• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Iran ready to receive S-300 missile system

ISNA - Iranian Students' News Agency

Sat 25 Apr 2015 - 09:05

TEHRAN (ISNA)- Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehghan said the country is ready to receive S-300 missile system, expressing the hope that it would come true in the current Iranian calendar year, (started on March 21, 2015).

The full text of his interview with Russia Today comes as follows.

Q: Now, Russia just announced that it no longer wants to wait with the deliver of the S-300 missile systems to Tehran. And that news sparked a lot of different interpretations about Moscow's motives. Some believe that it's a way of encouraging Iran for the progress that it has made with the G5+1. Others believe that it's a way of essentially spiting the Americans. What do you think is Moscow trying to achieve here? What do you think are Moscow's motives?

A: In the name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these extremely important issues. The issue of the S-300 system is an old one between Russia and Iran. We had already signed a contract with Russia for the purchase of this system. Six years ago, the Russian president suspended the contract. Naturally, we have been asking for the contract to be performed ever since. At that time, we sent some experts to Russia. They were trained on both the technical and the practical aspects of this system and they returned to Iran. In addition, we prepared the proper structures for the system in Iran; in other words, we were ready to receive the system based on the contract that we had signed.

Our position has always been to seek the performance of the contract. In the new administration of the President Rouhani, several meetings were held between the presidents of the two countries, where they discussed the performance of the contract. And in the end, it was agreed that the contract…

Q: So, do you believe that's because of the efforts that the new government has done? Do you think that's because Moscow finds it, perhaps, geopolitically beneficial for it to make this move right now? Or perhaps (because) of the actions of some other actors? Who do you think was the impetus for this deal?

A: Let me explain the process. Then if you have any questions, I will answer them. We raised the issue of this contract at various negotiations and meetings between the presidents of the two countries. The Russian party announced that there were some limitations, indicating that the former president of Russia had suspended the contract. And in accordance with the Russian governments' tradition, the current president usually refrains from cancelling orders given by his predecessor. In the end, it was said that the current president has the same authorities as his predecessor, so he must have the power to do this. Then, we discussed ways in which both parties could execute the contract with Mr. Shoigu on the sidelines of last year's Security Conference. Finally, during Mr. Shoigu's trip to Iran, we agreed with Mr Shoigu that we should make all of the preparations before my trip to Russia for the current conference, so that we could execute the contract. Well, all of these arrangements were made, and two weeks ago, the esteemed president of Russia issued a statement indicating that Russia had agreed to deliver the system to Iran based on the contract we had previously concluded. Now, whether the acceptance was subject to external factors and whether it was related to the P5+1 talks, that needs to be analysed. From our point of view, it was because of the new conditions created in the relations between the two countries as well as the political determination of both sides to improve relations in all areas.

Q: Minister, with all due respect, I don't think it's an exclusively bilateral issue, I think it has many more other geopolitical implications. And one possible explanation for that deal, at least discussed here in Moscow, is an effort to provide a deterrent against a unilateral action by Israel, something that the Israeli leadership has been very publicly discussing – a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. I would like to ask you, as a defence minister, do you think the possession of those missile systems constitutes a big enough deterrent for your country? Do you think Israel could be scared away, or forced to reconsider some of its actions because of these specific systems?

A: Well, thank God, and thanks to the human, technical and industrial capacities we have in our own country, we do have the necessary defense systems to guarantee our aerospace security. We have even designed and are now building a system similar to this one, and we expect to be able to test its production model by the end of the current Iranian year. As I have stressed to the Russian party repeatedly, what was, and still is, the most important thing for us is the fulfillment of the contract, once it has been signed. Today, we consider the acceptance as Russia's decision to fulfill its obligations to Iran under the S-300 Contract. The question of whether we need such systems to counteract Israel, or to guarantee our nuclear security, should be considered from the perspective that every country seeks to have access to various systems that it deems necessary to meet its defense and security needs. And likewise, in order to meet such needs, Iran doesn't need to make arrangements with any authorities, nor does it need to ask anyone's permission. Iran will make the decision on its own, and will implement it on its own.

Q: Do you think that Mr. Putin was referring to the possibility of a unilateral strike by Saudi Arabia against Iran, and perhaps as a result of a spill-over from the Yemeni conflict? Do you even consider that as a possibility, as a threat?

A: No, there is no connection between these two issues, because the decision about the performance of the contract was made long before the events taking place in the south of the Persian Gulf, namely the attack by Saudi Arabia and its allies on Yemen. Therefore, this is not related. Whether Israel will or will not attack us now that we have this system is the political aspect of the issue. For us, the technical and operational aspects of the contract were most important. In my opinion, giving a political color and flavor to this contract kind of deflects from the real issue, because the issue is clear. There was a contract which was suspended for some time under certain circumstances, and now, under different circumstances, the same contract has been revived. From our point of view, the only reason for such a decision was the determination of both parties to fulfill their mutual obligations. But now for example, what Israel does, or what the United States of America does, or what some country has said, or what becomes of Saudi Arabia – all that has nothing to do with this issue. It's quite natural for analysts to make assumptions and guesses in their analyses, because they are looking at the issue from their own angles. From our point of view, the reason is that we have decided to create the necessary infrastructure for our country based on our own conditions, and one of the results of that decision was to purchase the S-300 system.

Q: Now, speaking about securing your country, both the aerospace and more broadly – for years, the main axis of enmity was between Iran and the United States. Some of your leaders refer to the United States as this "Great Satan". The American leadership was also, you know, not very kindly describing Iran as an irrational theocracy. But it seems that right now, the rhetoric coming out of traditional American allies – I mean both Saudi Arabia and Israel – is far more belligerent than the rhetoric coming out of Washington. If we put aside the rhetoric, who do you think represents a greater danger to the security of your country? Is it Washington, or is it perhaps some of its allies?

A: We don't feel threatened by our neighbors, nor have we ever posed a threat to them. We do respect the political independence and territorial integrity of our neighboring countries and we believe that a powerful Iran will be a promoter of stability and security in the region. We consider our capabilities an asset for the Islamic world. So, if Israel and the United States try to depict Iran as a threat to the countries of the region, they are doomed to fail, because we have never, throughout our history, invaded any neighboring countries. On the contrary, we have strongly resisted any invasion of our own country. A recent example was Iraq's invasion of Iran. Both the East and the West, including the former Soviet Union, the United States, France and all other western countries, they all supported Saddam Hussein and Iraq's invasion in different ways. However, our nation retaliated and defeated Iraq without the help or support of any foreign country. Iran was the winner in the war with Iraq, because we prevented the enemy from imposing their will on us. Therefore, we are not a threat to the countries of the region, nor do we consider them a threat against us. We believe that neither the United States nor Israel would dare to attack us. If they believed that they could manage a war or an attack against us, they would have done so without a shadow of doubt. The fact that they have not already attacked us shows that they have not been able to. In reply to your question about whether Saudi Arabia or other neighboring countries, who have security treaties with the United States, are capable of acting against us, we believe that they are not capable of doing so, nor do they enjoy such broad popular and political support for an attack or a coalition against us.

End Item