New missile in Israel-Iran conflict: What we know about Tehran's Sejil
Despite its frequent appearance in the Tehran regime's military parades since it was reportedly brought into service in 2012, the Sejil missile's launch against Israel marks the first time one of its prized assets was used in direct confrontation.
Its real-world application also reveals a shift in gears in Tehran's deterrence calculations and response.
The Sejil, or "Brimstone", is classified as a surface-to-surface ballistic missile and was developed entirely inside Iran by the Ministry of Defence-run Aerospace Industries Organisation.
Although some reports claimed that Tehran used similar Chinese-made missiles as a technical basis for the Sejil, its size and other features suggest it is entirely designed and produced in Iran.
The missile, developed to replace the Shabab class of rockets in service since the late 1980s, has a range of about 2,000 kilometres and uses solid fuel as propellant, making it quicker to launch compared to liquid-fueled equivalents.
The Sejil is manoeuvrable in all stages of flight, making it difficult to intercept by conventional air defence systems. Although details on its speed are unclear, Tehran reportedly stated that it is capable of reaching Tel Aviv in approximately seven minutes if launched from central Iran.
In terms of technical specifications, reports say it measures 25 metres in length, 1.25 metres in diameter, and weighs approximately 2.3 metric tonnes. It can carry warheads weighing up to 700 kilograms and is believed to be capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
The Sejil first appeared in a field test in 2008, before its improved version, the Sejil-2, was developed in 2009. In this version, the warhead design was modified, and guidance wings were added to enhance accuracy.
However, some reports claim that Sejil-2 might not be a separate model, but rather a test name for the same rocket. Yet footage from 2021 military exercises featuring the Sejil shows updates to earlier missiles of the same model have been made, notably to its jet vanes.
Furthermore, rumours of another updated model, the Sejil-3, say that a more modern version was developed with a maximum range of 4,000 kilometres, meaning that in theory it could almost reach Brussels from Tehran.
Israeli authorities said on Thursday that the Sejil was successfully intercepted, with debris causing damage to a vehicle.
China dispatched 74 military aircraft towards the Taiwan Strait between late Thursday and early Friday, with 61 of them crossing its median line, the Taiwanese defence ministry has said.
The incursion, which represents one of the largest in recent months, began a day after the UK sailed a navy ship across the strait, in a move welcomed by Taipei but condemned by Beijing.
The Chinese planes were sent in two separate waves, with six naval vessels also accompanying the manoeuvres, according to Taiwan.
Beijing regards the democratically governed island as part of its own territory and has stepped up such deployments to demonstrate its readiness to encircle and potentially invade Taiwan.
Analysts say the moves are also aimed at intimidating Taiwan's population and exhausting its military resources and morale.
Taiwan responded by scrambling its own fighter jets, deploying naval ships and activating land-based missile systems to monitor the incursion.
The incident came after the British patrol vessel HMS Spey passed through the Taiwan Strait on Wednesday.
Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs welcome the patrol, saying it 'once again (reaffirmed the Strait's) status as international waters".
'Such transits by the UK and other like-minded countries are encouraged to safeguard peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, and to promote a free and open Indo-Pacific,' it added.
Britain's de facto embassy in Taipei said the HMS Spey was legally within its rights to sail through the strait.
'Wherever the Royal Navy operates, it does so in full compliance with international law and exercises its right to Freedom of Navigation and overflight,' it stated.
However, Beijing condemned the Royal Navy's actions, with the Chinese army saying the British vessel had 'deliberately disturbed the situation and undermined the peace and stability of the Taiwan Strait".
While the timing raised speculation, it remains unclear whether China's large-scale aerial deployment was a direct response to the British naval transit.
The Taiwan Strait is an important international waterway, but Beijing routinely objects to the presence of foreign military vessels in the area.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
LeMonde
an hour ago
- LeMonde
European automakers stuck in an impasse
The automotive industry has always been cyclical. Boom periods have routinely been followed by spectacular drops in sales and profits, which are driven by economic conditions or phases when car models are renewed. The turmoil the sector is experiencing today, however, has little in common with its past upheavals. The current crisis is a structural one, and it is uncertain how French brands will manage to pull themselves out of this rut. While, up until recently, Renault and Stellantis (Peugeot, Citroën, Fiat, Chrysler, Opel, etc.) boasted about their profitability, which was unprecedented for the industry, both manufacturers posted heavy half-year losses of several billion euros in the first quarter. The setbacks have since mounted. Dealerships have their inventories pile up, and these cars must be cleared out at steep discounts, which undermines profits. Renault also faces the depreciation of its stake in the Japanese company Nissan, which is also going through a difficult period. The European car industry is also paying the price for not having prepared for the transition to electric vehicles and for the rapid rise of its Chinese competitors. This painful shift had been further exacerbated by the tariffs imposed by Donald Trump. With the specter of decline looming, car manufacturers have desperately scrambled to contain the crisis, which threatens millions of jobs. According to them, the main culprit was the European Union's decision to ban the sale of combustion-engine cars from 2035. This measure has been criticized as a purely political choice, disconnected from the market's realities, and the 2035 deadline has been targeted by intense lobbying efforts aimed at pushing it back. Automakers have already succeeded in postponing penalties for exceeding CO 2 emissions limits, as they were initially scheduled for 2025 before being pushed back to 2027. Everyone has understood that this is just a step, as the real goal is to challenge the entire regulatory timetable. Bargaining for a reprieve, and thereby focusing on the short term, has proven to be a strategic misstep. European carmakers had 15 years to prepare for the transition. That is the time it took for China's automotive industry to become the undisputed world leader in electric vehicles and achieve a decisive technological lead over Western companies. Those Western companies instead chose to keep one foot in the old world by continuing to sell large SUVs, which generate higher profit margins but are now too expensive for most consumers. The Chinese strategy was to go for mass production with affordable models, allowing them to achieve unbeatable production costs and a highly effective pace of innovation. European car manufacturers now argue that the European market is not meeting expectations. Yet, in about 10 countries where a favorable ecosystem has been created for electric vehicles, with tailored tax policies, available infrastructure and affordable charging costs, the percentage of electric vehicles in total sales is ahead of schedule. Rather than making the transition out to be a scapegoat for the sector's problems, car manufacturers should redirect their lobbying efforts to demanding public policies to support the transition. Pushing back regulatory deadlines would only widen the lag behind their Chinese competitors, who will not stop innovating simply because Europeans have decided to extend the life of outdated combustion technology at any cost. This backward-looking perspective only worsens the impasse in which the sector now finds itself.
Euronews
4 hours ago
- Euronews
Not even the EU knows if wine and spirits will be hit by US tariffs
The EU executive has touted the new asymmetric tariff agreement with the Donald Trump administration, announced on Sunday, as a step toward predictability. Yet, less than a day before the US is expected to implement a new tariff ceiling of 15% on EU industrial goods, crucial details for several sectors, including wine and spirits, remain unresolved. Industry stakeholders are still holding out hope for exemptions, but no official list has been released. A Commission spokesperson admitted on Thursday that wine and spirits are likely to be subject to the tariffs. 'It is not our expectation that wine and spirits will be included in the first group of exemptions announced by the US tomorrow,' the spokesperson said. 'We're still negotiating,' they added, noting that both sides are working to finalise a joint statement based on the agreement reached between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and US President Donald Trump. Securing an exemption for the wine and spirits industry remains a top priority for the EU negotiating team in Brussels. This industry is seen as strategic—especially for France, which, along with Italy, Spain, and Ireland, is actively lobbying for these products to be spared. 'We are continuing to negotiate with the Americans so that, if possible, spirits, perhaps wine, and other sectors can be exempted. It's a work in progress,' said French Economy Minister Éric Lombard in a radio interview on Wednesday. The US and China are the top export markets for European wine and spirits. In France alone, the industry supports nearly 550,000 jobs across its value chain. Chinese tariffs are already impacting the sector, and new US duties would be a further blow. Both EU and US trade officials, along with major industry associations such as the Distilled Spirits Council and the Comité Européen des Entreprises Vins, have advocated for a 'zero-for-zero' tariff arrangement on wine and spirits. However, the EU's negotiating position has weakened, and Brussels no longer has effective leverage over these products. The past ability to threaten retaliatory tariffs on iconic American exports like bourbon or Californian wine often kept EU wine and spirits off the US target list. That option disappeared with the latest agreement reached in Scotland, leaving the EU less inclined to jeopardise the broader deal over a single sector. Adding to the uncertainty, the Commission spokesperson declined to confirm whether tariffs would be imposed as early as Friday, saying only that they had a 'clear understanding' the US intends to proceed via executive order, possibly overnight.
LeMonde
4 hours ago
- LeMonde
'Europe's ability to defend its interests, already questionable, is now seriously in doubt'
The announcement of a deal between the European Union and the United States has shaken up what looked set to be a quiet summer. The official confirmation that Europeans would meekly accept a 15% tariff on their exports to the US is, without doubt, striking. However, beyond the heated debate in France, which is known neither for its subtlety nor its benevolence toward the EU or the US, any definitive judgment seems premature. First of all, what do we actually know? As with all trade agreements from the Trump administration – fond of dramatic announcements – we can, for now, only rely on the words of the leaders. For details, we must wait for the publication of a jointly approved text, something this administration no longer guarantees. Incidentally, this will likely only be a political agreement on unilateral actions by each partner, not a trade agreement in the strict sense of the term. So it will not be subject to the usual approval and enforcement mechanisms. Scope still to be defined The main element of the agreement is that Europeans will accept 15% tariffs on all of their €532 billion in exports to the US in 2024, relinquishing retaliatory measures that this blatant breach of international law would have allowed them to take. That tariff rate will be the one currently applied, not an increase as in the case of the United Kingdom (+10%). While this may seem modest compared to the average pre-Trump tariff rate of about 3.5%, many sensitive products already faced tariffs between 5% and 15%, especially in the agricultural sector, which lessens the scale of the EU's concessions. Furthermore, vehicles, which have faced 27.5% tariffs since April, would, in practice, see a specific reduction for EU-made products. Exemptions also apply. Under a zero-for-zero framework, the entire aerospace and minerals sectors, as well as "certain" chemical, pharmaceutical, agricultural (including spirits) and semiconductor products would see their tariffs lifted. Depending on the final scope, which remains to be defined, this would affect 10% to 20% of EU exports to the US.
