What Russian weapons may appear in Iran in the near future


In mid-August 2020, the UN Security Council rejected a draft US resolution to extend the arms embargo against Iran for 13 years. The embargo, according to the "nuclear deal" (JCPOA - Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), approved in 2015, will end on October 18, 2020.


It should be noted that out of 15 members of the UN Security Council (5 permanent and 10 non-permanent), only the United States and the Dominican Republic supported the resolution. Russia and China spoke out against. The remaining 11 countries abstained altogether.

Thus, a very large market for the sale of weapons will soon appear on the planet, which is extremely important during the international economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, the activities of European countries in the Iranian market will be extremely difficult due to the unilateral American sanctions, which Washington introduced in advance in 2018. Therefore, the main suppliers of weapons to Iran, no doubt, will be Russia and China, which are already under US sanctions pressure.

In any case, in the foreseeable future, Tehran will have a large number of various Russian weapons, since the Iranian Armed Forces are in serious need of rearmament. Even in those segments where Iran produces its own counterparts, its products do not compete with Russian samples for obvious reasons.

Tehran needs to replace almost everything. More than 300 fighters, about 120 transport aircraft, about 1000 tanks, submarines and surface ships, helicopters, air defense, various artillery, BMP, armored fighting vehicles and even trucks. In the Armed Forces of Iran, there is a large mix-up and over the years a huge amount of morally and physically obsolete equipment.

There is a high probability that Iran will want to purchase more than 100 Su-30SM fighters and 1000 T-90 tanks from Russia, as well as modernize Su-24MK bombers, MiG-29 fighters and T-72S MBTs. Project 636 Varshavyanka low-noise diesel-electric submarines and new frigates, air defense systems and Yak-130 combat training aircraft, Mi-8 and Mi-17 helicopters, Bastion coastal mobile missile systems with Yakhont anti-ship missiles will definitely come in handy for Tehran. and other weapons.

The Iranian market is very promising, so Russia has a chance to make good money and support its the economy... But everything will rest on Tehran's financial capabilities.
Photos used: Konstantin Tyurpeko / wikimedia.org
Ctrl Enter

Noticed oshЫbku Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

36 comments
Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in

  1. Oyo Sarkazmi Offline
    Oyo Sarkazmi (Oyo Sarkazmi) 20 August 2020 13: 16
    0
    • 0
    • 0
    The only question is, will Iran have enough money? Dollars are not honored, euros are not received ...
    1. Bakht Offline
      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 20 August 2020 13: 47
      +5
      • 5
      • 0
      Oil at dumping prices. So, most likely, China will be the seller. He received US sanctions by about 50%. laughing
      If this is the case, the oil price will not rise for a long time. If the price remains at the level of 45-50 dollars, then Russia will hardly, but withstand. China is generally in chocolate (oil is cheap). The shale producers of America and the Saud will have the worst. So, in the long term, this will lead to even greater tension in the Middle East affairs. And in the world too. The US-China trade wars will continue, while Russia will remain under sanctions.
      The results of the voting are becoming clear. 11 countries that abstained, this is according to the principle "both want and inject." I would like to have cheap oil and are afraid of falling under US sanctions. In this respect, Russia and China have nothing to lose. The sanctioned gun has already fired. The Americans themselves do not risk imposing comprehensive sanctions. There is no risk at this stage. What will happen next is a dark matter.
      1. Natan bruk Offline
        Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 21 August 2020 18: 02
        -3
        • 1
        • 4
        Yes, America is just the least. The US budget, unlike Russia, for example, is not built on oil and gas and its share there is scanty. So, the United States will not stand it "with difficulty", but generally without any special problems. And the shale producers are hedged there, in case of bankruptcy nothing terrible will happen. And opening and closing shale wells there is quite simple. As soon as the profitability point passes (and it inexorably decreases with the development of technologies), the well reopens very quickly. Well, besides shale, there is also a lot of ordinary oil.
        1. Bakht Offline
          Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 21 August 2020 19: 02
          +3
          • 3
          • 0
          America is just the most.
          We have already spoken about shale and hedging. There is no point in repeating. The budget is also interesting. Even at prices of $ 30, Russia's GDP did not fall by 25-30%.
          You need to know about this ...
          1. Natan bruk Offline
            Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 21 August 2020 19: 18
            -2
            • 0
            • 2
            So what exactly is “most of all” if the share of oil and gas in the budget is scanty? Russia, of course, will not go bankrupt either, but the drop in living standards will be felt (in principle, already) incomparably stronger than in the United States.
            1. Bakht Offline
              Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 21 August 2020 20: 08
              +3
              • 3
              • 0
              So why did the US GDP fall so much? More than in Russia ... And the number of unemployed jumped from 5 to 25%. For some reason, such a surge in unemployment has not been observed in Russia. It's strange. Was there a 35% drop in consumer demand in Russia too?

              American consumer spending in the second quarter of 2020 was down 34,6% at an annualized rate.

              https://www.rbc.ru/economics/30/07/2020/5f22bc5d9a79475c618f3376

              I'm tired of explaining that calculating GDP to determine the viability of an economy doesn't really matter.
              At low prices, shale producers will die. And no amount of hedging will help. Someone has to pay for broken pots anyway. Strange logic. Have you swelled billions of dollars, gone bankrupt and no one was hurt? Miracles, and nothing more.
              ------
              The question is posed somewhat differently. I am not interested in the US economy in this article. I am wondering who will rearm the Iranian army? Iran is heavily tied to Chinese weapons systems. Air defense, anti-ship complexes, electronic warfare. According to some reports, a couple of thousand Chinese military specialists are already in Iran. So Iran will sell oil to China at dumping prices. All this oil falls out of dollar circulation. States cannot afford this. Therefore, the simple conclusion is that trade wars and sanctions will continue. As well as tensions in the Middle East.
              Why drag Russia in here is not entirely clear to me. And we will see shale in the next six months or a year. I do not believe in his second incarnation. They will, of course. But not so zealously ...
              1. Binder Offline
                Binder (Miron) 21 August 2020 21: 04
                -2
                • 0
                • 2
                Quote: Bakht
                I am wondering who will rearm the Iranian army?

                Whoever takes up this business - China or Russia, the Persians will still have to lose in the coming war. So future suppliers should not lend weapons to the ayatollahs - there is a high probability that there will be no one to repay debts ...
                1. Bakht Offline
                  Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 22 August 2020 07: 35
                  +3
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  Persians still have to lose in the coming war

                  Not obvious. I actually think the Persians won't lose. Or, more likely, the Americans won't win.
                  1. Binder Offline
                    Binder (Miron) 22 August 2020 15: 16
                    -2
                    • 0
                    • 2
                    It depends on what is considered a victory. The Americans will definitely not annex Iran to the US overseas territories. But the fact that the power of the Ayatollahs will come to an end, as happened with the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, is quite possible. In this case, this result may well be called a victory ...
                    1. Bakht Offline
                      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 22 August 2020 15: 30
                      +3
                      • 3
                      • 0
                      I doubt it. The power of the Ayatollah is not based on violence. Of course, religious fanaticism is not good and does not cause any sympathy for me. But religion in Iran has strong roots. Almost the same as in Saudi Arabia. Just a slightly different concept (Shiites instead of Sunnis). At the moment, there are no reasons for a change of power. And the Persians will not agree to become a colony of America.
                      It is unlikely that the United States shines in Iran. The Shah was already there. And there is no return to this yet.
                      -----
                      If we assume that the States are pumping (stealing) Iraqi oil, then this can be considered a victory. Then we must admit that the goal of the States is free access to Iranian energy resources. But what about snot about "human rights"? Nice screen, but it doesn't work anymore.
                      -----
                      Iran has already tried to pull off a color revolution. In 2009. It didn't work out. I like the song and the video is beautiful. The faces are beautiful.

                      1. Binder Offline
                        Binder (Miron) 22 August 2020 16: 10
                        -1
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        What does the song of the Italian partisans have to do with Iran? And the faces are really pretty (except for Ahmadinejad negative ). As for the stability of the Ayatollah regime, everything is very problematic here - unlike the SA, Iran is a very heterogeneous country in terms of ethnic composition and a special friendship between representatives of different countries. ethnic groups are not observed there. In addition, the difficult economic situation in Iran does not contribute to the stability of the government in any way; older citizens still remember the days of the Shah, when the Iranians lived much more prosperous than now. And, of course, failures in a war against an adversary equipped with more advanced weapons systems inevitably lead to dissatisfaction with the existing government. And in terms of military confrontation with the United States and / or with Israel, the Iranians cannot count on victories, they understand this very clearly, and therefore do not dare to respond to Israeli attacks on Iranian facilities on the territory of the former. Syria.
                      2. Bakht Offline
                        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 22 August 2020 16: 30
                        +3
                        • 3
                        • 0
                        Nobody is going to fight like that. All threaten from their dens. About the stability of power. I am certainly not a prophet. Moreover, in 1981 I could not have imagined that the Union would collapse in 1991. But at the moment, the Iranian government is stable and ... is modernizing the army. There is, of course, no chance against the States. But there are nuances.
                        To bring Iraq to the denominator, the United States had to create a coalition grouping and prepare for almost six months. Now there are no such opportunities. You can bomb anything. But this is hardly the result that Washington is yearning for. So there shouldn't be a big war. But Iran is creating missiles (Chinese technology) and this is already making the neighbors nervous. How it began and who is to blame is too late to say.
                        So any movement is fraught. Neither Korea nor Iran are going to limit themselves to "concern" and "indignation." Honestly, they'll kick back. And then the porridge will begin.
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                      4. Binder Offline
                        Binder (Miron) 22 August 2020 22: 11
                        -1
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        In 1981, probably, no one could have imagined that the USSR would collapse in ten years ...

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Honestly, they'll kick back.

                        The main thing is not to get fucked up first, it is this fear that creates tension in the region.
          2. Natan bruk Offline
            Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 21 August 2020 22: 44
            -1
            • 1
            • 2
            And I'm not talking about weapons, but about the economy. To begin with, it is worth comparing the GDP figures of the United States and Russia. And it is GDP that speaks of the viability of the economy. While the fat one dries, the thin one dies. And how long has it been that oil prices have been steadily low - why are shale producers not dying? And the fact is that the cost of oil shale is steadily falling due to new technologies, and the oil shale industry is a very flexible thing - it can be easily closed and opened. So the “dying shale” is nothing more than the rosy dreams of Gazprom and Rosneft.
            1. Bakht Offline
              Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 22 August 2020 07: 32
              +3
              • 3
              • 0
              It's better not to talk about slate. This method is for the most extreme case. During the entire existence of the shale revolution, it has never even reached self-sufficiency. You have too rosy an idea of ​​this industry. There are continuous losses.
              By your logic, "how long have oil prices been stably low - why won't the Russian economy" break "?
              The dying of shale is my personal opinion, which does not in any way depend on the dreams of Gazprom.
              1. Natan bruk Offline
                Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 23 August 2020 00: 41
                -1
                • 0
                • 1
                That's exactly what is better not. Gazprom has already disgraced itself with its ridicule and statements that oil shale is a scam, etc. Shale works at the limit of self-sufficiency, and there is still profit, even if the profit is small. As soon as this bar is passed, they close, then open again with the same ease. These are not Siberian heavy deposits. And yes, the cost is constantly decreasing due to the introduction of new technologies. Once they shouted that oil shale is damaging to the environment, very expensive compared to traditional oil and gas. Today, there is already an electric pulse technology, production is much more environmentally friendly and the cost has dropped almost 2 times. And your opinion is contrary to the opinion of the majority of economists (not Russian). And, of course, the Russian economy will not break so quickly. There is a constant decline in the standard of living, the sequestration of certain budget items, and they get out. In principle, you can generally live like in the DPRK, as they say, and people live in prison. The question is how much it will be possible to lower the standard of living and tighten the screws to a social explosion. All the same, Russia is not the DPRK, and no Rosgvardia may burst in the end, and no HSP will help.
                1. Bakht Offline
                  Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 23 August 2020 08: 04
                  +2
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  Nobody ever said that shale is a scam. They said it was economically unprofitable. The Bazhenov formation is being developed in Russia. But so far in scanty quantities. Because it's just not profitable yet.
                  My opinion is supported by the ruin of shale companies in the States, and not by the opinion of Russian economists. And oil shale is really deadly for the environment. Not in the opinion of Russian scientists, but in the opinion of European legislators. In Europe, shale oil production is prohibited by law in many countries. Cost reduction has not yet reached the level of profitability. The US Energy Agency forecast that the oil price will be $ 40-45 per barrel, but an increase in shale oil production is not yet expected. There was some excitement in the summer. But it is not connected with the reasons you mentioned. And with the fact that shale producers received support from the OPEC + deal.
                  -----
                  I will repeat it again. I have heard the words "hydraulic fracturing", PVA, "underground repairs" since childhood. That is, since the 60s. This was done by my father and he has a dozen copyright certificates for hydraulic fracturing. There is nothing fundamentally new here. There is a development of technology and technology. And it has always been seen as a temporary measure. Today, shale oil production is environmentally harmful and break even at a price of $ 50-60 per barrel.
                  ------
                  How long can you live with deteriorating living conditions? Long. But on condition that the leaders also bear the same costs, and do not ride in business jets. The whole history of mankind says that people agree to endure hardships, but do not agree to endure dictates. People do not agree to kneel before the West and agree to their terms.
                  1. Natan bruk Offline
                    Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 23 August 2020 09: 11
                    -1
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    Your information on oil shale and its damaging effects on the environment is very outdated. Today is not the 60s, and today in the United States, oil shale is being developed using electrical pulse technology, which, as already mentioned, is much more environmentally friendly. By the way, the usual method of mining is also not particularly useful for the environment. And about the payback - today it is already, imagine, below $ 40. Again, thanks to new technologies. And the fact that shale is a scam was said personally by Mr. Miller. And what does it mean to “kneel before the West”? Is normal relations with Western countries like kneeling? And what are the dire conditions the West sets? Or maybe for you the example of the DPRK with its "independence" and life in a prison country and regular extortion of humanitarian aid from the same West.
                  2. Bakht Offline
                    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 23 August 2020 09: 20
                    +2
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    I know that your current relationship is "normal". For me, no. There is no "normal" relationship. There are dictates and demands. Russia does not extort anything from the West and does not want anything. Wants an equal relationship. This is exactly what the West is not going to give. This is no longer economics, but politics.
                    You spoke about the electrical impulse technology before. I don't see it yet. Statistics (American) speak of conventional drilling. And then the electric pulse technology is not cheaper than standard drilling.
                    I knew that you would write about outdated information from the 60s. I HAVE BEEN HEARED about this since the 60s. And my information is still not outdated.
                    It's all lyrics. I am waiting for specific numbers and links. Not empty words. And why did you decide that your sources are more competent than mine? I gave you the opinion of the SPECIALIST. Want an opinion from Wall Street? I can give you the opinion of the banks. And what is happening now in the US shale industry. Do you know that banks no longer expect to get their loans back? So called your favorite hedging. And they are preparing to write off irrecoverable debts. At whose expense is the banquet?
              2. Bakht Offline
                Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 23 August 2020 08: 13
                +2
                • 2
                • 0
                You are claiming that shale oil is profitable. Let it be insignificant, but profitable. Please, provide me with a link to such data. Just to convince me. In the meantime, I give you a quote:

                Daniel Yorgin, Vice President, IHS Markit expects US oil production to hit nine million barrels per day next summer. After which, perhaps, it will begin to rise and reach 11 million.

                “In February 2020, we saw a shale peak,” says Yorjin.
                Both he and other experts warn that even as the industry recovers, growth is unlikely to match the wild boom of recent years, largely because "Industry relations with Wall Street have deteriorated after years of poor profitability".

                Over the past decade, major US producers have invested a total of $ 1,18 trillion, mainly in shale projects. The costs did not pay off, the money did not return to the investors (even talking about profit is somehow indecent). According to Evercore ISI, collectively they received only $ 819 billion from their oil operations.

                Are they not Russian economists? And where is the profitability here?
                1. Natan bruk Offline
                  Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 23 August 2020 08: 57
                  -1
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  I can give you many directly opposite analyzes, and from much more authoritative sources. Want to?
                2. Bakht Offline
                  Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 23 August 2020 09: 02
                  +1
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  I said what I want. Waiting
  • steelmaker Offline
    steelmaker 20 August 2020 18: 04
    -1
    • 1
    • 2
    Joy is already full of pants. And the fact that Russia itself supported these sanctions is nothing? They themselves, out of the blue, create problems, and then rejoice that it will resolve itself. I believe that now, on the contrary, Iran needs to be helped with nuclear weapons or with advanced weapons. The DPRK quickly put these "horses" in the stall, and Iran is worse?
    1. Vladimir Tuzakov (Vladimir Tuzakov) 20 August 2020 21: 11
      -1
      • 1
      • 2
      Nuclear weapons will not be provided to Iran at any time, for it may turn out that we will regret it very much (there are no eternal friends, only interests). To supply conventional weapons throughout, even on credit, because Iran is forever a neighbor, and weapons become obsolete in twenty years ... Today Iran is a situational ally, like Turkey, so it is to act together. Only the Russian government betrays Iran in favor of Israel, which has always acted together with the United States against Russia ...
      1. Natan bruk Offline
        Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 21 August 2020 18: 17
        -1
        • 1
        • 2
        This is when Israel acted together with the United States against Russia? Unless in your parallel reality. In 1967 and especially in 1973, yes, the Soviet "green men" got it, they deserved it - they came to help our enemies to destroy us, what did you want. And if you want to support the fucking ayatollahs and their Islamofascist regime - go ahead. If you don't care about the reputation of Soviet weapons, it will be destroyed if necessary.
        1. Vladimir Tuzakov (Vladimir Tuzakov) 21 August 2020 19: 16
          +1
          • 1
          • 0
          Israel armed Georgia, Ukraine against the Russian Federation and others .. no need to lie in Jewish brazenly, because it will end very badly ...
          1. Natan bruk Offline
            Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 21 August 2020 22: 34
            -2
            • 1
            • 3
            And don't lie in Russian brazenly. Who has armed the Arabs against Israel since the 50s? And continues to arm now? As for "very bad", it depends on who. In 1973 the great-mighty "took part in the Yom Kippur War, and for whom did it end very badly there? Moreover, unlike the Arabs, the Americans did not fight for Israel.
        2. Binder Offline
          Binder (Miron) 21 August 2020 20: 56
          -1
          • 1
          • 2
          Quote: Natan Bruk
          will be destroyed.

          Something will be destroyed, and something will end up in Israeli trophy depots - not the first time. I remember at the beginning. 90s happened to see one of these warehouses, the impression is very vivid ...
    2. Natan bruk Offline
      Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 21 August 2020 18: 11
      -2
      • 1
      • 3
      How did the DPRK "stall"? When was the last time nuclear weapons and missile technology were tested there? In fact, the fat-faced man makes some sudden movements when the food, fuel, etc. starts to run out, that is, figuratively speaking, he yells - "Let's eat, otherwise I'll throw a grenade, I'm an epileptic!" The piglet puffs up, but in fact it is a rogue with missiles, whose people live like in a prison. And nobody really needs to liquidate his regime. South Korea has absolutely no use for millions of new citizens from the last century. This is not at all the FRG and the GDR, it is incomparably worse.
  • gorenina91 Offline
    gorenina91 (Irina) 21 August 2020 17: 35
    -2
    • 1
    • 3
    What Russian weapons may appear in Iran in the near future

    - Ha ... - All the weapons that Russia supplies to China and Iran can be called in one word ...
    - The name of this weapon is "Suicidal". for Russia itself it will ultimately be suicidal ...
    1. Binder Offline
      Binder (Miron) 21 August 2020 20: 49
      0
      • 2
      • 2
      You can’t say more precisely!
  • Rashid116 Offline
    Rashid116 (Rashid) 22 August 2020 10: 02
    0
    • 2
    • 2
    Of course, it is necessary to sell everything that is bought, nuclear weapons too. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" - nobody canceled this, and the Jews are not our friends or allies, and sooner or later we will have to fight them. So let the ayatollahs weaken them better, fewer of ours will die. Where did you see a friendly state in the person of Israel? Give at least one example. These ... always suck everything in the country that sheltered them, those are still suckers)). It's like parasites, they stick to the host's body and eat until the victim dies. Don't mistake me for a Nazi, but I think the only thing Hitler did right was to bury almost all the Jews. Since then, there has been growth and prosperity in Germany, because there are not so many of these rogues.
    1. Natan bruk Offline
      Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 23 August 2020 08: 54
      -1
      • 0
      • 1
      ... you, apparently, turned out to be mediocrity in your field of activity and some Jew beat you up. Losers like you can only be pitied.
      1. Rashid116 Offline
        Rashid116 (Rashid) 23 August 2020 09: 30
        0
        • 1
        • 1
        In fact, I deliberately exclude Jews from my social circle, but they adapt to ours, change their names. I have a narrow topic, there are only three such manufacturers in Russia and we know each other personally.) I even worked as the head of the department for 9 years. Maybe there were some Jews in the beginning, as soon as the engine factory burned down. Then only the lazy did not do it, but we worked for a year and a half to zero to "clear the clearing." Jews do not compete like that, they begin to bribe deputies, give bribes, negotiate. Now 10 years already on "free bread." What nafig Jews? We are modernizing Kamaz trucks - here we need brains and work here for a long time. The Jews, on the other hand, are counting on the "hapok" and quickly break loose until they are locked up in a pre-trial detention center, because they always stir up trouble.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Natan bruk Offline
          Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 23 August 2020 19: 03
          -2
          • 0
          • 2
          Well, expected, as I thought. Keep on complaining about your bitter fate and the Jews who made you a failure in life :)))
          1. Rashid116 Offline
            Rashid116 (Rashid) 23 August 2020 19: 11
            0
            • 0
            • 0
            How did you draw such conclusions from what you wrote?)))
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.