Talk:Defense industry of Iran/Archive 1

Content dispute?
There appears to be something of a content dispute here. Let's discuss here. Could someone outline the disputed material. Cheers. Megapixie 10:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, let us compare. Ignoring the first version he kept bringing up, this is the version Tototom brings up now (Databot's version is close to this, but different):

QUOTE History Tototom
Under the Shah of Iran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran's defense industry was limited to assembly. However a wide variety of equipment was assembled: American firms such as Bell, Litton and Northrop, set up assembly lines in Iran for helicopters, aircraft, guided missiles, electronic components and tanks. Various Iranian companies and organisations such as Iran Electronics Industries (IEI) were also founded to repair missiles and aircraft, and the government planned to develop and produce its own weapons. For example, Tehran had begun to reverse-engineer several Soviet missiles and had asked to jointly develop a missile with the United States, a request Washington refused. It had also begun to jointly develop a missile with Israel in Project Flower.

Nevertheless, most of Iran's weapons during this period were imported from the United States and Europe. Between 1971 and 1975, the Shah went on a buying spree, ordering $8 billion in weapons from the United States alone. This alarmed the United States Congress, which strengthened a 1968 law on arms exports in 1976 and renamed it the Arms Export Control Act. Still, the United States continued to sell large amounts of weapons to Iran until the 1979 Islamic Revolution. 

In 1980, Iraq invaded Iran. The United States, in an effort to help Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, put an arms embargo on Iran, froze its foreign assets, refused to deliver purchased weapons, and forbade U.S. firms to do business with Iran. 

Iran found itself severely isolated and lacking the technological expertise to make even rifles. In response, Iranian scientists joined to launch Iran's defense industry. Within a year, Iran was able to develop RPG-7s, rifles, and other military equipment.

Currently, there are conflicting report regarding Iran's military self sufficency. In 1999, it was reported that Iran became completely self sufficent in the production of frigates, submarines, tanks, jet fighters, ballistic missiles, and other arms and military gear. However, in 2006, additional reports indicated that Iran is near self-sufficency.

Compared to 'my version':

QUOTE History ArmanJan
Under the Shah of Iran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran's defense industry was limited to assembling small arms under license. Most of its weapons were imported from the United States and Europe. Between 1971 and 1975, the Shah went on a buying spree, ordering $8 billion in weapons from the United States alone. This alarmed the United States Congress, which strengthened a 1968 law on arms exports in 1976 and renamed it the Arms Export Control Act. Still, the United States continued to sell large amounts of weapons to Iran until the 1979 Islamic Revolution. 

In 1980, Iraq invaded Iran. The United States, in an effort to help Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, put an arms embargo on Iran, froze its foreign assets, refused to deliver purchased weapons, and forbade U.S. firms to do business with Iran. 

Iran found itself severely isolated and lacking the technological expertise to make even rifles. In response, Iranian scientists joined to launch Iran's defense industry. Within a year, Iran was able to develop RPG-7s, rifles, and other military equipment.

As of 2006, Iran is close to becoming militarily self-sufficient, one of only a few such nations. In 1999, Iran's army became completely self-sufficient, and some years later the Air Force and the Navy followed suit. Iran now develops frigates, submarines, tanks, jet fighters, ballistic missiles, and other arms and military gear. 

Yes, there is clearly an issue here that needs resolving. Well said Megapixie. I think the whole discussion revolves around this- Armanjan thinks everything before the 1979 Iranian revolution was bad and evil (you can deduct this from his numerous posts and statements on talk pages). Concequently even if the pre-revolutionary Iranian government did something good, ArmanJan sees it as his mission to tarnish it or remove the 'fact' from history. As for me, I just want to get the facts straight- they might end up in Armanjan's favor, but I sincerely doubt that.
 * someone outline the disputed material:

Till now, you'll find the sources that I am using are, strangely, mostly the same sources as ArmanJan. The only diference is that when using those source I have been taking everything that is said in them into account as opposed to a single statement to prove my points. Now this issues one by one: Please read: Sections: 1975, Before 1979, February 1979 This is a source that both arman and I have used - so we have to assume that it is a good source. Please read:. This is a source Armanjan had introduced himself, so it must be ok. However this source goes on to claim Iran was assembling aircraft, tanks, etc. etc. Althought- even though it hurts my own argument (just to be fair) it's a bad source. However, on the same note if you read which IS from a good source (US Director of National Intelligence - government website)  which ArmanJan was using, on the top of page 3 you'll see: '''Iran’s modern defense industrial base was developed during the period of the Shah by an import substitution strategy, in which Iran would learn to produce, assemble, repair and maintain military equipment. The United States and the UK were principal suppliers of aircraft, armor, and small arms. Beginning in the mid-1970’s, Iran signed co-production agreements for licensed manufacture of aircraft, helicopters, surface-to-air missiles, and computer and electro-optic equipment.9 Four state-owned organizations constituted the main elements of the defense industrial base. The Military Industries Organization (MIO) was the main control center, and also produced small arms, rockets, mortars, and artillery. The Iran Aircraft Industries (IAI) focused on fighters, the Iran Helicopter Industries (IHI) on helicopters, and the Iran Electronics Industry (IEI) on defense electronics.''' This entire section was ignored by him.
 * Taking it apart:
 * Before '79 Iran was limited to assembly work only, and only on light weapons.

Please read: Sections: 1974, 1975, November 1976, 8 July 1977, 18 July 1977, 1978, July 1978, September 1978, December 1978, Before 1979. Read this also:
 * Iranian government wanted to develop its own weapons in the long run (pre revolution)

just a little contradictory when compared to everything else in the article. Perhaps it was because all the engineers left with the revolution? Furthermore, if that is the case why does Iran still produce G-3 rifles and MP5s... most probably using the same facilities when these rifles were standard army issue prior to 1979.
 * Iran found itself severely isolated and lacking the technological expertise to make even rifles

Well, there are two sources from different dates that claim diferent things. They chronologically dont make sense. Thus it's questionable to just declare that iran is self sufficent. Anyhow, it sounds like one of those propagandist things one hears all the time in Iran...
 * Current level of self sufficency.

This source: which IS from a good source (US Director of National Intelligence - government website) : '''In spite of Iran’s claims of self-sufficiency, some foreign experts believe that Iran lacks the industrial or technical capability to do “much more than enhance or splice foreign– designed weapons systems.”27 As a result, Iran still has significant foreign dependencies in its armament process. In 1995, Iran contracted with India to provide specialists to upgrade and maintain its Russian-provided armaments.28 In 1999 Iran also contracted with China to upgrade Iran’s Fl-10 anti-ship cruise missile.29'''

Just for the record, there is also little mention of foreign asistance in Irans dive for military self sufficency. Tototom 15:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay - there's a lot of stuff to go through there - give me a little time. I have to say though on the surface though you both seem to agree on a lot of the material - which is a good start. I'm sure we can come up with something that everyone is satisfied with. Megapixie 01:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

List of disputed points

 * Okay I've read through the linked material - and I'd like to understand the focus of the dispute - as I understand it the following is disputed:
 * The state of Iranian military industry pre-revolution
 * The effect of the revolution on the arms industry
 * The reasons for the arms embargo
 * The current level of self suffiency of the arms industry
 * Armanjan, Tototom, L0b0t - is that a complete list of the things that are disputed (at a high level) ? If that's a complete list then we can start focused discussion on each of the issues in turn. Megapixie 06:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Armanjan, Tototom, L0b0t - is that a complete list of the things that are disputed (at a high level) ? If that's a complete list then we can start focused discussion on each of the issues in turn. Megapixie 06:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Tototom 08:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That seems to be it. ArmanJan 19 July 2006

This page needs a rewrite.
This page is in desperate need of fact checking and a rewrite. The U.S. did not embargo Iran to support Iraq in the war. We placed the embargo because the crazy clerics took over our embassy and held our citizens hostage for a year. The claims of military self-sufficiency are dubious at best. The cited sources even acknowledge that most Iranian weapons either bought from other nations, produced under license or reverse engineered from other designs.L0b0t 12:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That is incorrect. Iran came under sanction when the U.S. embassy personnel were taken. The U.S. was still going to deliver the weapons Iran had already bought. The arms embargo came when Saddam Hussein started a war. That is why the Iran-Contra Affair took place. During the war, Iran used the personnel to get weapons and spare parts from the U.S. As for the sources for self-sufficiency, gimme some time and I will find some stuff. I remember reading about this on Fars News Agency. ArmanJan


 * No, I'm pretty sure I was in Bandar-e-Shapur in 1979 unloading helicopter parts from a tramp steamer when we recieved a FLASH from DoD telling us to halt delivery and put to sea. The Iran - Contra affair predates the Iraq war and was about making Jimmy Carter look bad by delaying the hostage release until after Reagan took office.L0b0t 21:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * YES! This page does need a re-write from a balanced POV person (i.e. not ArmanJan) - not me if it makes him/her feel beter. There are clear inconsistencies in the supporting materials - lots of the supporting 'source' are from domestic Iranian websites which pretty much spew out what the government wants them to. If we look at other non-dometic news sources we get a very different picture. REWRITE! REWRITE! Tototom 15:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

L0b0t, Iran-Contra was about the U.S. selling weapons for hostages, which the public found out in 1986. See Iran_contra and NSA publications Sanctions were placed on Iran the day the so called hostage crisis started. In April 1980 the failed attempt to save them took place, then in september the war started and then the arms embargo came in place. "sanctions" and "arms embargo" are two seperate things. By the way, the Administrators have been alerted of all this vandalism going on. - ArmanJan
 * "L0b0t, Iran-Contra was about the U.S. selling weapons for hostages" Yes that is what I just said. Iran - Contra predates the Iraqi invasion.L0b0t 02:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

How on earth is the 80s before the the Iran-Iraq war? ArmanJan 14:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Lead sentence is not supported by its citation
I've changed the lead sentence ("Iran is one of only few [sic] countries that can claim to have reached almost complete self-sufficieny [sic] in all military fields") because it is directly contradicted by the cited source, which says:


 * In spite of Iran’s claims of self-sufficiency, some foreign experts believe that Iran lacks the industrial or technical capability to do “much more than enhance or splice foreign– designed weapons systems.”27 As a result, Iran still has significant foreign dependencies in its armament process.

I understand that the issue of Iranian military industrial self-sufficiency has yet to be settled, but outright contradictions shouldn't stand while discussion goes on. I've replaced the lead with a sentence that (I hope) everyone can agree is true; now we can discuss how to amplify the point. PRRfan 20:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The state of Iranian military industry pre-revolution
Okay - let's kick off with this point. If we address each point over a couple of days - we can have an agreed version of the article in a couple of weeks.

Breaking it down into individual statements (where there is disagreement) - can we initially restrict responses to: Please insert you comments between the statements. Thanks. Megapixie 03:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The source doesn't support the statement
 * 2) There are other sources that disagree with that source provided or the statement either directly or indirectly (please cite them)
 * 3) The source is bad i.e. it doesn't meet wikipedia's criteria for a good source.
 * 4) Some other reason. (please state briefly - we will discuss later).


 * A wide variety of equipment was assembled in Iran: American firms such as Bell, Litton and Northrop, set up assembly lines for helicopters, aircraft, guided missiles, electronic components and tanks .


 * Beginning in the mid-1970’s, Iran signed co-production agreements for licensed manufacture of aircraft, helicopters, surface-to-air missiles, and computer and electro-optic equipment.
 * The Military Industries Organization (MIO) was the main control center, and also produced small arms, rockets, mortars, and artillery.

By ArmanJan: I never apposed that. I actually added that link, and I was the one that wrote about Iran's assembly work in Shah's era. However, if we look at the meaning of Military Industry we see that assembly (of foreign made parts) does not fall under it, unless it is meant for sale to make profit. Iran did not sell America's weapons, it was not allowed to do so. Iran was one of few countries allowed to have the latest of American weapons. The assembly was set in such a way that Iran would never learn how to make these weapons by themselves. That is why the U.S never helped Iran when they asked for help in making weapons (as mentioned in the NTI link below). ArmanJan 15:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The commercial production and sale of weapons.
 * Wether Iran learn't from the US is another issue (which they did), however I would define military industry as the local production of military hardware. Furthermore, while much of it was assembly, it was still made in iran and sold to the Iranian government. It's a bit of a grey area really.


 * Various Iranian companies and organisations such as Iran Electronics Industries (IEI) were also founded to repair missiles and aircraft . 
 * Top of page three in as well.

By ArmanJan: Correct, and if you look at the same link (NTI) you provided you will see that they did the assembly of weapons and replaced broken parts with delivered parts from the U.S. Whatever their aim was back then, they did not produce anything by themselves to be used by the Iranian military or to sell it. ArmanJan 15:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Forthe record the NTI article states: 1975. A maintenance contract of the AGM 65A Maverick and BGM-71 A TOW systems is signed and placed under the supervision of the Iran Electronics Industries (IEI) missile division. According to the contract, IEI can produce subcomponents and assemble 2000 TOWs and Maverick missiles. —Ann Tibbitts Schulz, Buying Security: Iran Under the Monarchy (San Francisco: Westview Press, 1989), p. 57. Tototom 06:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The government planned to develop and produce its own weapons.


 * No source directly stating this at the moment, however I think by looking at the scope of some of the projects/joint productions you can see that Iran was trying to aquire it's own manufacturing ability. Furthermore, the following souce states: Iran’s modern defense industrial base was developed during the period of the Shah by an import substitution strategy, in which Iran would learn to produce, assemble, repair and maintain military equipment.

By ArmanJan: I'm guessing that you are talking about the Shah? Maybe they even planned to reach the moon. The Shah wanted many things, but he never succeeded. ArmanJan 15:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See below... But i think you can draw a clear conclusion of were Iran wanted to go in the long run. And not just the shah, but the whole government. Tototom 06:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * For example, Tehran had begun to reverse-engineer several Soviet missiles 

By ArmanJan: The link mentions that "RPG-7, BM 21, and SAM-7 missiles" were reverse engineered before 1979 (the revolution). I accept the addition of this to the article. ArmanJan 15:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * and had asked to jointly develop a missile with the United States, a request Washington refused. 

By ArmanJan: Correct, the U.S' policy was to prevent Iran from becoming independant in any field (including civilian). ArmanJan 15:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No arguments there.... Tototom 06:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It had also begun to jointly develop a missile with Israel in Project Flower.

By ArmanJan: See NTI. "Project Flower" never got off because of the revolution. It was an MoU that never turned into a real contract. There was no cooperation and nothing was produced. The plan started too close to the revolution to bare any fruit. ArmanJan 15:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The project was never completed and thus nothing was produced, due to the revolution. However it did get of the ground- construction had started on facilities and manufacturing plants which goes to show that it was more than just paper. Tototom 06:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputed sentences
Well - there appears to be agreement on the bulk of the material in the pre-revolution section. We only have a couple of things still disputed (If I've overlooked anything please add it). I have proposed alternatives, but feel free to put forward a new alternative. Please discuss inline. Megapixie 02:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It had also begun to jointly develop a missile with Israel in Project Flower.
 * Proposed alternative: It had begun discussions with Israel about working together on a missile project, however this was in the earliest stages.


 * Hmm. I dont think that completely covers it. If you read Project Flower you'll see that the project actually entered the implementation stage and construction of the test and assembly facilities were started in Iran. Although, the revolution did stop anything from actually happening. Tototom 06:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

By ArmanJan: The rules Verifiability state that ""Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source," and Reliable_sources specifically mentions, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

We know that not every user (including myself) can check for those sources, so that whole page is Verifiability. However, Megapixie's alternative is acceptable. ArmanJan 09:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The government planned to develop and produce its own weapons.
 * Proposed alternative: The government hoped to develop an independant military industry based on a import substitution strategy.
 * This I suspect is not going to get any agreement. Can we find more sources - on either side of the statement, that either support or reject this. It might be worth digging around in print sources. Please cite them below. Megapixie 02:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the alternative statement as I think it captures the spirit of what Iran was trying to achive. And since we were just on the subject, i think it also gains some support from initiatives such as Project Flower, or the Iranian attempt to jointly develop a missile with the US. It just shows that Iran wasn't purely after imports and local assembly but wanted to develop something more significant. Also in afterthought, the reverse engineering of soviet missiles- why do it if you're not interested in the technology? Tototom 06:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

By ArmanJan: I don't agree. We know that Iran did not have a military industry under the shah ("the government"). Anything you write on that will be based on assumption. The guy might have wanted to walk on the moon, but that was not the factual situation & direction of the country. For example, he wined on tv a lot about how backward the country was and how he wanted to bring it to the future, but look at the GDP per capita in 1975 to 1980, it did not change. The illiteracy rate, telephone lines , you can go on and on about things that he "planned" (actually just 'said') but never happened. In short: Nothing he said is valuable, because it never happened. He was just another guy on the road to getting richer than he already was. ArmanJan 09:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As an asside if you dig around your local library - you might be able to find a copy of "Arsenal of Democracy II" by Tom Gervasi, which is largely about the American arms industry during the 1970s. It has several interesting sections on Iran. Some examples:
 * But our (the US) largest customer by far was Iran. After President Nixon's visit to the Shah in 1972, at which time he promised to supply Iran with anything it wished from our arsenal, the Shah's government signed agreements to purchase.... (long list follows). In 1976, Iran spent $10.4 billion on arms. (P. 41)
 * In a section listing major arms exports from the US since 1978 Note: the total value of the foregoing contracts cancelled by the Khomeini regime is $8.703 billion (P.272)

Worth tracking down. Megapixie 02:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)