Safe Mode: On
US: Iran buying Russian arms via Belarus

Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:33:56 GMT
US officials believe Russia is selling Iran the SA-20 strategic-range air defense system
US government officials say Moscow is selling Tehran the sophisticated SA-20 strategic-range air defense system through Belarus.

In a recent article published by the Aviation Week, US officials speaking on conditions of anonymity claimed that Moscow is using Belarus as a route for selling the highly advanced air defense systems to Iran so that it can deny "direct involvement" in the affairs.

"The Iranians are on contract for the SA-20," one of the US officials was quoted as saying. "We've got a huge set of challenges in the future that we've never had [before]. We've been lulled into a false sense of security because our operations over the last 20 years involved complete air dominance and we've been free to operate in all domains."

The unnamed official added that the deployment of the SA-20 around Iranian nuclear facilities would be a direct threat to Israel's fleet of advanced, but non-stealthy, F-15Is and F-16Is.

He, however, said that Israel still has time for a preemptive strike against the Islamic Republic as it would take Iranian armed forces more than 24 months to become proficient in the operation of SA-20s.

Moscow delivered some 29 Russian-made Tor-M1 air defense missile systems under a $700 million contract clinched in late 2005 and has so far trained Iranian Tor-M1 specialists, including radar operators and crew commanders.

Western countries have criticized Russia's sales of defensive military equipment to Iran, saying that it has sabotaged efforts to curb Iran's uranium enrichment.

Russian officials, however, say the contract is completely in line with international law as it involves "defensive hardware, which cannot be used for offensive purposes".

SBB/AA


Added: Dec-14-2008 
By: eneffigy
In:
Iran, News
Tags: iran, belarus, russia, anti-air missile, s-400, sa-20, s-300, us
Marked as: approved
Views: 9650 | Comments: 15 | Votes: 0 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • Oh noes we better start having military might demonstrations. Russia is threatening war against the US by selling a defense system to Iran.

    The Russian government is so stupid.

    They'll bitch about a NATO missile defense system, but will sell a country like Iran anti-aircraft defensive arms without a second thought. How ironic.

    Posted Dec-14-2008 By 

    (3)

    • If you keep surrounding our country with your military bases and missile systems and arming our enemies then we'll do the same. Simple as that.

      Posted Dec-14-2008 By 

      (3)

    • 20 missiles that have no warheads, and which are WAY too close to Russia to shoot down Russian ICBM's is hardly "surrounding".

      It's sour grapes on Russias part....nothing more.

      Russia will sell arms to anyone. Always has. No incentives required.

      Posted Dec-14-2008 By 

      (0)

    • LOL I think that Russky knows more about our so called missile shield than you do.

      As for weapons trading - that's pure hypocrisy. We sell more arms than any other country and we sell them to anyone who isn't likely to hurt our interests. Russians do the same except some of their customers happen to be our opponents. But why should that bother them? After all we don't hesitate to sell arms to their enemies. And besides they haven't sold the S300 to Iran yet so there goes your allegatio More..

      Posted Dec-14-2008 By 

      (0)

    • >>LOL I think that Russky knows more about our so called missile shield than you do.<<

      No, in fact,he doesn't. The interceptor missiles have no warheads. They work by kinetic energy only.
      anti-ballistic missiles are designed to shoot down
      an enemy missile as the warhead re-enters the atmoshpere, not on liftoff. There is no way an
      ABM could "catch up" to an ascending Russian ICBM
      and destroy it. This is especially true since Russian ICBM's fired at the U.S. would More..

      Posted Dec-14-2008 By 

      (1)

    • The missile shield based in Eastern Europe isn't meant to protect US mainland from a Russian attack; it's there to protect US interests and its allies in the region from Russian missiles and as you point out the interceptoars will destroy the warhead once it reenters the atmosphere.

      The shield that's meant to protect US itself is indeed to be based in Canada but I don't know what its precise status is at the moment.

      I believe this shield, once completed will encompass Europe, parts of ce More..

      Posted Dec-14-2008 By 

      (1)

  • Oh and one more thing: if the shild was indeed meant to protect Europe from "rogue states" as our administration claims, they would've built it in Turkey, or Greece or we would've used that Soviet base that the Russians had offered us a year ago. But Poland and Czech Republic? Please. What's more there was talk of building the site in Latvia of all the places, if Poland refused to site the shield. They agreed to it unsurprisingly right after the Russian Georgian war.

    Posted Dec-14-2008 By 

    (1)

  • bring on the S300

    Posted Dec-14-2008 By 

    (0)

  • You've seen how effective stealth aircraft are in defeating radar. Just think what will happen when they eventually develop stealth IBM's.

    Posted Dec-14-2008 By 

    (0)

  • Comment of user '' has been deleted by moderator!
    • You blame the USA for NATO?

      Don't be stupid.

      If countries wanted out of NATO, well then they are more than welcome to leave.

      Posted Dec-14-2008 By 

      (1)

    • Stop trying to be naive, US will find the way to suppress ... f.e. as the country issuing reserve currency US will make or let investments come to the countries that are in nato. But it`ll finish soon.
      U master of irony.

      Posted Dec-14-2008 By 

      (0)