US Falsely Claims Iran Missile Test a ‘Violation’ of UN Resolution

Just a day after Iran’s Guardian Council approved the P5+1 nuclear deal, the US is already showing extremely bad faith, with Ambassador Samantha Power claiming Iran had violated a UN resolution with a recent missile test.

The resolution in question is 1929, which was itself created in response to the already resolved nuclear issue. The resolution forbids Iran from developing ballistic missiles for delivering nuclear warheads.

The US is falsely treating this as a ban on all ballistic missile improvements, even though the missile Iran tested is simply an improved version of the Shahab-3 missile, with better accuracy, and is not designed for nuclear arms.

1929 is a part of a set of sanctions and bans that was already clearly on the way out after the ratification of the P5+1 nuclear deal, and clearly wasn’t intended to forbid Iran from making improvements to its own conventional military arsenal in the first place. The US allegation, then, is doubly problematic, and a bad first sign on how the US is going to treat the post-deal situation.

19 thoughts on “US Falsely Claims Iran Missile Test a ‘Violation’ of UN Resolution”

  1. if a,”four fold increase in accuracy over their predecessors allows them to be used to target (military) facilities instead of population centers” then it seems very likely that Israel will start using its population centers illegally as human shields against an Iranian conventional reprisal to an Israeli nuclear attack. Very clearly, Iran is still convinced it is at high risk for a first strike nuclear attack from Israel. It seems once again that Israel is out to prove there is no security like nuclear security especially when mutually assured total destruction is not a possibility. Were these so-called negotiations solely for the purpose of insuring Israel against an Iranian Samson response? M\\

    1. …that's strange..my comment that you quoted has vanished altogether. Not even marked as deleted, so I'm not sure what happened to it lol.
      *shrug*

    1. He isn't interested in this article…He's a spammer and he just wants you to click his link in his handle – and this one doesn't even bother to hide it. It's a new trend here at AW.com. I've got a boatload of "followers" and I'll bet only a handful are real people.

  2. The resolution in question is actually not 1929, but rather 2231. Paragraph 3 of Annex B says:
    3
    .
    Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles
    designed to be capable of del
    ivering nuclear weapons, including launches
    using such ballistic missile technology, until the date eight years after the
    JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report
    confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier

    The design of the Sahab-3 was modified years ago for exactly the purpose of carrying a nuclear payload. One of them was launched on Sunday. So what part of "violation" do you not understand?

    1. Resolution 1929 doesn't say "designed to carry nuclear weapons." Paragraph 9 of the resolution uses the language "capable of delivering nuclear weapons." So the question is, is the missile in question "capable of delivering nuclear weapons"? I don't know the answer to this one way or another.

      What's important is that we get the precise language of the resolution, and it would have been helpful if Jason had linked to the text of the resolution itself rather than to some Wikipedia article.

  3. The U.S. objections to the Iranian missile test are irrelevant.
    There is no independent U.S. anymore, only a govt. of cowed sycophants and traitors who prostrate themselves to Israel. The U.S. govt has dishonored itself and will go down in history as the most disgraceful, shameful, cowardly govt. this country has ever known.

  4. More and more, I'm starting to believe that the P5+1 nuclear deal is just another way for Uncle Sam to harass and humiliate Iran for there unforgivable crime of overthrowing our boy, the Shah, and declaring there independence from western hegemony. The chicken hawks of this world will never forgive them for that and they wont give them a seconds peace until they have there filthy mitts back on that oil.

    Israel has its own motives. The Zionist state was originally intended to be a Yankee/limey rump state until our darling Quislings got greedy and decided to get in on the empire game themselves. Now they've become a sort of rogue Golem hungry for slaughter, beyond even our control. They despise Iran because, along with Syria, there the only state willing and capable of stopping Israel's inevitable expansion and liquidation of the Palestinians. Not to mention the fact that Iran's very existence emboldens Muslims in the region to resist there enslavement and dare to dream of a future of self determination.

    Iran's best hope for peace is Syria's and Kurdistan's and Lebanon's as well and that is to stop looking to the west for hope and look to there real comrades in Russia and China instead.

    P5+1, sadly, appears to be just another imperialist trap to sabotage the inevitability of the coming Eurasian Century.

  5. The U.S. nuclear deal with Iran is filed with trip wires like this – won’t be the first, and won’t be the last, and I’ve long considered the “deal” just one more convenient step towards war.

  6. O.K. So the U.S. thinks the test was a violation… Luckily there are other parties to the agreement who will have something to say. How many of the 6 will take this position and if the majority of the six take the position that the test was a violation, oops, Iran will have to create another vehicle for their missile research. “Sorry!” It won’t happen again…
    So big it as you say.

  7. The nuclear issue is irrelevant in lieu of the fact that Iran, like many others, has chemical & biological weapons easily placed on their Sahab missiles.
    All this 'you cannot go nuclear' has the Iranians laughing.

    Go ahead, Tel Aviv, make their day.

  8. What's important is that we get the precise language of the resolution, and it would have been helpful if Jason had linked to the text of the resolution itself rather than to some Wikipedia article.

Comments are closed.