missile force. It drew on foreign weapons and designs, then developed substantial production capacity of its own. Procurement from abroad has continued. So has the contest between missiles, defences, and strikes against the factories and launchers behind them.

Moghaddam stands near the beginning of that institutional story. His death did not end the programme, which speaks to the depth of the organisation he helped build. Recent wars have exposed its limits as well as its reach.

I keep returning to those trails over Israel in October 2024. A camera could record a missile crossing the sky. It could not show the supply chain behind it, the damaged launcher left at home, or the decision to fire again. That is where Iran’s missile story now lies.

The Jet Set: Iran’s Game-Changing Embrace of Chinese Warplanes

So, picture this: it’s 2023, and the world is buzzing with rumors of military pacts, high-stakes diplomacy, and shifting alliances. In the middle of it all is Iran, shaking things up by signing a whopping deal with China for 36 advanced J10C fighter jets. It sounds like something out of a geopolitical thriller, doesn’t it? But wait—this isn’t fiction; it’s reality, and it has significant implications for global security.

Iran’s High-Flying Ambitions

Iran’s decision to modernize its air force isn’t just a casual upgrade. Oh no, it’s a calculated move to transform their combat capabilities. The J10C jets aren’t your run-of-the-mill aircraft; they represent a significant leap forward in technology and functionality compared to Iran’s aging US and Russian-made fleet.

What’s fascinating here is that Iran has often relied on a hodge-podge of outdated military hardware, with its air defenses recently exposed as, let’s say, somewhat lacking. Need I say more? You can’t exactly defend your airspace with vintage gear. The J10C jets promise to fill that gaping hole, enhancing Iranian military efficiency and effectiveness.

Now, if you’re curious about the numbers: Iran has its sights set on acquiring up to 150 J10C jets over time. If that doesn’t send a shiver down the spine of military strategists at the Pentagon, it should.

Why the Switch from Su-35?

So why the ditching of Su-35s, the Russian-made powerhouse that Iran once seemed keen on? Well, this is where things get juicy. While the Sukhoi-35s are indeed formidable, they come with a hefty price tag attached and a series of geopolitical strings attached—strings that the Iranian regime isn’t too keen on tugging.

In light of recent events—from the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian conflict to the complexities of Western sanctions on Iran—turning to China offers a tantalizing alternative. Basically, it’s a fresh start without the baggage. Not to mention, the cooperative military relationship between China and Iran signifies a deeper strategic alignment that we cannot ignore. This isn’t just a plane deal; it’s part of a bigger, more concerning puzzle.

The New Axis: Iran, Russia, and China

What’s fascinating here is the emergence of a new axis—a burgeoning military partnership that could reshape the geopolitical landscape. Iran, Russia, and China are finding common ground, sharing advanced military technology, and forming a united front that operates outside of the usual Western approval requirements.

According to a piece by Reuters, this cooperation denotes a proactive approach to defense and strategic intent that could become a game-changer in coming conflicts (source: Reuters). It’s a twist of fate that could lead to increased stability in Iran’s sphere, but for Western powers, it might feel more like a tightening noose.

An Open Question: What’s Next?

This whole situation raises some eyebrow-raising questions. What does this mean for the Middle East’s military balance? Will this partnership embolden Tehran to act more aggressively in its region? And if so, how will the U.S. respond? There is an undeniable tension in the air as we ponder these developments, and those of us who like a dash of drama in our geopolitics will certainly be watching closely.

Closing Thoughts

In the end, Iran’s pursuit of the J10C jets reflects not just a military upgrade but a significant geopolitical shift. As we see myriads of alliances forming and rearranging on the global chessboard, we must keep our eyes peeled for how these players will engage in the coming years. Will this military modernization prompt a new era of conflict or stability in the region?

And here’s a thought to ponder as you pour over the news: Are we witnessing the birth of a new world order—one where old alliances crumble, and new partnerships rise from their ashes?

Source Links:

  1. Reuters – Insights on Iran’s military modernization.
  2. BBC News – Analysis of the implications of the new Iranian air force deal.
  3. The New York Times – Coverage on international reactions to Iran’s defense developments.

Why Christianity is Booming in Iran (Even Under the Islamic Regime)?

In recent years, an unexpected phenomenon has been taking place in Iran, a predominantly Islamic country – the rapid growth of Christianity. Despite being under the strict rule of an Islamic regime, Christianity is flourishing among Iranians. This surprising trend, which might seem counterintuitive at first, can be attributed to several key factors.

  1. Curiosity and Spiritual Searching: Iranians, known for their deep sense of spirituality, are increasingly questioning the tenets of Islam and seeking alternative paths for their faith. This curiosity has led many Iranians to explore Christianity, which offers a different perspective on spirituality and salvation.
  2. Social and Political Dissatisfaction: The strict and conservative nature of the Islamic regime in Iran has left some individuals feeling disillusioned and disconnected. Christianity, with its emphasis on love, forgiveness, and equality, provides an appealing contrast to the oppressive environment faced by Iranians, offering a sense of hope and belonging.
  3. Access to Information and Technology: The advancement of technology and the accessibility of information in the digital age have played a significant role in the spread of Christianity in Iran. Iranians now have access to various Christian resources, including online sermons, Bible translations, and testimonial videos, enabling them to explore Christianity independently.
  4. Christian Minority Empowerment: Despite being a minority, the Christian community in Iran has been resilient and active in spreading their faith. Despite facing persecution, they have managed to establish underground churches, hold secret gatherings, and engage in evangelistic activities. Their dedication and strong sense of community have made Christianity more visible and appealing to Iranians seeking a spiritual alternative.
  5. Personal Testimonies and Miracles: Personal stories of transformed lives and reported miracles have had a profound impact on Iranians exploring Christianity. Testimonies of healing, redemption, and personal encounters with God have resonated deeply within the hearts of many Iranians, drawing them towards Christianity’s message of hope and divine intervention.

While Christianity’s growth in Iran may seem incongruous in the face of a rigid Islamic regime, it is ultimately a testament to the human spirit’s yearning for spiritual fulfillment and the power of faith to transcend boundaries. The challenges faced by Iranian Christians have only strengthened their resolve, and their commitment to their beliefs continues to inspire others to explore Christianity as a viable alternative in their own quest for meaning and purpose.

*Please note that this piece aims to provide an objective analysis of the subject matter, respecting the diverse religious perspectives present in society.

How do Iranian women feel about the dress code laws?

Iranian women have been living under dress code laws for several decades now. These laws stipulate that women must cover their hair and bodies in public, adhering to the Islamic principles of modesty. However, the opinions and feelings of Iranian women towards these dress code laws can vary greatly.

Some women in Iran embrace the dress code laws as a way to express their religious and cultural beliefs. They see it as a form of identity and a means of honoring their heritage. For them, the hijab represents an important symbol of piety and modesty.

On the other hand, there are Iranian women who feel restricted and oppressed by these regulations. They believe that personal choice should prevail over religious mandates when it comes to clothing. They argue that being forced to cover their hair and bodies infringes upon their individual freedoms and limits their ability to express themselves.

It is worth noting that attitudes towards the dress code laws differ among generations as well. Younger Iranian women, influenced by globalization and social media, are increasingly challenging traditional norms. They are pushing for more freedom when it comes to their attire and are often at the forefront of advocating for change.

Overall, it is important to recognize that there is a diversity of opinions among Iranian women regarding the dress code laws. While some embrace it as part of their identity, others yearn for more personal freedom and self-expression. Understanding these viewpoints is crucial in order to have a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the situation.

How does the Iranian government justify its policies on morality and women’s dress codes?

The Iranian government’s policies regarding morality and women’s dress codes have been a subject of debate and scrutiny in recent years. These policies, often enforced through the imposition of strict guidelines on public attire, are justified by the government on various grounds.

One of the main justifications put forth by the Iranian government is based on the preservation of Islamic values and maintaining a moral society. Iran, being an Islamic republic, seeks to uphold the principles and teachings of Islam in all aspects of life, including social behavior and personal attire. According to the government, enforcing modesty in women’s dress is seen as a means of safeguarding public morality and preventing the perceived erosion of Islamic values.

Another argument put forward is the idea of promoting cultural identity and national pride. The Iranian government believes that the enforcement of specific dress codes, such as the mandatory hijab for women, is a reflection of the country’s cultural heritage and traditional values. They argue that it is essential to preserve and protect these cultural norms to maintain a sense of identity and unity among its citizens.

Furthermore, the government contends that these policies are a way to safeguard women’s safety and provide them with a protective environment. They argue that by adhering to a dress code that promotes modesty, women are less likely to face harassment or objectification in public spaces. In their view, these guidelines are aimed at ensuring the well-being and dignity of women in Iranian society.

It is important to note that these justifications are not without criticism. Some argue that such policies infringe upon individual freedom and autonomy, limiting women’s self-expression. Additionally, there are concerns about the impact these guidelines have on gender equality, as they place the burden of morality and modesty primarily on women.

Ultimately, the Iranian government maintains that their policies on morality and women’s dress codes are rooted in religious, cultural, and social considerations. While it may be subject to ongoing debates and discussions, understanding these justifications provides insights into the complexities surrounding this sensitive issue in Iran.

Iran’s New Hijab Law: A Stricter Dress Code and Its Implications

The Iranian government recently enacted a new hijab law, imposing severe penalties on individuals who violate the country’s dress code regulations. According to this legislation, individuals found in violation of the dress code could face up to 10 years in prison.

This development has sparked widespread debate and raised concerns about personal freedoms in Iran. While the government asserts that the law is aimed at preserving cultural and religious values, critics argue that it infringes upon individual rights and reinforces gender inequality.

Under the new law, women are required to wear a headscarf, known as a hijab, that fully covers their hair. Additionally, the hijab should be paired with loose-fitting clothing that conceals the body’s contours. Failure to comply with these regulations may result in legal consequences, including hefty fines and even imprisonment.

Supporters of the law claim that it promotes modesty and preserves Iranian traditions. They argue that the hijab is an essential component of Iranian identity and that enforcing a stricter dress code is necessary to uphold religious and cultural values.

However, opponents argue that such legislation restricts personal freedom and choice. The mandatory enforcement of the hijab has long been a contentious issue in Iran, with many women advocating for the freedom to decide whether or not to wear it. Critics argue that the law perpetuates a patriarchal system that limits women’s autonomy and reinforces gender inequality.

This new development in Iran’s approach to the hijab has garnered attention both domestically and internationally. Human rights organizations have expressed concern over the potential violation of individual rights, while activists are speaking out against what they perceive as repressive measures.

As with any debate surrounding personal freedoms, opinions on Iran’s new hijab law vary greatly. While some applaud the government’s efforts to uphold cultural and religious values, others condemn the limitations placed on personal choice and autonomy. The discussion surrounding this issue is likely to continue, as Iranians grapple with the balance between tradition and individual freedoms.

It is important to note that the above information is based on recent reports, and the situation may evolve over time.