Was a ‘remote controlled’ weapon really used to kill Iranian scientist?

In the wake of the assassination of Iranian nuclear military scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh many reports have focused on the alleged weapon used to kill him. The BBC, CNN and other major media have reported that a “remote-controlled machine gun” was used in the assassination. The original source for this was Iranian pro-government media. None of the reports have sought to ask how could a remove-control weapon have killed the nuclear chief and why would anyone use such a weapon for a killing like this?  Few reports by major media consulted with weapons experts or asked to see any evidence that such a weapon was used or could have done the attack. It took CNN 11 hours after relying on the Iranian regime media far-fetched reports, to find a skeptical expert for a second report. While quoting Fars News as a “news agency” the reports of this remote-controlled weapon spread around the internet with no evidence or proof. Iranian officials did not produce the weapon from the charred remains of the Nissan truck that was also allegedly part of the assassination. Fars News did create a drawing of what they claim happened. It shows a blue Nissan pickup truck with a machine gun lashed to some logs in the back shooting into the car that Fakhrizadeh was driving in.  Could a remote-controlled weapon have been used? Anything is possible, but it is not probable. This is because these kinds of weapons aren’t even used often on the modern battlefield, let alone in far off places like Iran.  Remote-controlled weapons have been of interest to weapons manufacturers and movie makers. In the 1986 film Aliens, the second of the excellent movies starring Sigourney Weaver, four “Remote Sentry Weapon System” machine guns are used by the Marines in their battle with the aliens. Unfortunately the guns, who have 500 rounds each, do not exact enough damage. The movie depicts a very central problem of these kinds of weapons. They are stationary and they run out of ammunition. In the novel that became the 1995 film Congo another set of remote sentry guns are used against killer apes. Again, the weapons fail. 
In the 1997 film Jackal Bruce Willis uses a modified large calibre rifle with a remote control. This is a serious and heavy weapon and it is later obscured in a red van t be used in an assassination attempt. Luckily Richard Gere has the uncanny ability to shoot out he sighting on the remote-controlled weapon. So if movie goers in the 1980s and 1990s could watch weapons like this be used, then can’t clandestine organizations that seek to kill Iranian nuclear military chiefs use them? The problem is not that the technology doesn’t exist, remote weapons stations can be found on military vehicles and naval vessels, it’s that the weapons are heavy and difficult to install and require a lot of technology. There are gadgets that can be rigged to make many types of rifles remote-controlled, such as mounting M-16s on unmanned vehicles or drones. There is even a kind of small robotic vehicle that has been mounted with a pistol.  The problem with the smaller vehicles and other methods of mounting an M-16 or sniper rifle on an unmanned vehicle is not only communications range but also the fact that the weapon will run out of ammunition quickly. If someone was planning to use a remote-controlled weapon in an assassination how would they guarantee supplying it with enough bullets to get the job done? A larger weapon, mounted on a ship for instance, might have up to 400 rounds. But you couldn’t put that on a Nissan. Even miniature versions, with 12.7 mm (.50 cal) or 7.62 rounds would weigh more than 100 kilograms. That would mean assembling a complex weapon in a remote environment after having smuggled it over a border and hoping it works when it gets there. How would you test it and make sure its communications and everything are in order without drawing attention. And if you went to the extent of doing this, how would you obscure it merely by blowing up the Nissan, as Iranian accounts allege happened.  

Also, the theory that Iranian accounts claimed that no assassins were present, seems to obscure the need to have driven the truck to the location and leave it there, with a rifle in the back, hoping no one bothers to notice it to inspect it while hoping that Fakhrizadeh and his motorcade will come along at the appointed time. How would someone account for all those variables. One annoying person poking around might reveal the weapon system, capture it intact and trace it back to its handlers.  There is a reason remote-controlled machine guns are not widely used in operations like this. After all, if they worked well, then why didn’t the US special forces just drive one into Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad rather than send in a team to kill the terrorist. No one uses remote-controlled rifles to kill high value targets because they apparently don’t work that well for this kind of operation. Countries do use precision guided munitions, like the US used missiles from drones to kill IRGC chief Qasem Soleimani.  Of course there is always the chance that the killing of Fakhrizadeh was the first use of such a weapon. There is something about the Iranian Fars News drawing of the truck that makes no sense though. If the truck was abandoned and the weapon was sitting in the back. It couldn’t have been stationary as in the drawing because it would need to be able to have the electro-optics to identify and track Fakhrizadeh either in his vehicle or as he allegedly exited the vehicle. The weapon would have to move. Again, this would mean a relatively robust apparatus around the weapon, a platform and station to maneuver it. And then an explosion destroys the truck, erasing every trace of this weapon?Countries are becoming more innovative in investing precision lethal killing machines. For instance the US has invented the ‘ninja’ weapon, a modified Hellfire missile, dubbed R9X, that uses blades to kill targets rather than an explosion. This enables it to hone in and just kill the intended person, rather than spreading death to neighbors. Families of loitering munitions are being rolled out by various countries, including Israel, and are being used effectively on battlefields. These are called kamikaze drones, and they can loiter over a target before killing the intended person. However, they have limited range and cannot loiter forever. In the arms race to find better and more secretive ways to hunt down enemies these kinds of weapons, along with remove-controlled machine guns, may be the wave of the future. Whether one was smuggled into Iran still seems far-fetched. 
Source