“Iran Says it Tests Satellite-Carrying Rocket ….”

Qaem 100 first stage

“… the same long-range ballistic technology used to put satellites into orbit could also be used to launch nuclear warheads. Tehran has regularly denied having any such intention.

“The flight test of this satellite carrier with a solid-fueled engine … was successfully completed,” state news agency IRNA reported.

The Ghaem 100, Iran’s first three-stage launch vehicle, will be able to place satellites weighing 80 kg (180 pounds) in an orbit 500 km (300 miles) from the earth’s surface, IRNA said.

Amirali Hajizadeh, head of the Revolutionary Guards’ aerospace division which developed the Ghaem 100, said the rocket would be used to launch Iran’s Nahid satellite for the telecommunications ministry, state media reported.

Saturday’s operation tested the first sub-orbital stage of the rocket, the reports said.

In an emailed response to the Iranian announcement, a spokesperson for the U.S. State Department said: “Such actions are unhelpful and destabilizing.”

“The United States remains concerned with Iran’s continued development of space launch vehicles (SLVs), which pose a significant proliferation concern,” the spokesperson said.”

Comment: I remember the fuss in the USIC when Iraq succeeded in building a two-stage rocket that went really, really high. They, too, said this for launching communications satellites. All of a sudden it was realized that the difference between that rocket and the technology involved in a ballistic missile was trivial. Well, here we are again, this time with Iran. A three stage SLV. Hmmm! pl

UPDATE 2-Iran Says it Tests Satellite-carrying Rocket, U.S. Calls Move ‘destabilizing’ | Newsmax.com

Qaem 100 (rocket) – Wikipedia

This entry was posted in Iran, Iraq, Space, weapons. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to “Iran Says it Tests Satellite-Carrying Rocket ….”

  1. d74 says:

    For those who would like to prevent/prohibit such a development: too late to close the barn door, the horse is already far away, and galloping.

    The nuclear weapon will come, it is a logical follow-up.
    Good or bad? I can’t say.
    So far, the possession of nuclear weapons seems to put a brake on the hotheads brains on both sides of the fence.

    • borko says:


      “So far, the possession of nuclear weapons seems to put a brake on the hotheads brains on both sides of the fence.”

      True, but the use of nukes (tactical) is another barn door. If (when) that door opens…

      • d74 says:

        Using one or more tactical nuclear weapons is the act of a madman. I can’t think of anything more contrary to military art, and especially more counterproductive.

        I speak of course for Europe, where there will be no clean (non-ionized) corner for anyone to enjoy the victory. I believe and hope that every military leader in this small western cape of Asia is aware of this.

        It may be different for a US strategist: he comes, he messes up the whole area and he goes back home.
        How to put it? Maybe: “We had to destroy this village to free it”, expand the area.

  2. Fourth and Long says:

    La Republica (Italy) has this story today on Negotiations possible if Kherson falls. Below is the coverage pasted from Tass this morning.

    The original is behind a paywall at:

    This appears to be someone’s crib sheet copy:
    Which can be translated by the usual applications.

    ROME, November 7. /TASS/. The US and NATO think that launching peace talks on Ukraine would be possible if Kiev takes back Kherson with the battle for it having both strategic and diplomatic significance, La Repubblica wrote on Monday.

    According to the paper, Washington is in constant contact with Brussels and its allies on this issue as well as instilling this idea into the mind of the Kiev regime.

    The article notes that it was no accident that Washington and NATO confirmed sending a batch of anti-drone missiles to Kiev. The main point is that the return of Kherson, a strategic target from the point of view of gaining sea access and control over water resources may change the course of the conflict and when the city is taken it will be possible to hold negotiations from the position of force. According to the newspaper, this is the first time that the White House allowed for such a specific scenario.

    According to the article, this is caused by two aspects. The first one is the alleged threat, however remote, of Russia using tactical nuclear weapons which would require a large-scale response. The second one is China’s expanded influence on Russia. According to the newspaper, a complete defeat of Russia’s leader Vladimir Putin whose regime change is no longer discussed as one of the options would lead to worse consequences for the US such as Russia falling under China’s full control.

    That said, it is pointed out that in many ways the political process would depend on the results of US congressional midterm elections. Yet the conflict is entering a new phase due to the “parallel” nature of the Kremlin’s and Washington’s interests, La Repubblica noted. It says that this is confirmed by the US admitting it has been maintaining direct contact with Moscow over months in order to prevent the expansion of the conflict and nuclear escalation.

    • Leith says:

      F&L –

      There would be no sea access from Kherson until the Kinburn Peninsula is liberated. Currently not even Ochakiv has unrestricted sea access because of Kinburn. And there would be no Ukrainian control over their own water resources until Nova Kakhovka is liberated. La Republika is in LaLa Land to believe that or maybe they are pimping for Putin.

      By the way, Xi recently scolded Putin about nuclear threats. Now even the craziest of the Russian TV personalities have stopped bringing up the specter armageddon if Russia keeps losing.

  3. JamesT says:

    Satellites are also needed for Long Range Precision Strike. Shahed-136 drones are not very useful if you cannot feed them the GPS coordinates of the targets that you want to hit, and then do damage assessment after you fire them. My gut instinct is that the Iranians want satellites for LRPS considerably more than they want long range missiles.

    • Pat Lang says:

      How much risk are you willing to absorb over that?

      • JamesT says:


        If my thesis is correct perhaps we can do a deal – we agree to let Iran have satellites if they agree to hoist them on Russian rockets. But I don’t think Israel would let us do that deal.

    • d74 says:

      I want to believe that Iranians are complete idiots, but to believe what you suggest shows that you also believe in fairy tales.

      More, the closeness in space rocket and nuclear delivery rocket has been demonstrated since the first Sputnik satellite. This was a very clear Soviet message.

  4. cobo says:

    In the days of hand weapons, catching your opponent with his pants down, for whatever reason, was a good move. Letting him pull up his pants, zip up and fix his belt and his sheath would be considered stoopid. The fear of nuclear war holds the world in check, so kill anyone fast that thinks they can get to that advantage. And for those that already have it, we’ll have to face that. This world won’t end in fear or in fire, but there will certainly be fear and fire. And the only winner will still have its boots on the ground. I might say ‘his’ boots, but I don’t know that there isn’t a warrior queen in the future of push-button war.

  5. walrus says:

    80 kg? Not much.

  6. Personanongrata says:

    Comment: I remember the fuss in the USIC when Iraq succeeded in building a two-stage rocket that went really, really high. They, too, said this for launching communications satellites. All of a sudden it was realized that the difference between that rocket and the technology involved in a ballistic missile was trivial. Well, here we are again, this time with Iran. A three stage SLV. Hmmm! pl

    Only “responsible” nations that have active/proven nuclear weapons programs or nations (ie US) that have used nuclear weapons in anger should be permitted to have ballistic missile programs?

    Italicized/bold text was excerpted from the website http://www.dni.gov found within a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate titled:

    Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities

    Judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least
    several years. (DOE and the NIC have moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program.) Assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear
    weapons. Judge with high confidence that the halt was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work. Assess with moderate-to-high confidence
    that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.


    Italicized/bold text was excerpted from the website media.defense.gov found within a report titled:

    2022 National Defense Strategy of The United States of America
    Including the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review and the 2022 Missile Defense Review

    2022 Nuclear Posture Review, page 5, paragraph 2

    Iran does not today possess a nuclear weapon and we currently believe it is not pursuing one. However, recent Iranian activities previously constrained by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) are of great concern as they are applicable to a nuclear weapons program. U.S. policy is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.


    • Pat Lang says:

      I didn’t say anything about “permission.” I am talking about apprehension. A lot of you have the asinine academic idea that international relations is about fairness. It is not. It is about survival.

      • borko says:

        Yet the US allowed NK to get nukes and ballistic missiles.
        IMO NK is much more unstable and unpredictable than Iran.

        • Pat Lang says:

          How did we “allow” them?

          • borko says:

            By not forcibly preventing them ?
            Iraq was invaded and regime changed for an imaginary WMD and Israel bombed Osirak back in 1981 and is trying hard to get the US to fight Iran for them. NK however is happily making more and more nukes and keeps testing ever more capable missiles.

          • Pat Lang says:

            Yes, we did not choose to go to war against North Korea. The same thing is true of Iran in spite of Israeli pressure.

  7. jim ticehurst.. says:

    I Dont Care about Barn Doors. We should have Stopped With Horses And Buggys..and Throwing Rocks s with Slings and Arrows.And Not Wake Sleeping Dragons…Or Hide The ..Wormwood..In Covered Wagons,..Westward Ho..Master

    ,The Worms Living in
    Round Noisy Holes..With Heads of War..They Are Every where..Death Silos..
    No Grain..In These..No Grain ..No Grain…Just Pain…And Empty Barns..

  8. Christian Chuba says:

    One could say that Iran should not be allowed to have metellurgy or STEM graduates because that is nuclear capable technology. Why wouldn’t Iran want to see the the hordes surrounding them who wish to do them harm? It’s not like we are going to give them any satellites.

    Israel has actually used satellites to target and bomb Syria but we are okay with that. We are only outraged that Iran could do that in the future.

    • Pat Lang says:

      We don’t expect Israel to take out an American city.

      • Christian Chuba says:

        “We don’t expect Israel to take out an American city” – Col Lang

        Col, do you believe that Iran wants to launch a nuclear attack on U.S. cities? Iran needs eyes just like everyone else.

        Israel weaponizes their satellites. Israel uses satellites to acquire targets to bomb Syria. I know thsi because they publish photographs showing the pain they have inflicted on Syria.
        Hmm … I wonder if they used those satellites to find their targets? (the answer is yes).

        Iran has a rational reason to have satellites other than to attack the U.S. It is unreasonable for us to expect them to be content with being blind.

        • Pat Lang says:

          This is not a question of intentions. It is a question of the acquisition of capabilities. Iran’s possession of such a capability is a threat. Israel’s government is so penetrated by the USIC that if they moved to that kind of capability our relationship with them would end.

Comments are closed.