An Iranian lawmaker has confirmed media reports about Tehran's delivery of ballistic missiles to Russia, but downplayed threats from Ukraine and its Western allies to impose "heavy" costs on Iran.
Ahmad Bakhshayesh Ardestani, a member of the Parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, acknowledged Iran’s military assistance to Russia amid the ongoing war in Ukraine, less than 24 hours after Iran's UN mission denied a report by The Wall Street Journal about the delivery of short-range ballistic missiles to Russia.
"We have to barter for our needs, including importing soybeans and wheat. Part of the barter involves sending missiles, and another part involves sending military drones to Russia," Ardestani told Didban Iran on Saturday.
When asked whether sending ballistic missiles to Russia might lead to further sanctions or trigger the so-called "snapback" mechanism against Iran, the lawmaker replied, "It can't get any worse than it already is. We give missiles to Hezbollah, Hamas, and Hashd al-Shaabi, so why not to Russia?"
"We sell weapons and receive dollars. We circumvent sanctions through our partnership with Russia. We import soybeans, corn, and other goods from Russia. Europeans sell arms to Ukraine. NATO has entered Ukraine, so why shouldn’t we support our ally by sending missiles and drones to Russia?" Ardestani said.
Later on Sunday, Nasser Kanaani, spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry, addressed the reports of ballistic missile shipments to Russia, stating, "The Islamic Republic has never been part of the Russia-Ukraine conflict." He further added, "Military cooperation between the Islamic Republic and Russia dates back well before the start of the Ukraine war." In effect, Kanaani did not specifically deny the report but repeated Iran's standard response that can be interpreted as a denial.
The Biden administration has informed its allies that Iran delivered short-range ballistic missiles to Russia, providing Moscow with a significant new military tool amid its ongoing war against Ukraine, a Friday report by the Wall Street Journal said citing US and European officials.
"The missiles have finally been delivered," a US official said. The shipment reportedly includes several hundred short-range ballistic missiles, capable of reaching up to 500 miles. These missiles could help bolster Russia’s intensified missile attacks on Ukrainian cities and infrastructure, which have recently led to the deaths of dozens of civilians.
"We have been warning of the deepening security partnership between Russia and Iran since the outset of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and are alarmed by these reports," said White House National Security Council spokesperson Sean Savett. "Any transfer of Iranian ballistic missiles to Russia would represent a dramatic escalation in Iran's support for Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine."
Ardestani’s comments come amid repeated official denials from Iran regarding the shipment of missiles, drones, and other military equipment to Russia.
Just hours after the Wall Street Journal’s report was published, Iran’s United Nations delegation issued a statement denying any missile or weapon transfers to Russia. The statement asserted, "The Islamic Republic has not provided weapons to any party involved in the conflict in Ukraine and has urged other countries to stop doing so."
In reaction to the reported military shipments, European countries are considering banning Iran’s national airline, Iran Air, from flying to European airports. The new sanctions package is expected to target companies and individuals involved in the missile transfers, including transportation companies linked to these operations.
"If civilians in Ukraine die from these missiles (Tehran delivered to Russia), then Iran will pay a double price for that. The response will be severe," a Ukrainian defense source told The Times, but did not elaborate on the nature of that response.
Russia's access to Iranian ballistic missiles could devastate civilian populations, marking a turning point in the conflict, Farzin Nadimi, a Senior Fellow with the Washington Institute, told Iran International.
He said some of these missiles will have enough range to hit Western Ukraine and strike important targets like railway stations. "It's going to have a really bad effect on civilians."
His statement, made during a visit by President Masoud Pezeshkian to the IRGC’s Khatam al-Anbia Construction Headquarters, came in the wake of weeks of tensions following the killing of Hamas's political chief, Ismail Haniyeh, in Tehran.
Salami justified the attacks by claiming they were in retaliation for strikes on 14 Iranian oil tankers in the Red Sea and the Mediterranean—accusations he placed on Israel, albeit with no evidence.
Since 2019, the IRGC has attacked or boarded numerous commercial vessels in the Persian Gulf region, often claiming that they were Israeli ships.
Salami’s remarks, laden with Tehran's usual conspiratorial tone, stated that Israel's attacks were designed to stymie Iran’s oil exports. However, what Salami left out is that when he refers to “Israeli ships,” these were commercial vessels, not military targets, perhaps partially owned by individuals of Israeli descent. This kind of rhetoric usually accompanies Tehran’s attempts to defend and justify its behavior on the international stage.
Israeli officials have so far remained silent on these claims. Salami’s statements follow a pattern of Iran seizing foreign vessels under dubious pretenses. This includes the seizure of oil tankers, such as the British-flagged Stena Impero in 2019 and, most recently, the Marshall Islands-flagged St. Nikolas in the Gulf of Oman.
Iran’s approach to maritime security seems to hinge on hostage diplomacy. The 2019 seizure of the Grace 1 by British authorities, on suspicion of breaching sanctions by transporting oil to Syria, was met with a retaliatory move by the IRGC, which seized the Stena Impero.
In January, Tehran seized the Marshall Islands-flagged oil tanker St. Nikolas and also expanded its maritime provocations, attacking the M/V Pacific Gold tanker, registered in Liberia with a drone in the Indian Ocean.
IRGC’s chief commander attempted to justify such actions by referencing sanctions, military threats, or even former US President Donald Trump, whom Salami described as being "no less of a threat than COVID-19."
Iranian officials appear to be concerned about Trump's possible return to the presidency, expecting a tougher policy by Washington than what has transpired during the Biden administration.
Vice Adm. Brad Cooper of the US 5th Fleet earlier made it clear that Iran’s actions “violate international law and pose a threat to maritime security and stability.” Yet, despite these warnings, Tehran seems determined to continue its behavior, using the high seas as yet another battlefield in its ongoing quest for regional dominance.
The resignation came after Shargh daily, a pro-reform newspaper in Tehran, exposed the personal loans, totaling 105 billion rials ($175,000), sparking widespread outrage.
These officials, appointed during President Ebrahim Raisi’s tenure, approved the loans in the final days of his government, bypassing orders from acting president Mohammad Mokhber and president-elect Masoud Pezeshkian. Experts warn that this move undermines investor confidence and further destabilizes Iran’s struggling capital market.
Eshghi personally received the largest share of the loans—27 billion rials ($45,000)—with a lenient 4% interest rate and a 10-year repayment plan. To put this into perspective, an ordinary Iranian worker earns just $200 a month, highlighting the extreme disparity in access to financial resources.
The loans, initially justified by Eshghi as being "in accordance with laws and regulations" approved by the Supreme Council of the Stock Exchange, have been met with skepticism. Eshghi defended the decision, stating, “The claim that the board of directors approved loans for themselves is a big lie." He argued that the council is responsible for determining board salaries and benefits, and the loan amounts were based on official resolutions.
Despite these defenses, critics were not convinced. The scandal has been dubbed the "Eshghi Loan" and sparked backlash across political lines. Conservative political activist Mohammad Mohajeri called out the government’s audacity, stating, “Not only astronomical loans, but also astronomical audacity; this is what corruption did to the Raisi administration!"
Alireza Salimi, a member of the Iranian Parliament, responded on the social network X, writing: "I once mentioned in parliament that Mr. Eshghi is running the stock exchange based on personal whims. He sent a legion of reporters to attack me to whitewash his performance."
Salimi added, "Now it turns out Eshqi has indeed been taking billions in low-interest loans for himself."
One user on X shared a photo of the Tehran Stock Exchange board and commented: "They ask why the stock market is always in the red. Well, maybe if they gave fewer of these loans to board members, the market might turn a bit green."
The incident has further fueled criticism of Iran's broader financial system, which is already under fire for granting exorbitant loans to bank employees and subsidiaries. A recent report by Iran’s Central Bank revealed that in 2023 alone, major banks funneled over 9,100 trillion rials ($1.5 billion) to their own employees and executives, while ordinary citizens struggle to secure basic loans for housing, marriage, or small businesses.
As Iran’s economy crumbles under the weight of corruption, mismanagement and sanctions, the elite continue to enrich themselves, leaving ordinary citizens to bear the burden of inflation, poverty, and unemployment. According to observers, Eshghi’s resignation, while symbolic, may do little to restore public trust in a system marred by “kleptocracy”.
This is not the first instance of Iranian officials abusing their positions or embezzling public funds. In many cases, there has been no follow-up or report on whether they were made to return their illicit gains. Similarly, in this latest case, despite widespread criticism, there has been no discussion of requiring them to repay the loan if it was unlawfully allocated.