Follow us on social

Meeting_between_putin_and_khamenei_2

Iran's historic interdependence with Russia takes a turn — over Europe

Unlike the past, where Tehran was the co-dependent and Moscow maintained the upper hand, the roles are somewhat reversed.

Analysis | Middle East

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has entered its second year. A critical element of this campaign has been Iran’s military support for Russia by providing Moscow with indigenously produced drones. Notwithstanding the media frenzy over Iran’s support, the bilateral military cooperation between the two countries is in fact nothing new.

Indeed, this relationship has developed through four distinct stages.  

The origins of Russo-Persian military cooperation traces back to the 1870s when the Qajar king, Naser al-Din Shah, impressed by the Cossack brigade of the Russian Army, asked Tsar Alexander II to assist Iran by sending Russian military advisers, which led to the creation of the Persian Cossack brigade. Iran’s reliance on Russian military assistance grew deeper when Mohammad Ali Shah, in the aftermath of the bombardment of Iran’s parliament, and the country’s ensuing civil war, asked Russia to deploy troops to Iran to fight alongside the monarchists, turning the Russo-Persian military cooperation into a patron-client relationship. 

During the Cold War, the former Soviet Union became Iran’s main rival, and Iran allied itself with the western camp. During this period, Iranian leadership saw the Soviets and their client states (i.e. Iraq) as the primary threat to Iran’s territorial integrity. 

Nevertheless, Iran purchased limited amounts of standard military equipment from the Soviet Union, including armored vehicles and field artillery. In fact, according to a 1972 U.S. intelligence document, the Soviet Union between 1967 and 1971 extended $370 million in military aid to Iran, becoming its third most important supplier of weapons.. 

The 1979 Islamic Revolution and the subsequent hostage crisis deprived Iran of its primary arms supplier, the United States, and the bloody conflict with Iraq (1980-1988) had left the Iranian military in shambles. During the 1990s, Iran procured some major weapons systems from Russia including fighter aircrafts, air defense systems, and tanks

Iran also purchased a variety of Russian air defense systems, including the short range TOR-M1, and the advanced S-300 long-range air defense system to protect its nuclear facilities. However, Russia under U.S. pressure, refused to deliver the latter systems until 2016. 

Emerging Military Interdependence?

The conflict in Ukraine, however, has fundamentally changed the relationship between the two countries. Indeed, while prior to this conflict the relationship was that of a patron-client, Iran’s supply of drones to Russia has shifted the balance in favor of Iran.

While in the past, Iran, heavily sanctioned by major arms suppliers, had no option but to plead to Russia for major weapons systems, the increasingly isolated Russia is now relying on Iran for its less sophisticated, yet effective drones. Reports indicate that Iran has not only smuggled the drones to Russia on ships and state-owned airlines, but is also planning to build a factory in Russia that could manufacture drones for Moscow’s campaign in Ukraine — a new reality that seemed unthinkable only a decade ago.  

Iranian drones are less sophisticated than their Russian- or American-made counterparts, and are slower and noisier. However, their lower price tag and ease of production make them an ideal choice for Russia, which, now heavily sanctioned, has difficulty accessing western produced chips needed for more advanced weapon systems. This allows the Iranian drones to be launched in massive numbers to saturate Ukraine’s air defense systems and hit soft targets such as power stations and other infrastructure. 

Western reports indicate that while the Ukrainian military has shot down between 60 and 70 percent of the drones, some of them have been able to reach their targets inside Ukrainian territory. Indeed, this is similar to Iran’s own ballistic missile strategy, based on the assumption that a large number of missiles can saturate potential air defense systems. 

In an indication of Iran’s growing technological importance to Russia, Moscow is now reportedly sending captured U.S. weapons, including the anti-tank Javelin and MANPAD Stinger missiles, to Iran for reverse engineering. This can provide Iran and Russia with access to high-tech U.S. and NATO military equipment. 

It bears noting that Iran has proved its effectiveness in reverse engineering advanced weapon systems in the past. For example, the Iranian-made Toophan (Storm) anti-tank guided missile was reverse engineered from the U.S.-made BGM-71 TOW missile. Iran was also able to clone high-tech American drones, including the Scan Eagle and the Lockheed Martin RQ-170 “Sentinel,” and has since provided the former to Russia. 

Meanwhile, Russia is reportedly set to reciprocate Iran’s support by opening up its more advanced arsenal to Iran, which has long been interested in procuring advanced weapons systems, particularly fighter aircraft. Iran has for decades been cut off from the western arms market, and its air force is both qualitatively and quantitatively inferior to those of  its neighbors, especially Saudi Arabia

While it was previously reported that Iran is interested in acquiring SU-30s, it seems that Iran has now opted for 24 Sukhoi-35 aircraft. If the deal goes through, these aircraft will be the most advanced fighters that Iran has procured in decades. Given the large fleet of its neighbors’ air forces, these planes will not change the balance of power in the region significantly — although it will certainly boost Iran’s defensive capabilities. 

Moreover, while one Iranian official dismissed Tehran’s interest in procuring the S-400 air-defense systems earlier this month, some reports have indicated that Iran still seeks to acquire them. Acquisition of that system would indeed be a major boost to the country’s air defense capabilities, particularly in light of increased training by Israel’s air force for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. 

The war in Ukraine — and Iran’s emergence as an important supplier of weaponry to Russia — has indeed changed the dynamics of cooperation between Moscow and Tehran. In fact, unlike in the past, where Iran was the co-dependent partner and Russia maintained the upper hand, Russia today relies on Iran’s defense industry, which, thanks to decades of being subject to arms embargoes, has made remarkable progress.

This emerging partnership is due to the increasing isolation of both countries under U.S.-led sanctions and the exigencies of their own defense needs. Indeed, as the authors have previously noted, the U.S. seems to be inadvertently facilitating the consolidation of a political, economic, and military bloc among countries that are wary of  Washington’s global financial, technological, and military dominance.

At this juncture, the reciprocal partnership between Moscow and Tehran involves the latter’s supply of inexpensive, yet relatively successful weaponry for the Kremlin’s war efforts, while Russia appears poised to fulfill Iran’s need for  advanced high-tech weapon systems. Hence, it can be argued that military ties between the two countries have transformed from a lopsided patron-client relationship to interdependent cooperation.

The continued cooperation has the potential to create a supply chain and manufacturing system in which each country focuses its production on military equipment in which it has a comparative advantage. This “cross-functional partnership” stands in contrast to NATO’s “same-functional alliance,” where parties share similar competencies. 

However, the durability of Iran’s role as a semi-equal partner depends on the volume of its exports to Russia. Indeed, if any other state, notably China, decides to provide Russia with military assistance, the nature of Russia-Iran military cooperation could be set back to where it was historically.


Russian President Vladimir Putin with Ayatollah Khamenei, the leader of the Islamic Revolution of Iran, July 19, 2022 (Wikimedia Commons)
Analysis | Middle East
Musk Hegseth
Top image credit: Elon Musk and U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth shake hands at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 21, 2025 in this screengrab obtained from a video. REUTERS/Idrees Ali

DOGE wants to cut the Pentagon — by 0.07%

Military Industrial Complex

Last week, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth directed the termination of over $580 million in Pentagon contracts, grants, and programs. They amount to less than 0.07% of the Pentagon budget.

The elimination of this spending aligns with the administration’s effort to reshuffle the budget, not to promote a wholesale reduction in military spending.

keep readingShow less
Ukraine Civilians
Top Photo: Zhytomyr, Zhytomyr Oblast, Ukraine - March 8 2022: On March 8, 2022, a Russian Su-34 bomber dropped two 250 kg bombs on a civilian house in Zhitomir, Ukraine (Shutterstock/Volodymyr Vorobiov)
Bombardments making Ukraine, Gaza toxic for generations

Bombardments making Ukraine, Gaza toxic for generations

QiOSK

A new report finds dangerously high levels of uranium and lead contamination in Fallujah, Iraq, and other places that experience massive military bombardments in wartime, resulting in birth defects and long-term health risks among the people who live there

The report — from the Costs of War project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs — presages the dangers of prolonged conflict in places like Ukraine and Gaza, both of which have experienced sustained bombing campaigns for 3 years and 18 months, respectively. Indeed, precautions can be taken to reduce dangerous exposure to those who return to their homes after conflict ends, but the authors also point out that “the most effective way to limit heavy metal toxicity from war is by not bombing cities” at all.

keep readingShow less
Azerbaijan is already friendly with Israel. Why the push to 'normalize'?
Top photo credit: Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev (Gints Ivuskans/shutterstock) and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu (photocosmos1/Shutterstock)

Azerbaijan is already friendly with Israel. Why the push to 'normalize'?

Middle East

With President Donald Trump sending mixed messages on Iran — on the one hand, reinstating his “maximum pressure” campaign and threatening military action; on the other, signaling an eagerness to negotiate — anti-diplomacy voices are working overtime to find new ways to lock the U.S. and Iran into perpetual enmity.

The last weeks have seen a mounting campaign, in both the U.S. and Israel, to integrate Azerbaijan, Iran’s northern neighbor, into the Abraham Accords — the 2020 set of “normalization deals” between Israel and a number of Arab states, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco. The leading Israeli think tank Begin-Sadat Center argued that Baku would be a perfect addition to the club. A number of influential rabbis, led by the founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, Marvin Hier, and the main rabbi of the UAE, Eli Abadi (who happens to be a close associate to Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, who was himself instrumental in forging the original Abraham Accords), also sent a letter to Trump promoting Baku’s inclusion. The Wall Street Journal and Forbes amplified these messages on their op-ed pages.

keep readingShow less

Trump transition

Latest

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.