Warfare used to be synonymous with high numbers of casualties and great risk to all those involved but that is quickly becoming a thing of the past. Technological advances are creating a new, risk-free, less expensive form of war that is extremely attractive to nations around the globe. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or pilotless drones, are the new phenomenon because they are smaller, cheaper, and less risky than jet aircraft.
Despite their seemingly great implications, drones are a highly controversial topic. One of the main issues is that when all a person has to do is click a button to launch an attack, the task becomes more like a video game and less like an act of war. Vicki Divoll, a CIA lawyer, described it as this: "When the controls are manned by someone in a suburb of Washington rather than by someone in the field you become so detached that there's no cost, there's no limitation on you" (BBC).
Despite this, the US already has over 7,000 drones at its disposal and they are becoming increasingly popular. They can be used for advanced reconnaissance missions as well as for taking out high-priority targets like Osama Bin Laden (BBC).
Last week Iran state TV displayed images of a RQ-170 “Sentinel” drone- the same one that US forces in Afghanistan recently reported missing (Christian Science Monitor). The Revolutionary Guard claims that it was brought down in a cyber-attack but it is unconfirmed whether it was an attack or merely a technical malfunction. Either way, the loss of the drone is a major loss to the US because precious technology is now in the hands of a potential enemy. Robert Densmore, a defense journalist, said “These Sentinels are pretty rare technology still, and to have one in such good condition, to be lost to a potential adversary like this, is pretty significant” (CNN).
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad bragged to Venezuelan state TV that “Those who have been in control of the spy plane will analyze the plane’s system. The systems of Iran are so advanced also, like the system of this plane” (New York Daily News). Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was very skeptical of the possible advantages they could gain from the plane however and instead viewed the remarks as a propaganda coup. Iran has been criticized extensively in the international news lately so the nation is using this incident to regain some of their standing.
As part of their propaganda scheme they are depicting the US as an invasive aggressor who imposed upon their sovereignty. President Obama officially admitted that Iran was in possession of the drone when said, “ We’ve asked for it back. We’ll see how the Iranians respond” (Telegraph). In response, ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said, “It seems he has forgotten that Iran’s airspace was violated, spying operations were undertaken, international laws were violated, and that Iran’s internal affairs were interfered with” (Telegraph). The Iranian government feel that they are owed an apology but clearly that isn’t forthcoming. Iranian defense minister Gen. Ahmad Vahidi told Mehr news agency, “Their plane invaded Iran and Iranian forces reacted powerfully. Now, instead of offering an apology to the Iranian nation, they impudently ask for the return of the plane” (NY Daily News).
With these sorts of statements, the Iranian government is clearly depicting a scenario in which they are the innocent victim and the US is the antagonist. One has to wonder though, are the comments valid? From the point of Iran, the US was definitely wrong in having a Sentinel drone 140 miles into Iranian territory. "No nation welcomes other countries' spy drones in its territory, and no one sends back the spying equipment and its information back to the country of origin," said Gen. Hossein Salami, deputy commander of Iran's military (CNN). If the roles were reversed and the drone was owned by Iran but in US territory, I am confident that the US would have had a much stronger reaction.
US officials have admitted anonymously that the drone was on a CIA spying mission over the Islamic republic when it was captured (Telegraph). Many Americans would support the US surveillance mission because the US is seen as almost a policer and they see it as their job to ensure that unstable states like Iran don’t maintain nuclear weapons. The incident is no doubt going to liven the debate over UAVs that has been heated for some time.
Works Cited
- http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/12/world/meast/iran-us-drone/index.html?hpt=imi_c2
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/8952827/Iran-says-captured-US-drone-is-their-property-now.html
- http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/iran-claims-control-captured-american-drone-article-1.990815
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8488269.stm
- http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/a/predator-uavs-weaponry.htm
- http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/1209/Downed-US-drone-How-Iran-caught-the-beast/(page)/3
Micayla,
ReplyDeleteTimeous post! We have something of a precedent here, with the 2001 loss of a US spyplane in China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident) and of course the famous Gary Powers incident from the days of the Cold War. Looking at all three incidents, can you make any general statements about how states treat one another when their spyplanes get 'caught in the act'?