Tag: Israel

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.

Punish Israel? EU Lawmakers Raise Alarm on Gaza Crisis

The Growing Call for Action in the EU

So, imagine you’re chatting with a friend about the world’s latest political chess match. Last week, a significant move came out of the European Parliament. Forty lawmakers from diverse political backgrounds banded together. They demanded that the European Union impose sanctions on Israel because of the growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. I mean, talk about a statement! This isn’t trivial chatter; it’s indicative of broader discontent and moral dilemmas shaping international relations right now.

The crux of their argument? They believe that the EU has influential trade ties to Israel. They argue that the EU should halt its trade arrangements until tangible progress is made in addressing the crisis. The lawmakers went as far as to say it’s a “moral stain on humanity.” They believe it reflects poorly if the EU just stands by and does nothing. The backdrop of this bold statement? An ongoing debate—more like a contentious shouting match—over how the world responds to humanitarian disasters. And, to add some urgency, they are also demanding that Hamas release captured Israeli individuals. It’s like a game of tug-of-war, but the rope is made of human lives and global ethics.

A Growing Humanitarian Crisis: The Stakes Are High

The situation in Gaza is dire. The casualties continue to mount, and with each passing week, the human dimension of this crisis becomes harder to ignore. Civilians bear the brunt of the violence. Consequently, the discourse shifts from abstract concepts to the gritty realities faced by families and communities. When we talk about humanitarian crises, it’s easy to focus on statistics and numbers. Remember: behind those numbers are mothers, fathers, and children caught in the crossfire.

Take a look at reports from reputable organizations like Reuters or the BBC News. They consistently illustrate the hard-hitting realities on the ground. For instance, a recent article from the BBC highlighted how shelter, food, and basic medical care are dwindling. Thousands are left without basic needs. The EU lawmakers are pushing for sanctions. They are not just playing politics. They are framing a moral response to what many perceive as a failure to protect innocent lives.

Is Duty the Same as Strategy? The Complicated EU-Israel Relationship

Now, let’s unpack this idea a bit. The EU’s relationship with Israel is complex, to say the least. On one hand, there’s the commitment to human rights and humanitarianism. On the other hand, economic interests and strategic alliances come heavily into play. That trade agreement? It’s worth billions. The EU is Israel’s largest trading partner. Halting trade could have far-reaching implications. These implications are not just economic, but also political within the EU itself.

From my perspective, the question now is whether these lawmakers’ demands are more than just symbolic. Will the European Union actually reevaluate its ties, or is this a fleeting moment of outrage that leads nowhere? Signals from the EU thus far depict a hesitance to take such drastic measures.

In a July report by The New York Times, EU leaders expressed concern. However, they stopped short of endorsing full sanctions. Are they adhering to a cautious diplomatic strategy, or are they just afraid of the economic backlash? It’s a delicate dance, and each step could either support or undermine international norms regarding human rights.

Final Thoughts – Where Do We Go from Here?

As we witness these historical moves, it’s natural to feel a mix of hope and skepticism. Can the EU lawmakers transform their words into action? Or will this simply be another chapter in a long saga of geopolitical hand-wringing? That’s the $64,000 question, isn’t it?

I’d love to hear your thoughts! Do you think the EU should take a stand on this issue, or is it just too complicated? How do we balance moral obligations with strategic partnerships?

Sources:

Tags:

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.

Understanding Misconceptions: Blaming Jewish People for the Actions of the Israeli Government

Discussions mistakenly blaming Jews for Israeli government actions require respectful dialogue. Recognizing Muslims’ diverse viewpoints and distinguishing between criticizing governments and individuals is essential to foster peaceful coexistence.

Recently, discussions or allegations about Muslims blaming Jewish people for the actions of the Israeli government have become more common. We must address this sensitive topic with respect. We should try to shed some light on the complexities behind these perceptions.

Firstly, it’s important to note that generalizations and stereotypes can perpetuate misunderstandings and contribute to division. Muslims, like any other religious or ethnic group, are not a monolithic entity with a single viewpoint. Opinions vary greatly within the Muslim community. It is unfair to consider one perspective as representing the beliefs of all Muslims.

The Israeli government’s actions, understandably, attract attention and spark debates worldwide. However, it is crucial to distinguish between criticizing government policies and actions. We should not target individuals based on their religious or ethnic backgrounds. Blaming Jewish people collectively for the actions of the Israeli government is both unfair and unjust.

It is also essential to recognize that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is rooted in a complex historical and political context. This context goes far beyond religious differences. It is a multifaceted issue with deep-seated grievances and aspirations on both sides. Engaging in a constructive dialogue and seeking common ground can facilitate a better understanding and promote peaceful coexistence.

Attacking or discriminating against Jews living outside of Israel based on the actions of the Israeli government is ethically wrong. It also prevents building bridges and fostering harmonious relationships between different communities. Promoting tolerance among all people is crucial. Empathy and understanding should be encouraged, regardless of their religion or ethnicity. This approach leads us towards a more inclusive and compassionate society.

Approach discussions about these topics with an open mind. Show willingness to listen to different perspectives. Commit to respecting the dignity and rights of every individual. By doing so, we can contribute to a more nuanced understanding. We can build a world where diversity is celebrated. Peaceful coexistence should be the norm.

Remember, it is vital to educate ourselves, challenge misconceptions, and promote unity in addressing complex issues like these.

What is an Egyptian plan for ending conflict? How can the the three stage be implemented?

Egypt has proposed a comprehensive plan for ending the conflict in Palestine, consisting of three key stages for implementation.

The first stage involves the formation of a technocratic Palestine government, with a composition aimed at inclusivity and representation. While details on the specific composition are yet to be released, it is anticipated to involve a diverse range of experts and stakeholders.

One pressing question is whether Hamas, a significant player in Palestinian politics, will be part of this government. This remains a topic of intense discussion and speculation, as it holds substantial implications for the plan’s viability and potential success.

Additionally, the stance of the Israeli government on this proposed plan is a crucial aspect that is being closely monitored. Their position and willingness to engage are pivotal factors in the plan’s prospects for progress and eventual realization.

Israel will have to accept two state solution if it wants to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia, Says republican senator Lindsay Graham.

Title: Seeking a Common Ground: Israel’s Dilemma on the Two-State Solution

In a surprising statement, Republican Senator Lindsay Graham emphasized that if Israel wishes to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia, it will have to accept a two-state solution. As tensions in the Middle East continue to dominate global political discussions, this proposal raises a crucial question: Will Israeli leaders be willing to embrace this diplomatic path?

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been a long-standing and deeply complex issue, entangled in historical, political, and religious dimensions. The idea of a two-state solution, which involves the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, has been debated for years as a potential resolution to the conflict. While it has garnered international support, implementing such a solution has proven challenging.

Senator Graham’s call for Israel to accept a two-state solution as a precondition for normalized relations with Saudi Arabia carries significant weight. Saudi Arabia has recently demonstrated its intentions to forge stronger ties within the Middle East, particularly through the recent Abraham Accords, which normalized relations with several Arab states and Israel. This statement from a prominent Republican senator adds to the growing chorus of voices urging Israel to seriously consider the two-state solution.

Yet, whether Israeli leaders will accept this proposal remains uncertain. Israel has often taken a cautious approach to the issue, citing concerns about security, territorial disputes, and the right to self-determination. Previous attempts to negotiate a peace agreement based on the two-state solution have encountered numerous stumbling blocks, leading to a sense of disillusionment for many on both sides.

However, with shifting dynamics in the region and the desire for greater stability, there might be a window of opportunity for progress. As other Arab nations signal their willingness to engage with Israel, Israeli leaders may recognize the potential benefits of accepting a two-state solution. In doing so, they would not only mend relations with Saudi Arabia but also potentially unlock broader regional collaboration, economic opportunities, and enhanced security.

The path to a two-state solution will undoubtedly require difficult compromises from all parties involved. Arab states and the international community must continue to support and encourage dialogue, recognizing the importance of addressing the aspirations and grievances of both Israelis and Palestinians. By navigating the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and embracing a two-state solution, Israel has the chance to reshape its regional relationships positively while offering a glimmer of hope for peace in the Middle East.

While Senator Graham’s statement raises important considerations, the ultimate decision rests with Israeli leaders, who face a delicate balancing act between strategic interests and the pursuit of lasting peace. Only time will reveal whether this proposal will gain traction and pave the way for a new chapter in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one rooted in understanding, cooperation, and mutual respect.

Israel’s Ministry of Education has suspended its students’ trips to Poland. 

Israel’s Ministry of Education has suspended its students’ trips to Poland. About 24,000 were supposed to take part in them. people. The decision is related to the conflict with the Hamas terrorist organization and the constantly emerging threat to the security of Israelis around the world.

read more at https://medium.com/@munaeem/israel-has-suspended-students-trips-to-poland-34b1b2dd4f39

What is Jewish Voice for peace?

Who Are Anti-Zionist Jewish Protestors?

In recent times, there has been a growing movement of anti-Zionist Jewish protestors who aim to voice their discontent with the Israeli government’s policies towards Palestine. These individuals, often associated with organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace, are passionate activists who are critical of Zionism, the ideology behind the establishment and preservation of the state of Israel.

Jewish Voice for Peace: Advocates for a Just Resolution

Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) is a renowned grassroots organization that strives for peace, justice, and equality for all people in Israel and Palestine. Although its membership includes people from diverse backgrounds, including both Jewish and non-Jewish individuals, it primarily focuses on amplifying Jewish voices to create meaningful change.

JVP campaigns for various causes, aiming to address the ongoing tensions between Israel and Palestine. Among its core objectives is the advocacy for a just resolution to the conflict, where the rights and dignity of both Palestinians and Israelis are respected and upheld.

Demands for Ceasefire in Gaza

One of the pressing issues that anti-Zionist Jewish protestors, including those associated with Jewish Voice for Peace, have been highlighting is the urgent need for a ceasefire in Gaza. The recent escalation of violence in the region has led to a devastating loss of life, particularly among Palestinian civilians.

Demanding a ceasefire demonstrates their commitment to the lives and well-being of all individuals affected by the conflict. These protesters believe that a cessation of hostilities is a crucial step towards establishing an environment where dialogue, negotiations, and diplomacy can flourish, ultimately leading to a just and lasting peace.

While opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may vary significantly, it is important to acknowledge and respect the diverse perspectives within the Jewish community, including those who actively promote anti-Zionist views. These individuals and organizations play a crucial role in shaping the discourse surrounding the conflict and fostering a broader understanding of the complex issues at hand.

Middle East Conflict – Israel and Palestine

1979, three months before I graduated from the Gymnasium, I sat in our classroom in boarding school during our daily homework time and started writing an essay that would cause some controversy between the nuns and our worldly teachers. I wrote about the Middle East conflict. Some thought I was wrong, others thought I was […]

Middle East Conflict – Israel and Palestine

Was Hamas trapped by Israel into self destruction?

Israel’s conflict with Hamas has been a matter of intense debate and speculation. One controversial question that arises is whether Hamas has been trapped by Israel into self-destruction. Let’s delve deeper into this complex issue.

It is important to note that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is multifaceted and spans decades. Hamas, a Palestinian political and military organization, has been engaged in armed resistance against Israeli occupation for years. While some argue that Israel has strategically cornered Hamas into self-destruction, others believe that Hamas’s actions are driven by its own agenda.

Those who support the notion of Israel trapping Hamas into self-destruction argue that Israel’s military might and sophisticated intelligence apparatus have left Hamas with limited options. They claim that Israel’s targeted strikes, blockades, and other measures have weakened Hamas’s position over time, making it difficult for the organization to sustain its operations effectively. According to this perspective, Israel has effectively pushed Hamas into a corner, forcing it to resort to desperate and damaging actions.

On the other hand, some argue that Hamas’s actions are a result of its ideological commitment to resistance against Israeli occupation. They believe that Hamas, as a key player in the Palestinian struggle, has pursued its own strategic goals independent of Israeli influence. Supporters of this viewpoint argue that Hamas’s use of tactics such as rocket attacks and suicide bombings is a calculated response to what they perceive as Israeli aggression and oppression.

It is critical to approach this topic with sensitivity and consider the complex historical context surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The question of whether Hamas has been trapped by Israel into self-destruction is subjective and open to interpretation. Ultimately, understanding the perspectives of both sides is crucial to gain insights into the complexities of this enduring conflict.