Usual risk

Iran has demanded from Russia to fulfill a prisoner in 2007, a contract to supply anti-aircraft missile system S-300 for about $ 1 billion and has sent a lawsuit in an international court. According to officials in Tehran, an action intended to help Moscow to meet its obligations, broken unilaterally. The mobile air defense system, unlike conventional rockets and portable systems not in the list of weapons prohibited for transfers to Iran in accordance with UN Security Council resolution of June 9, 2010 The S-300 was included in a decree of Dmitry Medvedev on September 22, 2010 History Iran and vague prospects of supplies of military equipment to Libya because of the Civil War raise questions about the risks of weapons contracts. You can recall the significant losses of the USSR in the early 1980s. When the Soviet leadership to implement recommendations the UN temporarily halted deliveries of military equipment to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, 1980-1988., Or the costs of Russia after the sanctions imposed on Libya in January 1992 should not think that only suffers from the bans Russia. This is a normal risk for arms manufacturers. NATO countries (except Spain), Austria and Switzerland suffered a multimillion-dollar losses from breaking contracts with Argentina in 1978, ban the supply of weapons in the Iran-Iraq war has forced France to abandon a contract with Iraq worth about $ 2 billion loss suffered as the U.S. and the UK . Sanctions against the regime in 1992 also hit Gaddafi MIC Sweden and Italy, the civil war in Libya threatens French contract to supply fighter Rafal (2,4 billion euros). States can reduce the negative impact of force majeure on contracts overseas military industrial complex. The leading arms exporters – both members of the UN Security Council and can veto the sanctions resolution. This is not just used by Russia, China and the U.S. (the last – for deliveries to Israel). The question that is more expensive – damage from breach of contract or loss of reputation of its implementation, each state decides on an individual basis depending on the political situation.