Military Review

Russian expert: Iran is unlikely to be allowed to buy Su-30 fighter jets

60
To supply military aircraft from Russia, Iran will need to get the UN Security Council to move this deal out of the sanctions regime in force against the Islamic republic, cites RIA News words of the former head of the international treaty department of the RF Ministry of Defense Yevgeny Buzhinsky.


Russian expert: Iran is unlikely to be allowed to buy Su-30 fighter jets


Recently, the head of the Iranian military department, Hossein Deghan, said that Tehran is considering buying the Su-30. This issue was considered during negotiations with the Russian Federation, and the Russian side "accepted it."

“Naturally, Iran may want to purchase our fighters, but the UN Security Council sanctions have been imposed on the supply of any offensive weapons to Tehran, to which Russia has also joined. Moscow takes into account the wishes of its partners, but so far no more ",
noted Buzhinsky.

According to him, part armory contracts can be withdrawn for the sanctions regime, "however, this requires the consent of all members of the UN Security Council, including the United States, and such a scenario is extremely unlikely."
Photos used:
Olga Balashova / Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
60 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. rasputin17
    rasputin17 28 November 2016 12: 13
    +5
    History repeats itself with the S-300.
    1. hirurg
      hirurg 28 November 2016 12: 16
      +9
      S-300 defensive armament. This is different.
      But with the Su-30 ...
      Everything is developing very dynamically now. Therefore, who knows how to know.
      1. rasputin17
        rasputin17 28 November 2016 12: 19
        +2
        Quote: hirurg
        S-300 defensive armament. This is different.
        But with the Su-30 ...
        Everything is developing very dynamically now. Therefore, who knows how to know.


        The Security Council also knew that the S-300 was a defensive weapon, but nevertheless vetoed it and Russia adhered to it.
        1. svp67
          svp67 28 November 2016 12: 23
          +13
          Quote: rasputin17
          The Security Council also knew that the S-300 was a defensive weapon, but nevertheless vetoed it and Russia adhered to it.

          Here is just NO. Russia, by the decision of its President, namely DAMS, voluntarily refused to supply these weapons, that it was NOT LEGAL, Iran was able to prove in the international COURT, forcing us to pay a penalty.
          1. Outlaw
            Outlaw 28 November 2016 12: 27
            +3
            Everyone knows that it was not Medvedev who decided, but Putin himself.
            1. svp67
              svp67 28 November 2016 12: 33
              +7
              Quote: Outlaw
              Everyone knows that it was not Medvedev who decided, but Putin himself.

              How much is all this or WHO? All US citizens ... or Ukraine? But as a citizen of Russia, I don’t know. And moreover, I am sure that, be that as it may, but LADIES and VVP are not a single organism, they often conflict, trying not to make it public. At that time, the LADY took a lot of stupid steps, including the surrender of Libya ... You know, VVP is not as omnipotent as they try to present it ... not allowed...
              1. Outlaw
                Outlaw 28 November 2016 12: 37
                +2
                Do not tell please.
                1. svp67
                  svp67 28 November 2016 12: 58
                  +8
                  Quote: Outlaw
                  Do not tell please.

                  As the United States made everyone laugh with its elections, the whole world will laugh so badly ... Why should we.
                  1. Outlaw
                    Outlaw 28 November 2016 13: 07
                    +2
                    What does the election have to do with it? And if you want to talk about the elections. So at least they are here.
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 28 November 2016 13: 20
                      +3
                      Quote: Outlaw
                      What does the election have to do with it? And if you want to talk about the elections. So at least they are here.

                      Yes you are right. You have a choice, but not much, between a Democrat and a Republican. And most importantly, HE IS YOURS. And we have OWN
                    2. ALLxANDr
                      ALLxANDr 28 November 2016 16: 31
                      +2
                      Quote: Outlaw
                      What does the election have to do with it? And if you want to talk about the elections. So at least they are here.

                      Personally, my opinion is that you did not choose. According to your statistics, you have chosen - Clinton. The electors had to decide for you. But what the electors have chosen is a truly historic decision. We will not say how much dirt there was, that is not the point. The bottom line is that the "club of their presidents" campaign will have to step aside, and fight with a new force that they did not suspect. I'm not talking about Trump. Trump is now speaking on their behalf. The electors indirectly, partially or directly - but made a choice towards these forces (or because of these forces). If these people win again (after the Trump presidency), then the Bush, Clinton and others club will come to an end.
                      So you do not need to amuse yourself with the fact that you have these very choices.
                2. cniza
                  cniza 28 November 2016 12: 58
                  +3
                  According to him, part of the arms contracts can be withdrawn from the sanctions regime, "however, this requires the consent of all members of the UN Security Council, including the United States, and such a scenario is extremely unlikely."


                  The United States, of course, will be against it, but everything flows, everything changes, what if.
                  1. Talgat
                    Talgat 30 November 2016 21: 44
                    0
                    Quote: cniza
                    According to him, part of the arms contracts can be withdrawn from the sanctions regime, "however, this requires the consent of all members of the UN Security Council, including the United States, and such a scenario is extremely unlikely."


                    The United States, of course, will be against it, but everything flows, everything changes, what if.


                    In fact, the United States is now preventing Russia from supplying weapons to its ally

                    Probably everyone will agree that the situation will change in two cases.

                    1) The alignment of forces in the world will change and there will be no need to "look back" at the Washington Regional Committee

                    2) The United States and the West will drive Russia into a corner so that there will be nothing to lose - I am sure then supplies of everything that is possible to Iran and Syria will go, and moreover, they can easily be joined to the CSTO + go to a military alliance with China and the Bolivarian countries
              2. Monarchist
                Monarchist 28 November 2016 13: 44
                0
                Svp67, perhaps I agree with you that GDP and LADIES are not a single organism. If you carefully analyze the actions and speeches of the LADIES, then the differences are noticeable. Of course, VV is not Spinoza, but at least he tries to weigh his actions (the last couple of years)
            2. rasputin17
              rasputin17 28 November 2016 12: 35
              +3
              Quote: Outlaw
              Everyone knows that it was not Medvedev who decided, but Putin himself.


              But that President was Medvedev! Now the easiest way to hang all the dead dogs on him! Although everyone knows and understands that he was only formally listed at work! And since they did not sell it, there were apparently other reasons that it was easier to pay the penalty. hi
              1. alexej123
                alexej123 28 November 2016 13: 10
                +1
                Agree with SVP67. "Formally" and in August 2008 they were waiting for an order to answer for the murder of their soldiers and civilians? There was NO order at first. The entry of troops at their own peril and risk (consolidated column) was made by two generals - the commander of the North Caucasus Military District and the commander of the 58th Army. Those who were supposed to make the decision were unavailable, HAVE REST. Already after the arrival of the GDP in S. Ossetia, activation began.
                1. svp67
                  svp67 28 November 2016 13: 39
                  +1
                  Quote: alexej123
                  There was NO order at first.

                  And who could give it away when Serdyukov at that moment was "having fun" by moving the General Staff, first of all destroying ALL lines of communication with the troops. You see the building in the center of Moscow he really needed.
                  1. alexej123
                    alexej123 28 November 2016 14: 12
                    +1
                    Sergei, and I about the same. Neither Serdyukov, nor Makarov, nor ... the Supreme. In fact, TWO generals - Baranov and Khrulev, in principle, they do not hide this, made the ONLY RIGHT decision to send troops. By the way, both are now "on a well-deserved rest."
            3. Nyrobsky
              Nyrobsky 28 November 2016 16: 21
              0
              Quote: Outlaw
              Everyone knows that it was not Medvedev who decided, but Putin himself.

              Well, yes, well, yes ....... maybe Medvedev did not involve us in the WTO, six months before the end of his presidential term? Either Obama praised the LADY for the fact that it was easy to "work" with him.
        2. Damir
          Damir 28 November 2016 12: 24
          +1
          Russia could and had every right to send the Security Council in this case to hell. The S-300 is a defensive weapon ..... but they just got cold feet .. that's all ..... the same Americans wanted to spit on all decisions .... they will want and put anything and anyone ... including igils and others like that with them....
          1. Monarchist
            Monarchist 28 November 2016 13: 49
            +1
            That's for sure: mattresses when they want to become holier than the Pope of Rome, but no: "I want to go up the mountain, but I don't want to and I won't jump off the mountain" (that's what my grandmother used to say, and her aunt to her)
            1. Magua-xnumx
              Magua-xnumx 28 November 2016 21: 51
              +1
              It is possible to sell the Su-27 without the ability to work on land.
              Here they are selling additional F-35s to small Israel, this is clearly not an air defense aircraft.
        3. Tusv
          Tusv 28 November 2016 13: 23
          0
          Quote: rasputin17
          S-300 defensive armament. This is different

          According to NATO classification, the S-300 is equated to tactical weapons. But use expensive rockets on the ground to hit this condemnation
          1. rasputin17
            rasputin17 28 November 2016 13: 31
            +1
            Quote: Tusv
            Quote: rasputin17
            S-300 defensive armament. This is different

            According to NATO classification, the S-300 is equated to tactical weapons. But use expensive rockets on the ground to hit this condemnation

            They were primarily afraid that the Iranian nuclear program would bear fruit and that these missiles could be equipped with tactical nuclear charges and would give a completely different balance and alignment of forces in the Middle East, and Israel was most opposed. In other matters, a military scenario was also considered at this point, and the S-300 is a good trump card in the hands of Iran in the event of an invasion of NATO with its democratic troops. hi
      2. volot-voin
        volot-voin 28 November 2016 14: 02
        0
        Quote: hirurg
        S-300 defensive armament. This is different.
        But with the Su-30 ...

        When they have already ceased to look back at the American office of the UN, and listen to the shouts from the Washington Regional Committee. We are a sovereign power and we have the right to trade with whoever we want ...
        1. Nyrobsky
          Nyrobsky 28 November 2016 16: 28
          +1
          Quote: volot-voin
          When they have already ceased to look back at the American office of the UN, and listen to the shouts from the Washington Regional Committee. We are a sovereign power and we have the right to trade with whoever we want ...

          Quite right. Iran is our partner in the region and we must first of all proceed from our state interests. And why on earth should we miss such a contract? For some reason, the UN Security Council does not discuss the topic of a ban on US supplies of lethal weapons to the "opposition" in Syria and the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
      3. Titsen
        Titsen 28 November 2016 15: 05
        0
        Quote: hirurg
        Everything is developing very dynamically now. Therefore, who knows how to know.


        The mattress strips won't - they sell an additional batch of their F-35s to Israel.

        And then they meet ahead of time in the sky ...

        Who will take 5th generation planes for a lot of money when they are beaten by 4 + (+) planes for much less money!
    2. Giant thought
      Giant thought 28 November 2016 12: 27
      +3
      A solution can be found here: a PMC is organized, the SU-30 is transferred to it, this PMC in Iran rents an airfield, hires Iranian pilots who will study in Russia before that. This PMC can be registered, for example, in Abkhazia, which is not a UN member, and all of its (UN) decisions have no legal force on its territory. And so on until the restrictions are over, and the Iranians can bring money for the settlement in their suitcases.
      1. Vita vko
        Vita vko 28 November 2016 13: 04
        +2
        Quote: Thought Giant
        Here a way out can be found like this:

        You are right, there are really many exits. Moreover, Iranian medium-range missiles are much more dangerous than the Su-30. In addition, dual-use technologies may be officially transferred to Iran, for example, within the framework of projects for the creation of transport and combat training aircraft. Then they themselves will be able to modify to purely military goals.
        Iran's aircraft fleet is very outdated and if Russia does not stake out this market, then it will be transferred to China or European companies, which have always spat on all the sanctions.
  2. 210ox
    210ox 28 November 2016 12: 13
    +1
    And why not spit ... From the high bell tower ... Well, some especially selected provisions and decisions of the UN do not adhere. Why should we not bypass this talking shop ..
    1. padded jacket
      padded jacket 28 November 2016 12: 35
      +3
      Quote: 210ox
      Why not spit .. From the high bell tower.

      Because we ourselves (Russia) have signed these very restrictions on the supply of offensive weapons to Iran.
      So we have to "spit", including on our own signature under this agreement.
      1. dvornic
        dvornic 28 November 2016 14: 04
        +1
        Yes! Don't give a damn about your own signature! When they signed, there were no sanctions in our direction.
  3. kapitan92
    kapitan92 28 November 2016 12: 18
    +4
    The Iranians are playing their game. A declaration of intent is not a contract. Iran is well aware that the UN Security Council will not "let" this deal pass.
    - "We want, but we are not allowed to buy" - something like that. The game of falling for other types of weapons. (IMHO)
  4. kolkulon
    kolkulon 28 November 2016 12: 23
    +3
    In the contract, register them as unmanned aerial vehicles included in the S-300 complex yes
  5. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 28 November 2016 12: 23
    +1
    If there is no legal opportunity to buy, then why would the Iranian side raise this issue?
    1. padded jacket
      padded jacket 28 November 2016 12: 33
      +1
      Quote: rotmistr60
      If there is no legal opportunity to buy, then why would the Iranian side raise this issue?

      The fact that they raise the issue and are interested in our weapons is great, otherwise China is already on our heels.
      So let them buy our air defense electronic warfare and radars for now and get used to our technology.
  6. svp67
    svp67 28 November 2016 12: 25
    +2
    Russian expert: Iran is unlikely to be allowed to buy Su-30 fighter jets
    Or maybe the speech should sound differently: "Russia WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to sell these aircraft to Iran."
    1. rotmistr60
      rotmistr60 28 November 2016 12: 37
      0
      This is what Russian means. There is only one sense (the deal may not take place), but it sounds different and already affects Russia. +
    2. Panikovsky
      Panikovsky 28 November 2016 12: 48
      +2
      Quote: svp67
      maybe it should sound differently: "Russia WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to sell these aircraft to Iran"

      I apologize wildly, but who are these impermissible? Please list on the toes of your unwashed left foot.
      1. zoolu300
        zoolu300 28 November 2016 13: 08
        0
        These prohibitors are the owners of the Fed.
        1. Panikovsky
          Panikovsky 28 November 2016 14: 11
          +2
          Quote: zoolu300
          These prohibitors are the owners of the Fed.

          Well, Russia can not reckon with these. There can be no compromise with enemies.
      2. svp67
        svp67 28 November 2016 17: 12
        0
        Quote: Panikovsky
        I apologize wildly, but who are these impermissible? Please list on the toes of your unwashed left foot.

        Wash your feet first. And then plunge into the heart of the matter. The Security Council resolution clearly states that you CANNOT sell to Iran. Those sanctions have not been lifted yet.
  7. pts-m
    pts-m 28 November 2016 12: 33
    0
    Hai Iranians have a headache from these “restrictions.” Why hang all this on Russia. The Pendos will sell their F-35s to them without paying any attention to anyone.
  8. Asadullah
    Asadullah 28 November 2016 12: 34
    +1
    "However, this requires the consent of all members of the UN Security Council, including the United States, and such a scenario is extremely unlikely."


    There is also a plan "B". If Russia places these aircraft at "its" base in Iran. And one of the tasks will be the protection of objects associated with the activities of the unit. Such an object may even be the shop of the merchant Ali, as a supplier of raisins to the base. How are we going to fly without raisins !? A!?
  9. BOB044
    BOB044 28 November 2016 12: 39
    +2
    If you wanted to buy an F-16, then the UN Security Council would immediately allow it.
  10. Panikovsky
    Panikovsky 28 November 2016 12: 43
    +3
    Nonsense, the Su-30 is not an offensive weapon, even as a multipurpose aircraft, and even more so as an interceptor. If the Persians pay, it is necessary to sell, spitting saliva on the Wishlist of the Israeli partners.
  11. GEV67
    GEV67 28 November 2016 12: 54
    +1
    Which UN, where everyone saw him, I do not understand why Russia should adhere to some points of the organization which is represented by one US country ?!
    1. alexej123
      alexej123 28 November 2016 13: 13
      0
      Because it is WE who very often refer to the UN Security Council. "Initiatives" are being put forward to reform it - to take away the right of veto from Russia. In this case, we will play into the hands of "reforms".
  12. ultra
    ultra 28 November 2016 13: 04
    0
    And who can ban it? It depends entirely on Putin.
  13. zoolu300
    zoolu300 28 November 2016 13: 06
    0
    The owners of the FRS, whoever they want, also supply FSUs for the sanctions (sometimes imposed by them). And our "oligarchy", as always, is waiting for their approval, even at a loss.
    1. Panikovsky
      Panikovsky 28 November 2016 14: 20
      +2
      Yes, you got it right with your FRS, take an enema with chamomile, drink 100 grams of vodka, and forget this abbreviation to the bright end, you are our analyst, unclaimed.
      1. zoolu300
        zoolu300 28 November 2016 17: 25
        0
        I forgot to ask you. I understand that the procedure you indicated, what did it help you with?
  14. Phosgene
    Phosgene 28 November 2016 13: 09
    0
    Russia should not support the sanctions of the anti-Russian NATO gang
  15. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 28 November 2016 13: 54
    0
    I'm just amazed; did not know. Why would Iran even agree to an agreement if UN sanctions are not automatically lifted from it? One-sided - okay; The EU removed, it seems, the United States - it removed some, extended some, and, in my opinion, imposed some new ones too!

    But here are the UN Security Council sanctions! The agreement of all five permanent members of the Security Council is necessary, and, in my opinion, also 2/3 of the total number of members, that is, from 15 (there and Ukrainian sit, by the way). They had to be removed automatically, regardless of which heel of the pen-dos was combed - as soon as there was a positive conclusion of the IAEA.

    Some kind of insanity.
    1. padded jacket
      padded jacket 28 November 2016 15: 19
      0
      Quote: Gormengast
      Why would Iran even agree to an agreement if UN sanctions are not automatically lifted from it?

      Under the agreement that was concluded with Iran - Russia USA China England France and Germany - economic sanctions are lifted immediately and military five years after the conclusion of the treaty until then, Iran cannot be supplied with offensive weapons, or rather, it is possible, but only with the permission of ALL five members of the UN Security Council (Russia, USA, China, England, France)
      It is possible to supply defensive weapons of air defense electronic warfare radars to the rifleman without permission.
  16. semuil
    semuil 28 November 2016 14: 02
    0
    And the provision of an airfield for the Aerospace Forces is it for us to start?
  17. Karaul73
    Karaul73 28 November 2016 15: 11
    0
    Quote: svp67
    Quote: Outlaw
    Everyone knows that it was not Medvedev who decided, but Putin himself.

    How much is all this or WHO? All US citizens ... or Ukraine? But as a citizen of Russia, I don’t know. And moreover, I am sure that, be that as it may, but LADIES and VVP are not a single organism, they often conflict, trying not to make it public. At that time, the LADY took a lot of stupid steps, including the surrender of Libya ... You know, VVP is not as omnipotent as they try to present it ... not allowed...

    But who didn’t let Serdyukov be punished? Does he have an indulgence from Cyril? It's time for you to understand that the Commander is responsible for everything, that is, the Elder. And who is Elder?
  18. witch
    witch 28 November 2016 15: 39
    0
    Quote: rasputin17
    Quote: hirurg
    S-300 defensive armament. This is different.
    But with the Su-30 ...
    Everything is developing very dynamically now. Therefore, who knows how to know.


    The Security Council also knew that the S-300 was a defensive weapon, but nevertheless vetoed it and Russia adhered to it.

    I believe that since Europe imposed sanctions on us in vain, then we need to abandon all these agreements in response. It’s worth calculating that if we supply these aircraft to Iran, what could it become for us, and from here it’s time to think about selling or not and it’s time to leave the circle these sanctions
  19. Prince of Pensions
    Prince of Pensions 28 November 2016 17: 53
    0
    some absurdity. the military should be given everything in their hands. diplomats have done a lot of things in history more than once.
  20. Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 28 November 2016 23: 00
    0
    The main thing is not to play "in the noble", violation of the decisions of the Security Council is of course a blow to the reputation, but decisions in themselves are not a dogma. Otherwise, it may happen that the planes will still be sold, only not by us, but by the Chinese. Yes, not of that quality request , but Iran does not have much choice, and without a serious modernization of its equipment, it is a very attractive target for the Arab world and NATO.