U.S. Will Not Let Iran Buy Arms When U.N. Embargo Ends: Pompeo

[Kastor]

Zarif needs to get on a plane and meet every single member of the UNSC.....Pompeo is already talking with UK and France.....France may not listen but Boris a weak, drunk, slob...he has no back bone. The UNSC members also include Dominican Republic and St Vincent island.....these are both in the U.S.'s corner...maybe even S. Africa. which means the U.S. maybe in a position to checkmate Iran........after all of this I thought Zarif knew better...that paragraph should never have been approved. Nothing short of foolish.

 

[Mr Happy]

Iran wants to buy SU-57. This will be Iran's ace against the F-35.

The su-30 and mig-35 are the most affordable option for Iran. Russians desperately need money and are willing to TOT.

China is not too concerned about arms exports because its economy is much better than Russia, arms exports are not their only source of revenue. China does not want relations with Arabia saudi and israel affected by the sale of weapons to Iran.

China will support Iran economically, not militarily

When was the last time China was directly involved in a war?

 

[aryobarzan]

Zarif needs to get on a plane and meet every single member of the UNSC.....Pompeo is already talking with UK and France.....France may not listen but Boris a weak, drunk, slob...he has no back bone. The UNSC members also include Dominican Republic and St Vincent island.....these are both in the U.S.'s corner...maybe even S. Africa. which means the U.S. maybe in a position to checkmate Iran........after all of this I thought Zarif knew better...that paragraph should never have been approved. Nothing short of foolish.

Legality issues have never stopped western nations from taking illegal actions (e.g. Iraq invasion, appointing a President for Venezuela or occupation of Syrian lands..etc). The Only thing stopping the snap back is the fear of what Iran will do next and if they are ready to accept an unchained Iran nuclear program..It would be sometime in November and with US election in full swing and second wave of Corona at their doorstep they have to decide what to do with Iran ..and Iran a currently Latent nuclear power will no longer have any reason to stay latent....so the question is ..are they ready to have a nuclear Iran in the age of Corona!.

 

[OldTwilight]

F-5 / Kowsar with digital cockpit

https://twitter.com/x/status/1257200053392936960

 

[QWECXZ]

If this snap-back can happen by merely having one member complaining...then shame on Iran for signing it. I cannot believe this can happen. This a dirty trick. Even so we're not getting any benefit from sanction relief. I interpreted it as the non-performance after being reported to the UNSC has to be verified by the IAEA.... If the IAEA does claim non-performance then you have grounds for it going to arbitration of 3....one picked by the nation making the claim, the other by Iran and the 3rd by the body. And even then the paper says the outcome is non-binding. After a brief period of time, of no resolution, it goes to a vote in the UNSC.....like any other UNSC vote and the members with veto power can stop it, or approve it with 9 out of the 1 votes. Again just like numerous other UNSC actions that got stopped because of U.S. vetoing it. If this is not true then Iran lost the chess game. They should have known better when that paragraph was introduced. SMH...

Yes. I have been screaming day after day that the JCPOA is by far the worst agreement signed by Iran in the last 50 years but nobody believed it.
This is from Wikipedia:

Specifically, the JCPOA establishes the following dispute resolution process: if a party to the JCPOA has reason to believe that another party is not upholding its commitments under the agreement, then the complaining party may refer its complaint to the Joint Commission, a body created under the JCPOA to monitor implementation.[71][115] If a complaint made by a non-Iran party is not resolved to the satisfaction of the complaining party within thirty-five days of referral, then that party could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under the JCPOA, notify the United Nations Security Council that it believes the issue constitutes significant non-performance, or both.[115] The Security Council would then have thirty days to adopt a resolution to continue the lifting of sanctions. If such a resolution is not adopted within those thirty days, then the sanctions of all of the pre-JCPOA nuclear-related UN Security Council resolutions would automatically be re-imposed. Iran has stated that in such a case, it would cease performing its nuclear obligations under the deal.[59][115] The effect of this rule is that any permanent member of the Security Council (United States, United Kingdom, China, Russia and France) can veto any ongoing sanctions relief, but no member can veto the re-imposition of sanctions.


The point is that if the snapback mechanism is activated by only one non-Iran party, then the UNSC has to decide whether they want to continue lifting of the sanctions or not, and not whether the sanctions should be reimposed or not. So, basically China and Russia will not be able to stop the UNSC from reimposing the sanctions.

 

[GWXP]

Speaking realistically, Saudi Arabia will prevent Iran from acquiring fighter aircrafts from Russia and China.

If Russia will agree to sell, lets say, 100 Su-35s to Iran...Saudis will use their deep pockets to prevent this-----they will offer Putin a better deal that makes more benefits to Russia and Russia will cancel weapon sales to Iran

Same with China...China buys a lot of Saudi oil and Saudis will use their deep pockets to bribe Chinese not to sell aircrafts to Iran.

So Iran should rely on its own....reverse engineering RD-33 and turning F-313 into a decent fighter is the only option.

 

[Rukarl]

The point is that if the snapback mechanism is activated by only one non-Iran party, then the UNSC has to decide whether they want to continue lifting of the sanctions or not, and not whether the sanctions should be reimposed or not. So, basically China and Russia will not be able to stop the UNSC from reimposing the sanctions.

What has this to do with the weapons embargo ?

 

[QWECXZ]

What has this to do with the weapons embargo ?

Meaning that all previous UNSC sanctions on Iran will be reimposed if one party other than Iran decides to activate the snapback mechanism. Weapons embargo is included in those UNSC resolutions that will be imposed again.

Speaking realistically, Saudi Arabia will prevent Iran from acquiring fighter aircrafts from Russia and China.

If Russia will agree to sell, lets say, 100 Su-35s to Iran...Saudis will use their deep pockets to prevent this-----they will offer Putin a better deal that makes more benefits to Russia and Russia will cancel weapon sales to Iran

Same with China...China buys a lot of Saudi oil and Saudis will use their deep pockets to bribe Chinese not to sell aircrafts to Iran.

So Iran should rely on its own....reverse engineering RD-33 and turning F-313 into a decent fighter is the only option.

They can't do that now. Oil prices are too low for that and their debt is skyrocketing every day.

 

[GWXP]

Meaning that all previous UNSC sanctions on Iran will be reimposed if one party other than Iran decides to activate the snapback mechanism. Weapons embargo is included in those UNSC resolutions that will be imposed again.


They can't do that now. Oil prices are too low for that and their debt is skyrocketing every day.

But Saudis have 500bln$ in forex reserves and 200bln$ in Investment fund

Of course oil price is low, but when shale oil in US gets bankrupted because of this low oil prices, oil price will eventually increase and Saudis will earn even more cash in the near future.

Aircraft sales to Iran is a mortal threat to the Saudis ---and they will challenge it.

That's what will happen:

Putin doesn't care what Pompeo says and in 2021 he will make an offer to sell fighter aircrafts to Iran---he will make this offer because he knows that Saudis will immediately come to Moscow and offer a better deal---eventually Saudis will have to offer a deal worth some 15-20bln$ to Russia for it not to sell fighter aircrafts to Iran...

This is good for Iran and for Russia

For Russia---they will make billions from the Saudis

For Iran----Saudis will exhaust their financial muscle which is good for Iran.

But in the end Iran needs to rely on its own when it comes to aircraft development.

 

[Philosopher]

Aircraft sales to Iran is a mortal threat to the Saudis ---and they will challenge it.

Iranian accurate ballistic missiles are a far more dangerous threat to them then a 100 or so new fighter jets. It will be an added threat to them, but a mortal threat? No at all.

With regards to your comment on them challenging, I agree that they will certainly attempt to challenge. But them being able to buy the sellers out is not a foregone conclusion.

 

[GWXP]

Iranian accurate ballistic missiles are a far more dangerous threat to them then a 100 or so new fighter jets. It will be an added threat to them, but a mortal threat? No at all.

With regards to your comment on them challenging, I agree that they will certainly attempt to challenge. But them being able to buy the sellers out is not a foregone conclusion.

Ballistic missiles are expensive and are not reusable, unlike fighter/bomber aircraft.

Purchase of aircrafts by Iran substantially changes the balance of power in the region. And Saudis are terrified.

 

[Philosopher]

Ballistic missiles are not reusable, unlike fighter/bomber aircraft.

Purchase of aircrafts by Iran substantially changes the balance of power in the region. And Saudis are terrified.

That does not make them a mortal threat. Fighter jets may be re-usable (their weapons are not), but they're also vastly more vulnerable compared to missiles. This is why Iran's missile program is much more of a threat to its adversaries. Iran with relative can easily destroy strategic assets of its enemies using missiles. Could it do the job as easily with fighter jets? (not even considering the risk to the pilots and planes). A few dozen to a 100 or so new fighter jets will be needed for Iran in the near future to aid in situations like Syria where aerial bombardment helped turned the tide of the war. However, people are generally vastly overstating the importance of Iran getting a 100 or so new fighter jet. The quality and quantity of fighter jets Iran would need to have in order to cause a true seismic shift in the balance of power is much more than we can reasonable expect it to get in the near future.

 

[GWXP]

That does not make them a mortal threat. Fighter jets may be re-usable (their weapons are not), but they're also vastly more vulnerable compared to missiles. This is why Iran's missile program is much more of a threat to its adversaries. Iran with relative can easily destroy strategic assets of its enemies using missiles. Could it do the job as easily with fighter jets? (not even considering the risk to the pilots and planes). A few dozen to a 100 or so new fighter jets will be needed for Iran in the near future to aid in situations like Syria where aerial bombardment helped turned the tide of the war. However, people are generally vastly overstating the importance of Iran getting a 100 or so new fighter jet. The quality and quantity of fighter jets Iran would need to have in order to cause a true seismic shift in the balance of power is much more than we can reasonable expect it to get in the near future.

Could ballistic missiles change the balance of power in Syrian Civil War and create conditions for Assad's victory----Answer--No!

However several dozens of Russian bombers changed the entire balance of power in Syrian Civil War in Assad's favor and the result is Assad's victory

Could ballistic missiles defeat Saddam in 1991? Answer-no. However air power defeated him

This example just shows how crucial air power is in modern wars.

Ballistic missiles are an expensive single shot....

Imagine if you have 1000 ballistic missiles----they can deliver 500 tons of payload (assuming 500kg warhead) and that is all----after you have exhausted your arsenal and delivered 500 tons of payload you are finished.

On the other hand, Fighter/bombers can deliver much more payload in multiple sorties doing much more damage to the enemy.

Example: Imagine Iran-Saudi war......

Iran launched its ballistic missiles, did some damage and quickly exhausted its arsenal of missiles

But in the end it is the Saudis who rule the sky and bomb Abadan refinery and Kharg island oil terminals and bomb invading Iranian army with multiple sorties doing enormous damage and probably stalling the invasion.

And now assume Iran has 100-200 Su-35s----not only Iran can protect its skies and infrastructure from enemy's air force, Iran will be able to deliver close air support for its own army, thus guaranteeing its success and ultimate victory (just like in Syrian civil war or in 1991 Gulf War).

100-200 fighter/bombers in Iranian hand changes the entire balance of power in the Persian Gulf the same way as several dozens of fighter/bombers changed the balance of power in the Syrian Civil War.

And Saudis are terrified of this.

 

[QWECXZ]

Could ballistic missiles change the balance of power in Syrian Civil War and create conditions for Assad's victory----Answer--No!

Are you comparing ISIS with no infrastructure of its own with a country that actually has infrastructures to protect and worry about?

Could ballistic missiles defeat Saddam in 1991? Answer-no. However air power defeated him

Iran didn't have a ballistic missile arsenal back then. Sure, we had purchased a few missiles from Libya and Syria, but the number didn't top 50. And missiles were used in the last 2 years of war and they created such a terror that people in both sides wanted the war to end as soon as possible.

Imagine if you have 1000 ballistic missiles----they can deliver 500 tons of payload (assuming 500kg warhead) and that is all----after you have exhausted your arsenal and delivered 500 tons of payload you are finished.

Iran's Khorramshahr missile carries up to 1800 kilograms of multiple warheads.

On the other hand, Fighter/bombers can deliver much more payload in multiple sorties doing much more damage to the enemy.

Assuming that there's no air defense, yes. Fighters have pilots. If you shoot down a fighter, the country will lose pilots that it took them years to train. And shooting down a jet fighter where there's good air defense is much easier than a ballistic missile.

Iran launched its ballistic missiles, did some damage and quickly exhausted its arsenal of missiles

By the time Iran exhausts its missiles, there will be no economic or military infrastructure left in Saudi Arabia for them to respond. Their highly oil dependent economy will collapse. Jet fighters need airports. Their airports will be effectively unusable. Their jet fighters won't even get a chance to take off.

But in the end it is the Saudis who rule the sky and bomb Abadan refinery and Kharg island oil terminals and bomb invading Iranian army with multiple sorties doing enormous damage and probably stalling the invasion.

As I said, Saudi airports will be inoperable very fast. It will take us less than 10 minutes to completely make their airports inoperable. The good thing about missiles is that you can launch them from almost anywhere, but for jet fighters, you need airports. Also, we have good air defense. Saudi pilots will have a nightmare flying over our skies. We also have good radar coverage over Saudi Arabia. Our OTH radars will provide early warning before they can surprise us.

And now assume Iran has 100-200 Su-35s----not only Iran can protect its skies and infrastructure from enemy's air force, Iran will be able to deliver close air support for its own army, thus guaranteeing its success and ultimate victory (just like in Syrian civil war or in 1991 Gulf War).

Our Mig29s and F14s will defend our skies perfectly well. They will not perform well for offensive operations, but they can do very well when it comes to defense over friendly skies. We are mass producing a variety of radars and air defense systems like Khordad 3, Khordad 15 and Bavar-373 to defend our skies.

 

[Philosopher]

Could ballistic missiles change the balance of power in Syrian Civil War and create conditions for Assad's victory----Answer--No!

Your comment was about fighter jets being a "mortal threat" to Saudi Arabia. As for Syria, I have already said:

A few dozen to a 100 or so new fighter jets will be needed for Iran in the near future to aid in situations like Syria where aerial bombardment helped turned the tide of the war.

However several dozens of Russian bombers changed the entire balance of power in Syrian Civil War in Assad's favor and the result is Assad's victory

Yes, but the airforce we'd need to do this is different to one you want to create a change in the balance of power vs the Persian Gulf states, Israel etc.

Ballistic missiles are an expensive single shot....

And with those "single shots" you could paralyse a nation with much relative ease compared to a fighter jet. Furthermore, how much does a missile in Iran cost? When you actually look at the costs, you'll realise you can buy 1000's of missiles for a price of even a small number of modern fighter jets. This is what Commander Hajizadeh himself said a while back.

Imagine if you have 1000 ballistic missiles----they can deliver 500 tons of payload (assuming 500kg warhead) and that is all----after you have exhausted your arsenal and delivered 500 tons of payload you are finished.

On the other hand, Fighter/bombers can deliver much more payload in multiple sorties doing much more damage to the enemy.

Like mentioned previously, ballistic missiles in Iran's inventory can deliver a serious blow and are much less vulnerable compared to a fighter jet. The problem with your assumption here is that the jets will not be shot down and will be able to keep doing sorties. When you're against adversaries that have very robust air defence and large number of advanced fighter jets, this is a not a wise assumption.

Iran launched its ballistic missiles, did some damage and quickly exhausted its arsenal of missiles

This "some damage" is clearly inaccurate. The reality is, in a major conflict, Iran will obviously target major sites such as oil facilities, electrical power plants etc, that is not "some damage". You will basically paralyse them. Not to mention if Iran ever actually targeted something more sensitive like desalination plants.

But in the end it is the Saudis who rule the sky and bomb Abadan refinery and Kharg island terminals and bomb invading Iranian army with multiple sorties doing enormous damage and probably stalling the invasion.

You're simplifying things greatly. Iran has a large air defence capability than can seriously downgrade region airforces. And if there is a conflict, the saudis airfields will be one of the first targets. Their air force can do damage, no on the scale you're trying to claim.

And now assume Iran has 100-200 Su-35s----not only Iran can protect its skies and infrastructure from enemy air force, Iran will be able to deliver close air support for its own army, thus guaranteeing its success and ultimate victory (just like in Syrian civil war).

100-200 fighter/bombers in Iranian hand changes the entire balance of power in the Persian Gulf the same way as several dozens of fighter/bombers changed the balance of power in the Syrian Civil War.

And Saudis are terrified of this.

There is a huge difference between fighter jets adding on to a threat faced by the Saudis, then your claims of "mortal threat". Iran being able to protect it's skies better with a 200 or so SU-35s is a different matter than this claim you made. In order for Iran to be able to cause a serious shift in the balance of power, it will need more than just 200 SU-35s. Furthermore, such a large number of fighter jets would take a long time to be fully delivered. Even if Iran were to order this number today, by the time it is fully done, its adversaries will be flying 5th generation fighters. Thus, going back to what I said from the start, Iran needs a few dozen new jets to help it in places like Syria, if it is to go after an airforce to create a true shift in the balance of power, then it will need an extremely large investment which clearly the Iranian planners have no indicated, because their missiles can do a very potent enough job.

Are you comparing ISIS with no infrastructure of its own with a country that actually has infrastructures to protect and worry about?


Iran didn't have a ballistic missile arsenal back then. Sure, we had purchased a few missiles from Libya and Syria, but the number didn't top 50. And missiles were used in the last 2 years of war and they created such a terror that people in both sides wanted the war to end as soon as possible.


Iran's Khorramshahr missile carries up to 1800 kilograms of multiple warheads.


Assuming that there's no air defense, yes. Fighters have pilots. If you shoot down a fighter, the country will lose pilots that it took them years to train. And shooting down a jet fighter where there's good air defense is much easier than a ballistic missile.


By the time Iran exhausts its missiles, there will be no economic or military infrastructure left in Saudi Arabia for them to respond. Their highly oil dependent economy will collapse. Jet fighters need airports. Their airports will be effectively unusable. Their jet fighters won't even get a chance to take off.


As I said, Saudi airports will be inoperable very fast. It will take us less than 10 minutes to completely make their airports inoperable. The good thing about missiles is that you can launch them from almost anywhere, but for jet fighters, you need airports. Also, we have good air defense. Saudi pilots will have a nightmare flying over our skies. We also have good radar coverage over Saudi Arabia.


Our Mig29s and F14s will defend our skies perfectly well. They will not perform well for offensive operations, but they can do very well when it comes to defense over friendly skies. We are mass producing a variety of radards and air defense systems like Khordad 3, Khordad 15 and Bavar-373 to defend our skies.