---- The Iran-Iraq War, also called the First Persian Gulf War, or the Imposed War (جنگ تحمیلی) in Iran, was a war between the armed forces of Iraq and Islamic Iran that lasted from September 22, 1980, until August 20, 1988. It was commonly referred to as the Persian Gulf War until the Persian Gulf War (1990–1991), which became known as the Second Persian Gulf War and later simply the Persian Gulf War. The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980. The conflict saw early successes by the Iraqis, but before long they were repulsed and the conflict stabilized into a long war of attrition. The war irrevocably altered politics in the area, playing into wider global politics and leading to the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. ==The pre-war situation== Although the Iran-Iraq war of 1980–1988 was a war over dominance of the Persian Gulf region, the roots of the war go back many centuries. There has always been rivalry between various kingdoms of Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) and the Persian Empire (Iran). More precisely, the origins of the Iran-Iraq war of 1980–1988 go back to the question of sovereignty over the resource-rich province of Khuzestan. Khuzestan, home to Iran's Elamite Empire, was an independent non-Semitic speaking kingdom whose capital was Susa. Khuzestan has, however, been attacked and occupied by various kingdoms of Mesopotamia (the precursors of modern Iraq) many times. On 18 December 1959, Abdul Karim Qassim, who had just taken control over Iraq by a coup d'etat, openly declared: "''We do not wish to refer to the history of Arab tribes residing in Al-Ahwaz and Mohammareh [Khorramshahr]. The Ottomans handed over Mohammareh, which was part of Iraqi territory, to Iran.''" The Iraqi regime's dissatisfaction over Iran's possession of oil-rich Khuzestan province was not limited to rhetorical statements; Iraq started supporting secessionist movements in Iran's Khuzestan province, and even raised the issue of its territorial claims in the next meeting of the Arab League, without any success. Iraq showed reluctance in fulfilling existing agreements with Iran, especially after the death of Nasser in Egypt and the rise of The Baath party, when Iraq decided to take on the role of "leader of the Arab world". In 1969, the deputy prime minister of Iraq openly declared: "''Iraq's dispute with Iran is in connection with Arabistan [Khuzestan] which is part of Iraq's soil and was annexed to Iran during foreign rule.''" Soon Iraqi radio stations began exclusively broadcasting into "Arabistan", encouraging Iranian Arabs and even Baluchis to revolt against Iran's central government. Basra TV stations even started showing Iran's Khuzestan province as part of Iraq's new province called ''Nassiriyeh'', renaming all Iranian cities with Arabic names. In 1971, Iraq broke off diplomatic relations from Iran after claiming sovereignty rights over the islands of Abu Musa, Greater and Lesser Tunbs in the Persian Gulf, after the British left. Iraq then expelled 70,000 Iranians from Iraq after complaining to the Arab League, and the UN, without any success. One of the factors contributing to hostility between the two powers was a dispute over full control of the Arvand/Shatt al-Arab waterway at the head of the Persian Gulf, an important channel for the petroleum exports of both countries. In 1975, United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had sanctioned that Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, attack Iraq over the waterway, which was under Iraqi control at the time; soon after both nations signed the Algiers Accord, in which Iraq made territorial concessions, including the waterway, in exchange for normalized relations. Iraq had staged a battle against Iranian forces a year earlier in 1974, resulting in heavy casualties on both sides. Iran attempted to destabilize Iraq and encouraged Kurdish nationalists to break up the country, in answer to Iraq's similar activities in Iran's Khuzestan province. Iran's embassy in London was even attacked by Iraqi terrorist forces a few months before the war in 1980, in what came to be known as The Iranian Embassy Siege. Saddam was eagerly interested in elevating Iraq to a strong regional power. A successful invasion of Iran would make Iraq the dominating force in the Persian Gulf region and its lucrative oil trade. Such lofty ambitions were not that far-fetched. Severe officer purges (including several executions ordered by Sadegh Khalkhali, the post-revolution Sharia ruler) and spare part shortages for Iran's American-made equipment had crippled Iran's once mighty military of Iran. The bulk of the Iranian military was made up of poorly armed, but committed, militia. Iran had minimal defenses in the Arvand/Shatt al-Arab river. The aftermath of the Iranian Revolution of 1979 was central to the conflict. Ayatollah Khomeini was threatening to spread revolution to the rest of the Middle East, even though Iran was militarily hardly in any position to do so, as most of the Shah's army had already been disbanded. The Khomeinist camp believed that the oppressed Shi'a Islam in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait could follow the Iranian example and turn against their governments. At the same time the revolution in Iran, the destabilization of the country and its alienation from the Western world made it a tempting target to the expansionist Saddam Hussein. Combined with the fact that Iran had also lost its military supplier and close ally, the US. The UN Secretary General report dated 9 December 1991 (S/23273) explicitly states "Iraq's aggression against Iran" in starting the war and breaching International security and peace. (See also "Who started the Iran-Iraq war?" by R.K. Ramazani, [http://www.student.virginia.edu/~vjil/ The Virginia Journal of International Law] 33, Fall 1992, pp. 69–89) ==The War== Iraq launched an invasion of Iran on September 22, 1980. An accusation against Iran of backing an assassination attempt aimed at Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz was used as a pretext for the attack. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait supplied substantial financial support. The blitzkrieg advanced quickly against the still disorganized military of Iran, although an Iraqi Air Force attack on Iranian air fields was ineffectual. However, rather than turning against the Ayatollah government as exiles had promised, the people of Iran rallied around their revolution and mounted far stiffer resistance than had been anticipated. Early on Iraq had some limited successes, advancing on a wide front into Iranian territory along the Mehran Khorramabad axis in Central Iran and towards Ahvaz in the oil-rich southern province of Khuzestan. However, the Iraqis soon found the Iranian military was not nearly as depleted as they thought. In June of 1982, a successful Iranian counter-offensive recovered the areas previously lost to Iraq. Most of the fighting for the rest of the war occurred on Iraqi territory, although some have interpreted the Iraqi withdrawal as a tactical ploy by the Iraqi military. By fighting just inside Iraq, Saddam Hussein could rally popular Iraqi patriotism. The Iraqi army could also fight on its own territory and in well established defensive positions. The Iranians continued to employ unsophisticated human wave attacks, while Iraqi soldiers remained, for the most part, in a defensive posture. [[image:Saddam7.jpg|thumb|left|Upon invading Iran on 22 September 1980, former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein boasted he would be in Tehran in 3 days.]] Iraq's military of Iraq was primarily armed with weaponry it had purchased from the Soviet Union and its satellite state in the preceding decade. During the war, it purchased billions of dollars worth of advanced equipment from the Soviets and the French [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3324053.stm], as well as from the People's Republic of China, Egypt, Germany, and other sources (including Europe facilities for making and/or enhancing chemical weapons). Germany [http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,716376,00.html] along with other Western countries (among them United Kingdom, France, Italy, and the United States) provided Iraq with biological weapon and chemical weapons and the precursors to nuclear capabilities. Much of Iraq's financial backing came from other Arab states, notably oil-rich Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battle field, the United States changed its less announced policy of backing Iraq to a clear direct support, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War), allegedly also supplying weapons [http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php]. The United States also engaged in a series of naval battles with Iranian forces in 1987 and 1988. The cruiser USS Vincennes (CG-49) shot down Iran Air Flight 655 with the loss of all 290 passengers and crew on July 3, 1988. The Federal Government of the United States said that the airliner had been mistaken for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat which had been in the same general area as the civilian plane shortly beforehand. Perhaps the most important support for Iraq was allowing the neutral oil tankers heading to Iraqi ports to fly the American flag, and thus be safe from Iranian attack, guaranteeing Iraq's revenue stream for the duration of the war. The American government had, at the same time, also been secretly selling weapons to Iran; first indirectly (possibly through Israel) and then directly (for details see the Iran-Contra Affair). Iraq offered a cessation of hostilities in 1982, but Iran's insistence from July 1982 onward to destroy the Iraqi government prolonged the conflict for another six years of static warfare. In the final years of the war, Iraq received more and more foreign aid and began to build a more modern, well-trained army, air force, and navy. In 1988 Iraq launched another offensive into Iranian territory and began serious air attacks on Iranian cities, such as Tehran. Iran felt militarily isolated and, being threatened with war by the US, offered to open peace negotiations. Iraq accepted, since the Iraqi economy and population had suffered from the war for 8 years, and they wanted to solidify their position. The war was characterized by extreme brutality, including the use of chemical weapons, especially tabun, by Iraq. Very little pressure was brought upon Iraq by the world community to curb such attacks or to condemn its earlier initiation of hostilities. Iraq and the United States government alleged at some time that Iran was also using chemical weapons, but these allegations were never confirmed by independent sources. The tactics used in the war resembled those of World War I, with costly human wave attacks commonly used by both sides, but by Iran in particular. ==List of successful Iranian operations during the war== #27 September 1981: ''Operation Thamen-ol-A'emeh''. #29 November 1981: ''Operation Tarigh ol-Qods''. #21 March 1982: ''Operation Fath-ol-Mobeen''. #30 April 1982: ''Operation Beit-ol-Moqaddas''. #14 July 1982: ''Operation Ramadhan''. #9 April 1983: ''Operation Valfajr-1''. #19 October 1983: ''Operation Valfajr-4''. #22 February 1984: ''Operation Kheibar''. #10 March 1985: ''Operation Badr''. #9 February 1986: ''Operation Valfajr-8''. #2 June 1986: ''Operation Karbala-1''. #1 September 1986: ''Operation Karbala-2''. #9 January 1986: ''Operation Karbala-5''. #21 June 1987: ''Operation Nasr 4''. #16 March 1988: ''Operation Valfajr-10''. #27 July 1988: ''Operation Mersad''. ==List of UN Security Council Resolutions on the Iran-Iraq war== See full list and contents UNSC Resolutions on Iran-Iraq war. ==US involvement in the Iran-Iraq war== [[image:Saddam_rumsfeld.jpg|thumb|right|Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam on 19 December–20, 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984; the same day the UN released a report that Iraq had used Mustard and Tabun Nerve Gas against Iranian troops. The ''NY Times'' reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name." [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ NSA Archive Source] ]] Western support for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war has clearly been established. It is no secret that the Soviet Union, West Germany, France, the United States, many western companies, and Britain provided military support and even components of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction program. The role the United States played in the war against Iran however is not as well known. After the revolution, with the Ayatollahs in power and levels of enmity between Iran and the US running high, early on during the Iran-Iraq war, realpolitikers in Washington came to the conclusion that Saddam was the lesser of the two evils, and hence efforts to support him became the order of the day, both during his long war with Iran and afterward. This led to what later became known as the ''Iraq-gate'' scandals. Much of what Saddam received from the West, however, were not arms per se, but so-called dual-use technology—ultra-sophisticated computers, armored ambulances, helicopters, chemicals, and the like, with potential civilian uses as well as military applications. It is now known that a vast network of companies, based in the US and abroad, eagerly fed the Iraqi war machine right up until August 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait [http://www.cjr.org/archives.asp?url=/93/2/iraqgate.asp]. The Iraq-gate scandal revealed that an Atlanta branch of Italy's largest bank, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, relying partially on US taxpayer-guaranteed loans, funneled $5 billion to Iraq from 1985 to 1989. In August 1989, when FBI agents finally raided the Atlanta branch of BNL, the branch manager, Christopher Drogoul, was charged with making unauthorized, clandestine, and illegal loans to Iraq—some of which, according to his indictment, were used to purchase arms and weapons technology. Who reported Iraq-gate? Beginning in September 1989, the ''Financial Times'' laid out the first charges that BNL, relying heavily on US government-guaranteed loans, was funding Iraqi chemical and nuclear weapons work. For the next two-and-a-half years, the ''Financial Times'' provided the only continuous newspaper reportage (over 300 articles) on the subject. Among the companies shipping militarily useful technology to Iraq under the eye of the US government, according to the ''Financial Times'', were Hewlett-Packard, Tektronix, and Matrix Churchill, through its Ohio branch [http://www.cjr.org/archives.asp?url=/93/2/iraqgate.asp]. Even before the Persian Gulf War started in 1990, the ''Intelligencer Journal'' of Pennsylvania in a string of articles reported: "If U.S. and Iraqi troops engage in combat in the Persian Gulf, weapons technology developed in Lancaster and indirectly sold to Iraq will probably be used against U.S. forces. . . . And aiding in this . . . technology transfer was the Iraqi-owned, British-based precision tooling firm Matrix Churchill, whose US operations in Ohio were recently linked to a sophisticated Iraqi weapons procurement network." [http://www.cjr.org/archives.asp?url=/93/2/iraqgate.asp] Aside from the ''New York Times'', the ''Los Angeles Times'', and ABC's Ted Koppel, the Iraq-gate story never picked up much steam, even though The US Congress became involved with the scandal. [http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920519l.htm FAS report] Yet the evidence was nowhere to leave: In December 2002, Iraq's 1,200 page Weapons Declaration revealed a list of Western corporations and countries—as well as individuals—that exported chemical and biological materials to Iraq in the past two decades. Many American names were on the list. Alcolac International, for example, a Maryland company, transported thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor, to Iraq. A Tennessee manufacturer contributed large amounts of a chemical used to make sarin, a nerve gas implicated in Gulf War diseases. A [http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/23/news-crogan.php full list] of those companies and their involvements in Iraq [http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/18/features-crogan1.php] [http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/18/features-crogan2.php]. On 25 May 1994, The U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs released a report in which it was stated that ''pathogenic (meaning ''disease producing''), toxigenic (meaning ''poisonous'') and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq, pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce.'' It added: ''These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction.'' [http://www.gulfwarvets.com/arison/banking.htm] The report then detailed 70 shipments (including anthrax bacillus) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding ''It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program.'' See another list [http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/flow/iraq/seed.htm here], and [http://groups.msn.com/exposureofthetruth/biologicalssoldtoiraq.msnw another here]. The [http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-986 list of American companies involved in the arming of Iraq] was simply embarrassing. Twenty-four US firms exported arms and materials to Baghdad [http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php]. Donald W. Riegle, Jr., Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs that made the report, said, "''UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs.''" He added, "''the executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual -use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record.''" The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent Iraq 14 agents "with biological warfare significance," including West Nile virus, according to Riegle's investigators [http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/16/Perspective/How_Iraq_built_its_we.shtml] [http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/politics/4186725.htm]. Even [http://www.wiesenthal.com The Simon Wiesenthal Center], an international Jewish human rights organization dedicated to preserving the memory of the Holocaust, released a list of US companies and what they exported to Iraq. See page [http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/images/b11.gif 11] of this report: [http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/images/b1.gif p1] [http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/images/b2.gif p2] [http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/images/b3.gif p3] [http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/images/b4.gif p4] [http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/images/b5.gif p5] [http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/images/b6.gif p6] [http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/images/b7.gif p7] [http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/images/b8.gif p8] [http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/images/b9.gif p9] [http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/images/b10.gif p10] [http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/images/b11.gif p11] A [http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=us_support_of_iraq_wmd timeline] of US support for Saddam against Iran. Another [http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html timeline]. For the Statement of Henry B. Gonzalez, Chairman, House Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs on Iraq-gate, see links given on [http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/Features/iraq.html this page]. More sources: * [http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorintelligence/ussentgerms.html University of Missouri School of Journalism database] * [http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/Sussexreport.htm University of Sussex report] * [http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/2001/1022iraq.htm A Global Policy Forum Report] * [http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/riegle1.html Text of the US Senate Riegle Report] * [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ NSA Archives] * [http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/18/1029114048796.html?oneclick=true Sydney Morning Herald report] ==A war with Weapons of Mass Destruction== With more than 100,000 Iranian victims (1) of Saddam Hussein's Chemical and Biological weapons during the eight-year war with Iraq, Iran is the world's top afflicted country by Weapons of Mass Destruction, only after Japan. The official estimate does not include the civilian population contaminated in bordering towns or the children and relatives of veterans, many of whom have developed blood, lung and skin complications, according to the Organization for Veterans of Iran. Nerve gas agents killed about 20,000 Iranian soldiers immediately, according to official reports. Of the 90,000 survivors, some 5,000 seek medical treatment regularly and about 1,000 are still hospitalized with severe, chronic conditions. Many others were hit by Mustard gas. Furthermore, 308 Iraqi Missiles were launched at population centers inside Iranian cities between 1980 and 1988 resulting in 12,931 casualties.(1) Despite the removal of Saddam and his regime by American forces, there is deep resentment and anger in Iran that it was Western companies (West Germany, France, US) that helped Iraq develop its chemical weapons arsenal in the first place, and that the world did nothing to punish Iraq for its use of chemical weapons throughout the war. Also See Halabja poison gas attack. Further reading on surviving veterans of these weapons: * [http://www.nj.com/specialprojects/index.ssf?/specialprojects/mideaststories/me1209.html The New Jersey Star Ledger, report] * [http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=39470 The South Africa Star, report] * [http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0213-05.htm The NY Times report] * [http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3068535/site/newsweek/ MSNBC report] * [http://www.netiran.com/?fn=artd(1585) Report: Iranian WMD Veterans sue Germany] * [http://www.payvand.com/news/00/nov/1108.html Vets suing the US] * [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1742878 NPR report on Iranian WMD veterans] (audio) * [http://www.chronicillnet.org/PGWS/tuite/IRMED/IRANTOC.htm Medical reports] (1) Center for Documents of The Imposed War, Tehran. ==Human Wave Attacks in the Iran-Iraq War== Many people claim that the Iran-Iraq conflict spawned a particularly gruesome variant of the "Human Wave" attack. The Iranian clergy, with no professional military training, were slow to adopt and apply professional military doctrine. The country at that time lacked sufficient equipment to breach Iraqi minefields and were not willing to risk their small tank force. Therefore, Pasdaran forces and Basij volunteers were often used to sweep over minefields and entrenched positions developed by the more professional Iraqi military. Allegedly, unarmed human wave tactics involving children as young as 9 (apparently considered expendable) were employed. One unnamed East European journalist is reported to have seen "tens of thousands of children, roped together in groups of about 20 to prevent the faint-hearted from deserting, make such an attack."[http://countrystudies.us/iraq/104.htm] There has been a suggestion that girls were more commonly used for frontline mine clearance, and boys for unarmed "assaults". Reliable firsthand accounts of the use of children in human wave attacks are rare, however. The most serious contemporary firsthand account recently surfaced at the end of an article[http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20041104.html] by the respected technology journalist Robert X. Cringely, who relates the experience of a trip to the front for an unconnected ''Penthouse magazine'' magazine assignment. ==Aftermath== The war was disastrous for both countries, stalling economic development and disrupting oil exports, and costing an estimated 1.5 million casualties for Iran alone (1, p. 206), and $350 Billion in total damages (1, p. 1). Iraq was left with serious debts to its former Arab backers, including fourteen billion US dollars loaned by Kuwait, a debt which contributed to Saddam Hussein 1990 decision to Persian Gulf War. Much of both sides' oil industry was damaged. Air raids had been launched by both nations against the oil infrastructure. The end of the war left the borders unchanged. Two years later, as war with the western powers loomed, Saddam recognized Iranian rights over the eastern half of the Shatt al-Arab, a reversion to the status quo ante which he had repudiated a decade earlier. The war was extremely costly; one of the deadliest wars since the Second World War in terms of casualties. (Conflicts since 1945 which have surpassed the Iran-Iraq War in terms of casualties include the Vietnam War, Korean War, the Second Sudanese Civil War, and the Second Congo War, amongst others. ==Final ruling== On 9 December 1991, the UN Secretary-General reported the following to the UN Security Council: :''"That Iraq's explanations do not appear sufficient or acceptable to the international community is a fact. Accordingly, the outstanding event under the violations referred to is the attack of 22 September 1980 against Iran, which cannot be justified under the charter of the United Nations, any recognized rules and principles of international law or any principles of international morality and entails the responsibility for the conflict.'' :''Even if before the outbreak of the conflict there had been some encroachment by Iran on Iraqi territory, such encroachment did not justify Iraq's aggression against Iran - which was followed by Iraq's continuous occupation of Iranian territory during the conflict - in violation of the prohibition of the use of force, which is regarded as one of the rules of jus cogens.'' :''On one occasion I had to note with deep regret the experts "conclusion that "chemical weapons ha[d] been used against Iranian civilians in an area adjacent to an urban centre lacking any protection against that kind of attack" (s/20134, annex). The Council expressed its dismay on the matter and its condemnation in resolution 620 (1988), adopted on 26 August 1988."'' ==Sources used== # The Iran-Iraq war: the politics of aggression. Farhang Rajaee. Gainesville : University Press of Florida, 1993. # UN Secretary General report to the UNSC: [http://www.irna.com/occasion/defence/english/un/page1.pdf p1] [http://www.irna.com/occasion/defence/english/un/page2.pdf p2] [http://www.irna.com/occasion/defence/english/un/page3.pdf p3] ==See also== *Iran-Contra ==External links and further reading== * [http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement] * [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3324053.stm How Saddam could embarrass the West (How the USSR, France, and the US armed Iraq)] * [http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/iraniraq.htm Global Map of countries who took sides in the Iran-Iraq war] * [http://www.iranian.com/Revolution/war.html Memoirs, Photos, Essays about the war.]
* [http://www.irna.ir/occasion/defence1/index1.html IRNA's webpage on ''Sacred Defense''] * [http://www.irna.com/occasion/defence/index.html Another IRNA website on the war.] * [http://www.sabokbalan.net Sabokbalan] ("The light winged") * [http://www.janbazanesfahan.ir/ Isfahan's War Veterans Foundation] * [http://www.jao.ir/ Iran Veterans Affairs Organization] * [http://www.avini.com Martyr Avini's website]. A prominent photographer of the war. * ''Reading Lolita in Tehran'', by Azar Nafisi. Wars of Iran Iraqi wars
The author of the "comment" just below mine misses the entire point of the article. The article focused on the facts of the war, and then the zealot below starts harping on about muslims and Israel. This isn't a political forum where you state whatever idiotic opinion you have regarding the region- you are meant to discuss the article, and only the article not go off on a ridiculous tangent. == Iran Iraq War == The author of the dispute misses the entire point. They should concentrate on the stupidity of the conflict. Estimates ( and only estimates are possible ) put the number of dead and direct casualties at some where between 1 - 1.5 million human lives. If you add this to the list of fellow muslims killed by their own brothers including the Shia's and Kurds killed by Saddam, the endless purges and coups that take place in muslim countries with regularity, this is more than muslims killed by anyone else including the Israelies who are only protecting their own people and land. All I can say to muslims is WAKE UP! Stop being so blindsided. Israel has the right to the land. Muslim countries put together have more land and God given mineral resource. The only reason why Israel is always picked as a scrapegoat is for the mullahs and the religious teachers to distract their followers form the real nature of Islam : corrupt and filled with lust and greed. Just like their father : SATAN disguised as you know who. : Just to reply to your first point ("The author of the dispute misses the entire point") - Wikipedia is here to give just the facts, with a neutral point of view. It sounds to me like you want us to pass judgement, which we don't do. User:Raul654 11:19, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC) i hope everyone will please ignore that last comment since it is obviously a bigoted and inappropriate conclusion. a cautious reader will hopefully direct their attention to other sources than the prejudiced meanderings of an internet contributor. : Just to reply completely, Raul654 is correct, as someone who has spent most of his life researching the Arab Israeli conflict I can say that this page is completely fine. Wikipedia is not a source of opinion on topics, Wikipedia is a source of fact and summary. "The stupidity of the conflict" is not a fact, it is an opinion, if you want to discuss your opinion on the conflict, theres forums everywhere that support this topic of discussion, this site is here to make sure you get the facts straight about the topic your discussing. I would also like to challenge the fact that this page is considered un-neutral. {User: TyraelDargan, 28 May 2004} I was curious as to why the Iran-Contra Affair is not mentioned in this article. It seems relevent, as the affair was directly related to the war, and assisted Iran in the aquisition of modern weapons. I would consider editing it myself, however my whole IP block is banned, and I cannot. The article currently says: :''The United States of America armed and encouraged Hussein to attack Iran over this disputed waterway as a possible way of undermining the Iranian Revolution of 1979 which had eliminated U.S. influence in Iran.'' However, the Soviet Union and France were by far the largest providers of arms to Iraq in this period, with the US accounting for a very small fraction by comparison, so it seems a little inaccurate to say that "the United States armed" them. "The Soviet Union armed Iraq" would be a reasonable statement, as they provided the vast bulk of arms, and "France armed Iraq" would be the second-best statement (but still inaccurate). --User:Delirium 10:37, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC) it was like a toilet The edits of User:130.88.96.66 are very biased and also removes some important information. Please consider partial reverting. User:Roozbeh 03:20, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC) ---- The article seems to be missing quite a bit of background information. Ie Iran supporting attempts to overthrow the Iraqi government, and subsequent negotiations of withdrawing their support in exchange for the border change. The ethnic and religious divisions that contributed to dispute. While the ambitions to power are true, it is not even close to the whole story. ==Iranian Chemical Weapons Usage== I am not aware that Iran ever used chemical weapons during this war. If so this use must have been minimal in comparison to the Iraqi use, both against Iranian soldiers and Iraqi (Kurdish) civilians. I am aware that the USA have several times accused both countries, but this appeared to more based on political expediency than on anything else. Could someone please provide evidence for this assertion ? User:Refdoc 23:03, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) :Most websites focus mostly on Iraqi usage. Info on Iranian usage is much more sparse and vaguer, ie: [http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/dc/briefs/030701.htm]. :This site, however claims that Iran did use weapons: [http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960702/72566_01.htm] :It states: "SINCE 1983, IRAN HAS USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS EVERY YEAR IN ITS WAR WITH IRAN" and "BOTH IRAN AND IRAQ CONTINUE TO EMPLOY CHEMI- CALS IN PRIMARILY DEFENSIVE OPERATIONS". :So, there is at least some vague web based support for the idea that Iran used chemical weapons, but certainly to a lesser degree than Iraq. However, if you want to make certain, I suggest you check out a library. You really can't trust the web. (Wikipedia excluded ; ) User:Peregrine981 23:24, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) No, as I said I have never ever heard of confirmed allegations. The SIPRI report is probably the most authoriative and also denies confirmation. The US allegations agaisnt Iran were mainly based on Halabja, which in turn is now generally accepted to have been Saddam's work. The allegations against Iraq are well founded and the use was massive. I would suggest altering the reference. I hope I provoke no revert war... :-) User:Refdoc 08:24, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::Well, I think we should at least include mention that Iran is alleged to have used chemical weapons until we can prove it one way or the other. I'll try to find something more definitive in the meanwhile. User:Peregrine981 12:57, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) You are right, and I have tried to put this in. Tell me what you think. I think the distinction must be very clear that Iraq did use chemical weapons confirmedly and on massive scale, while the allegations agaisnt Iran are weak and in all likelihood false. User:Refdoc 13:17, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) Your addition seems quite appropriate. Consulting several books from the library today, including a report by the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, I have found no confirmation of Iranian chemical weapons use. Iraqi use is mentioned repeatedly, and a discussion of Iranian countermeasures is included, but nowhere does it mention Iranian chemical weapons even in a very detailed examination of tactics employed by both sides. The only weakness of these reports is that they were written within a year or 2 of the war's end. For our purposes I think we can conclude Iran never used Chemical weapons. User:Peregrine981 16:29, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) == NPOV notice == This article has the 'dispute' message now since several months. There has been very little dispute apart from the bits about the chemical warfare we just slugged out. Could we go and produce a list of points which should be verified/altered/NPOVed or added and get the notice off? User:Refdoc 14:22, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) I will go first : * Human Wave attacks should be linked to use of poison gas. Iran did a lot of the former attacks. Iraq claimed Human wave attacks justified its use of gas, and the Western world condoned this argument. * The role of the USA is still underplayed - I am aware that the US AWACS system was heavily involved in supporting Iraqi airforce, but I do not have references * the use of untrained militia's (Pasdaran/Basiji/child soldiers) on Iranian side should really be part of it (and the role of these in the Human Wave attacks) * the spiritual role of the war in Iran, which was and is enormous. User:Refdoc 14:41, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) :I would say that the article is fairly NPOV, especially considering the elements involved and the possiblity for demonization of Hussein, Iran, or even "the West." :Certainly we could use more information and elaborate on certain points. *As you mentioned, the American role could use some elaboration. By the end of the war they were supplying a lot of valuable intelligence to Hussein. *More discussion of what actually happened for 8 years both militarily and socially. *Perhaps a discussion of the UN's reaction. User:Peregrine981 16:29, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) Even looking at the history I can't remember exactly why I put the NPOV message there. The article look OK to me now. User:Roozbeh 17:12, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) : Probably because everything about Iran is currently POV ;-).I will remove the notice then.--User:Refdoc 17:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) == References for US Sale of Chemical/Biological Weapons? == ''In particular, the United States, along with its allies (among them Britain, France and Italy), provided Iraq with biological and chemical weapons and the precursors to nuclear capabilities.'' While I do not doubt the accuracy of this statement, I would like to see a reference cited. Given the current political climate surrounding the US, Iraq and "Weapons of Mass Destruction," this is a rather nontrivial statement to make. Agreed. The U.S. supplied intelligence, food and credit to Iraq during the war. The weapons were supplied by the Soviets and the French. User:Ellsworth 21:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) I just finished writing a whole section on the US involvement in the Iran-Iraq war. I hope it addresses your inquiries.--User:Zereshk 03:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) =="Human Wave tactics"== I dispute the accuracy of this article. Heres why: While 2 paragraphs (a whole separate section) go into detail about these so called Human Wave tactics, very little (almost nothing at all) is said about the 100,000 chemical weapons war veterans [http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0213-05.htm (see here)] Iran sustained during the war. 100000 is not a small number. '''It puts Iran as the world's top country afflicted by Weapons of Mass Destruction after Japan. Furthermore, when someone who doesnt know anything about the war comes and reads that human wave tactic thingy, they are bound to pick up an unfair representation of the war. The way those 2 paragraphs are written, it seems as if Iran only sent kids forward for mine sweeping and other lethal operations. Which is not true, because at that junction in time, the soldiers and volunteers in the front lines were going through no less of a treatment. Its not as if they were sending kids in mine fields while the rest waited for the fields to clear up. The article also makes little mention of the war of the missiles between cities, and the fact that Iran sustained close to 1 MILLION casualties and $360 Trillion in total estimated damages. Basically, the article ignores the exceptional value of volunteerism exhibited in that war. Some people really believe in Martyrdom. Theyre not brainwashed by Ayatollahs to run into mine fields. There were people from all walks of life volunteering''' to go into the minefields and front lines knowing of their chances of no return. And the majority of them werent "kids" either. Please somebody fix the incorrect proportions.--User:Zereshk 04:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Agreed on one point, disagreed on two == As the author of the section on Human Wave attaks, I can assure you that there was no intentional misrepresentation of the facts. I like your point about Iran suffering the second largest attack ever from weapons of mass distruction under the Iran-Iraq war, and feel that inclusion of a section pertaining to that subject would make the article more balanced. Your implication that Basij volunteers were engaged in an honourable activity that is acceptable in many parts of the world is wrong. Tens of thousands were, from accounts on both sides, lead by a tactically inept leadership to their slaughter. The same criticisms have also been rightly levelled at the costly human wave attacks of the British (volunteer) army under WW1. This is absurd, sickening, and something that the vast majority of people from all cultures find abhorrent. With reference to the use of children in human wave attacks under the Iran-Iraq war. This is true, and that fact should be recognised for the sake of all those that died. Again, when compared with the ages of European soldiers on the front line during WW1 (officially as young as 14 and sometimes younger), this cannot be seen as anti Iranian propaganda. ::''I think heres what we can do to resolve the issue:'' ::''1. Add a section specifically about the Chemical warfare aspect of the Iran-Iraq war.'' ::''2. That the military leadership was inept, I agree. However we are shining a misleading spotlight on the problem. Maybe we can clarify it up by saying something like "one of the many consequences of the inept leadershiop was the human wave tactic...". The way the text is written now, it seems as if the HWT was the axis or major method of Iran reacting to the Iraqi aggression. It was more than that. There WERE 14 year olds. But they werent all just 14 year olds either. The vast majority of our volunteer ''E'zams'' (from Isfahan where I lived for a while) were made up of college students and unemployed high school graduates. I myself served in the Basij during the war when I was 15. The way it's written now, it sounds as if there were only 14 year olds wasting away at the front lines. We had 65 year olds volunteering too.''--User:Zereshk 15:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==This article will stay NPOVed== My objections have not been answered. Therefore the dispute tag stays on this page. To be specific,,, I have a problem with the statement: ::"Basij volunteers as young as 9 years old were used to sweep over minefields". 9 years old. That sounds like Radio Mojahedin propaganda. This is a pretty serious accusation. Unless backed with evidence, it should be taken down or modified. Now, as for the statement: ::"However, a seemingly reliable firsthand account recently surfaced at the end of this unrelated article[4](http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20041104.html), by the respected technology journalist Robert Cringely." I strongly doubt that to be a ''reliable source''. Consider what this Mr. Cringely says in this article of his: ::"So I took a taxi to the front, introduced myself to the local commander, and spent a couple days waiting for the impending human wave attack." I mean...that is the most stupid thing Ive ever heard...Take a Taxi to the front like it's 5th Ave. and Broadway. An American journalist gets an assignment from Penthouse magazine to go up to the war front in Iran to report on how Iranians kill their 9 year olds? In a Taxi? In 1986 (1365)? I DONT THINK SO. --User:Zereshk 08:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) I have met at the time many Iranians (students abroad) who reported themselves similar things (human wave attacks and children being used), none related to the Mujahedin, most abhorring them, but obviously I cannot give names nor indicate any sources and for all I know these people might themselves have been confused by rumours instead of really knowing the truth. I also remember from Isfahan airport arrival's hall some display about one "martyr" or other, and the pictures did AFAIK show kids amongst the troups of basiji. Now this s a good few years back and I might be wrong in my recollections. If the display is still up any of you Iranian guys can check it probably when traveling next to Isfahan... WRT journalist, taxi and frontline - never underestimate the guts, improvisation skills and luck a good journalist might have and employ. Also a good "fare" might well convince an adventourous taxi drive to go where otrhers would not go. User:Refdoc 13:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::OK. Heres a solution: ::I'll edit that passage. See what you think. If you agree or dont agree, one way or the other, let me know. You can always revert back to the old passage, if you dont agree. See what you think. ::--User:Zereshk 05:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) I'm taking the NPOV tag off. I'm satisfied.--User:Zereshk 03:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) == UN assigns blame == I hate to stir up trouble again, but it seems to me that placing a passage, explicitely blaming Iraq for the war, in the first few lines of the article is contrary to POV policy. I have no problem with the source, or necessarily the claim, but it doesn't seem to be a balanced way to write a "neutral" article. It will give any reader the impression that Iraq did, for a fact, "cause" the war. We are not supposed be moral arbiters or presenting conclusions here. We should be presenting facts in a neutral way, that allows people to form their own conclusions. (As best we can) The UN and the author cited, may well be impeccable sources, and most people may agree with them. But I know for a fact that some people do not agree, and their opinions should not be subordinated in this article. I propose that we move the lines in question to a later portion of the article, not the introduction, or at the very least include a counter claim. Thanks, User:Peregrine981 08:53, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC) :There is actually no debate regarding the fact that the first military offense was by Iraqi side, no matter what the reasons or origins could be. I think that we can reword the phrase and shorten it to just include the UN report and add the other reference and a broader discussion about UN's opinion on who began the war on beginning paragraph of The war section. It's not uncommon to indicate the first one who invades in the introduction paragraph. See Winter War or Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945). --User:Pouya 21:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) I think, Peregrine, you just now seriously misunderstand NPOV - this does not mean that Wikipedia can not state bald facts if they are well documented and without reasonable doubt. Iraq's role in ''starting'' this war is beyond such doubt. There a re a lot of things one can blame Iran for and particular its current government, but starting this war is not one of them. This is a bit like insisting it is POV that WWII is started by Germany and NPOV would demand that both Poland and Germany get a reasonable share of the blame. Bullshit, obviously. The war was started by Germany and only (very few very stupid) revisionists will try to claim otherwise. Iran is not exactly everyone's best loved child just now, so it has a rougher time defending itself against unjust claims, but we at Wikipedia should not really try and play these games. A proper start would be ''Iraq started the war by attacking Khuzestan... '' Later then we can (and do) discuss the various contributing factors, and surely we will then also have a good look at the various claims re borders, support of hostile guerilla in the other country etc etc. But not in the first line where the plain fact that Iraqi soldiers crossed the border on suchandsuch a day in order to capture Khuzestan can (and should) be stated ''without'' qualifying comment. If you ''do'' have any ''serious'' divergent information, ok, this debate can be re-opened. But not before User:Refdoc 22:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::I have no problem with stating bald facts, such as "Iraq invaded Iran on September 22 1980." This is fairly well agreed upon. However, I believe that opening the article by citing a report saying that "'Iraq's aggression against Iran' in starting the war and breaching International security and peace is explicitly stated," is not very balanced. The use of the words "aggression" and "breaching international security" in association only with Iraq is misleading, giving the impression that Iraq invaded Iran totally without provocation. Pro-Iraqi sources claim that the Iraqi action was "pre-emptive" countering Iranian "aggression," as they were trying to promote unrest within Iraq. Iraqis could well claim that this was a violation of international security as well. I am not trying to be anti-Iranian here, I simply think that we should be open to many different perspectives on this war. We should not simply accept the UN's word as truth. User:Peregrine981 04:34, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC) I would be happy with a starting sentence like the one you provided. User:Refdoc 09:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) We can shuffle around parts of the article, but I dont think it would be balanced to take out any part of it. Otherwise we must also put the blame on the allies and Jews for agitating Hitler to start WW2.--User:Zereshk 16:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Origins == I am struggling with having the picture of Babylon vs Elam there. It serves no real purpose apart from stating the obvious - Human history is long and violent enough to have most pieces of ground fought over many times in the past and potentialy in the future too. We would not add the Roman Germanic wars to the discussion of WW2's origins (Germany against the civilised world...) User:Refdoc 13:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) :With the picture, I was trying to convey a point that, it seems, was not too obvious: :You see, According to the source posted by Pouya at the bottom of the page, Khuzestan was ''occupied'' by Persia in the last 200 years. The source specifically and repeatedly mentions that Khuzestan belonged to Arabs for many centuries, hence justifying Iraq's actions against Iran in the past 50 years. :Hence the source, puts the ''origins'' of the blame on Iran, for originating the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq, in their view, was merely ''taking back'' the lands Persia had occupied. :The picture was to indisputably demonstrate that Susa (capital of ancient Khuzestan) was not a Mesopotamian province, and was indeed part of Iran from day 1. The quote by Ashurbanipal on the picture's page clearly demonstarted that beyond any doubt. Thus showing that it was the Arabs that occupied Khuzestan, not the other way around. :But then if you failed to see my point, then there's no point in using the picture. So I went ahead and took it off. :Sorry for the confusion. I was just trying to clarify the true "origins" of the war.--User:Zereshk 20:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) Thanks for the somewhat backhanded compliment, Zereshk :-), I did 'get' it, but I also saw that you intended a teensy bit of POV pushing....I think my argument stands. User:Refdoc 20:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I didnt mean to be backhanded, Refdoc. But at least now you see why historians can get away with writing rubbish nonsense like "Arabistan was occupied by the Persians, changing its name to Khuzestan". :: I am not upset. You made me actually smile. User:Refdoc 21:36, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) :It's because we fail to mention the true "origins" of this war. And everytime we fail to mention what really happened, it gives the opportunity for revisionists to revise history. :Yes, your argument holds RefDoc. But then again, I dont think we should be using the term "origins" for heading that section. If youre gonna talk about origins, then talk about ''origins''. Perhaps something like "Antecedents of the Iran-Iraq War" would be more suiting as title for the section. Even the reference I talked about mentions the Arab Conquest of Iran, in its "origins" of the war.--User:Zereshk 21:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) I agree with "Antecedents..." Or what about even "Pre-war situation" to remove any hint of inevitability? Clearly the war was a matter of choice (for Saddam Hussein). User:Refdoc 21:16, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) :Acknowledged.--User:Zereshk 21:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Reasons for reverting back== Reasons for reverting back from User:David.Monniaux's changes: #Factual inaccuracy: Iraq did not oppose Iran "because Iran was a theocratic regime". Iraq had problems with Iran before the theocratic regime, in the Shah's time too. The opposition was a historical Arab vs Ajam (Persian) one. #Redundancy: The text already mentions that Iraq was considered the lesser of two evils by the west. Hence no need to repeat that.--User:Zereshk 07:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Why are captions centered? == In contrast to the normal wiki style, the captions on this page are wrapped in
#REDIRECT Iran-Iraq War
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Iran-Iraq_War:
Iran-Iraq_War
Iran-Iraq_War
Iran-Iraq_war
Iran-Iraq War
---- The Iran-Iraq War, also called the First Persian Gulf War, or the Imposed War (جنگ تحمیلی) in Iran, was a war between the armed forces of Iraq and Islamic Iran that lasted from September 22, 1980, until August 20, 1988. It was commonly referred to as the Persian Gulf War until the Persian Gulf War (1990–1991), which became known as the Second Persian Gulf War and later simply the Persian Gulf War. The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980. The conflict saw early successes by the Iraqis, but before long they were repulsed and the conflict stabilized into a long war of attrition. The war irrevocably altered politics in the area, playing into wider global politics and leading to the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. ==The pre-war situation== Although the Iran-Iraq war of 1980–1988 was a war over dominance of the Persian Gulf region, the roots of the war go back many centuries. There has always been rivalry between various kingdoms of Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) and the Persian Empire (Iran). More precisely, the origins of the Iran-Iraq war of 1980–1988 go back to the question of sovereignty over the resource-rich province of Khuzestan. Khuzestan, home to Iran's Elamite Empire, was an independent non-Semitic speaking kingdom whose capital was Susa. Khuzestan has, however, been attacked and occupied by various kingdoms of Mesopotamia (the precursors of modern Iraq) many times. On 18 December 1959, Abdul Karim Qassim, who had just taken control over Iraq by a coup d'etat, openly declared: "''We do not wish to refer to the history of Arab tribes residing in Al-Ahwaz and Mohammareh [Khorramshahr]. The Ottomans handed over Mohammareh, which was part of Iraqi territory, to Iran.''" The Iraqi regime's dissatisfaction over Iran's possession of oil-rich Khuzestan province was not limited to rhetorical statements; Iraq started supporting secessionist movements in Iran's Khuzestan province, and even raised the issue of its territorial claims in the next meeting of the Arab League, without any success. Iraq showed reluctance in fulfilling existing agreements with Iran, especially after the death of Nasser in Egypt and the rise of The Baath party, when Iraq decided to take on the role of "leader of the Arab world". In 1969, the deputy prime minister of Iraq openly declared: "''Iraq's dispute with Iran is in connection with Arabistan [Khuzestan] which is part of Iraq's soil and was annexed to Iran during foreign rule.''" Soon Iraqi radio stations began exclusively broadcasting into "Arabistan", encouraging Iranian Arabs and even Baluchis to revolt against Iran's central government. Basra TV stations even started showing Iran's Khuzestan province as part of Iraq's new province called ''Nassiriyeh'', renaming all Iranian cities with Arabic names. In 1971, Iraq broke off diplomatic relations from Iran after claiming sovereignty rights over the islands of Abu Musa, Greater and Lesser Tunbs in the Persian Gulf, after the British left. Iraq then expelled 70,000 Iranians from Iraq after complaining to the Arab League, and the UN, without any success. One of the factors contributing to hostility between the two powers was a dispute over full control of the Arvand/Shatt al-Arab waterway at the head of the Persian Gulf, an important channel for the petroleum exports of both countries. In 1975, United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had sanctioned that Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, attack Iraq over the waterway, which was under Iraqi control at the time; soon after both nations signed the Algiers Accord, in which Iraq made territorial concessions, including the waterway, in exchange for normalized relations. Iraq had staged a battle against Iranian forces a year earlier in 1974, resulting in heavy casualties on both sides. Iran attempted to destabilize Iraq and encouraged Kurdish nationalists to break up the country, in answer to Iraq's similar activities in Iran's Khuzestan province. Iran's embassy in London was even attacked by Iraqi terrorist forces a few months before the war in 1980, in what came to be known as The Iranian Embassy Siege. Saddam was eagerly interested in elevating Iraq to a strong regional power. A successful invasion of Iran would make Iraq the dominating force in the Persian Gulf region and its lucrative oil trade. Such lofty ambitions were not that far-fetched. Severe officer purges (including several executions ordered by Sadegh Khalkhali, the post-revolution Sharia ruler) and spare part shortages for Iran's American-made equipment had crippled Iran's once mighty military of Iran. The bulk of the Iranian military was made up of poorly armed, but committed, militia. Iran had minimal defenses in the Arvand/Shatt al-Arab river. The aftermath of the Iranian Revolution of 1979 was central to the conflict. Ayatollah Khomeini was threatening to spread revolution to the rest of the Middle East, even though Iran was militarily hardly in any position to do so, as most of the Shah's army had already been disbanded. The Khomeinist camp believed that the oppressed Shi'a Islam in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait could follow the Iranian example and turn against their governments. At the same time the revolution in Iran, the destabilization of the country and its alienation from the Western world made it a tempting target to the expansionist Saddam Hussein. Combined with the fact that Iran had also lost its military supplier and close ally, the US. The UN Secretary General report dated 9 December 1991 (S/23273) explicitly states "Iraq's aggression against Iran" in starting the war and breaching International security and peace. (See also "Who started the Iran-Iraq war?" by R.K. Ramazani, [http://www.student.virginia.edu/~vjil/ The Virginia Journal of International Law] 33, Fall 1992, pp. 69–89) ==The War== Iraq launched an invasion of Iran on September 22, 1980. An accusation against Iran of backing an assassination attempt aimed at Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz was used as a pretext for the attack. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait supplied substantial financial support. The blitzkrieg advanced quickly against the still disorganized military of Iran, although an Iraqi Air Force attack on Iranian air fields was ineffectual. However, rather than turning against the Ayatollah government as exiles had promised, the people of Iran rallied around their revolution and mounted far stiffer resistance than had been anticipated. Early on Iraq had some limited successes, advancing on a wide front into Iranian territory along the Mehran Khorramabad axis in Central Iran and towards Ahvaz in the oil-rich southern province of Khuzestan. However, the Iraqis soon found the Iranian military was not nearly as depleted as they thought. In June of 1982, a successful Iranian counter-offensive recovered the areas previously lost to Iraq. Most of the fighting for the rest of the war occurred on Iraqi territory, although some have interpreted the Iraqi withdrawal as a tactical ploy by the Iraqi military. By fighting just inside Iraq, Saddam Hussein could rally popular Iraqi patriotism. The Iraqi army could also fight on its own territory and in well established defensive positions. The Iranians continued to employ unsophisticated human wave attacks, while Iraqi soldiers remained, for the most part, in a defensive posture. [[image:Saddam7.jpg|thumb|left|Upon invading Iran on 22 September 1980, former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein boasted he would be in Tehran in 3 days.]] Iraq's military of Iraq was primarily armed with weaponry it had purchased from the Soviet Union and its satellite state in the preceding decade. During the war, it purchased billions of dollars worth of advanced equipment from the Soviets and the French [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3324053.stm], as well as from the People's Republic of China, Egypt, Germany, and other sources (including Europe facilities for making and/or enhancing chemical weapons). Germany [http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,716376,00.html] along with other Western countries (among them United Kingdom, France, Italy, and the United States) provided Iraq with biological weapon and chemical weapons and the precursors to nuclear capabilities. Much of Iraq's financial backing came from other Arab states, notably oil-rich Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battle field, the United States changed its less announced policy of backing Iraq to a clear direct support, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War), allegedly also supplying weapons [http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php]. The United States also engaged in a series of naval battles with Iranian forces in 1987 and 1988. The cruiser USS Vincennes (CG-49) shot down Iran Air Flight 655 with the loss of all 290 passengers and crew on July 3, 1988. The Federal Government of the United States said that the airliner had been mistaken for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat which had been in the same general area as the civilian plane shortly beforehand. Perhaps the most important support for Iraq was allowing the neutral oil tankers heading to Iraqi ports to fly the American flag, and thus be safe from Iranian attack, guaranteeing Iraq's revenue stream for the duration of the war. The American government had, at the same time, also been secretly selling weapons to Iran; first indirectly (possibly through Israel) and then directly (for details see the Iran-Contra Affair). Iraq offered a cessation of hostilities in 1982, but Iran's insistence from July 1982 onward to destroy the Iraqi government prolonged the conflict for another six years of static warfare. In the final years of the war, Iraq received more and more foreign aid and began to build a more modern, well-trained army, air force, and navy. In 1988 Iraq launched another offensive into Iranian territory and began serious air attacks on Iranian cities, such as Tehran. Iran felt militarily isolated and, being threatened with war by the US, offered to open peace negotiations. Iraq accepted, since the Iraqi economy and population had suffered from the war for 8 years, and they wanted to solidify their position. The war was characterized by extreme brutality, including the use of chemical weapons, especially tabun, by Iraq. Very little pressure was brought upon Iraq by the world community to curb such attacks or to condemn its earlier initiation of hostilities. Iraq and the United States government alleged at some time that Iran was also using chemical weapons, but these allegations were never confirmed by independent sources. The tactics used in the war resembled those of World War I, with costly human wave attacks commonly used by both sides, but by Iran in particular. ==List of successful Iranian operations during the war== #27 September 1981: ''Operation Thamen-ol-A'emeh''. #29 November 1981: ''Operation Tarigh ol-Qods''. #21 March 1982: ''Operation Fath-ol-Mobeen''. #30 April 1982: ''Operation Beit-ol-Moqaddas''. #14 July 1982: ''Operation Ramadhan''. #9 April 1983: ''Operation Valfajr-1''. #19 October 1983: ''Operation Valfajr-4''. #22 February 1984: ''Operation Kheibar''. #10 March 1985: ''Operation Badr''. #9 February 1986: ''Operation Valfajr-8''. #2 June 1986: ''Operation Karbala-1''. #1 September 1986: ''Operation Karbala-2''. #9 January 1986: ''Operation Karbala-5''. #21 June 1987: ''Operation Nasr 4''. #16 March 1988: ''Operation Valfajr-10''. #27 July 1988: ''Operation Mersad''. ==List of UN Security Council Resolutions on the Iran-Iraq war== See full list and contents UNSC Resolutions on Iran-Iraq war. ==US involvement in the Iran-Iraq war== [[image:Saddam_rumsfeld.jpg|thumb|right|Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam on 19 December–20, 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984; the same day the UN released a report that Iraq had used Mustard and Tabun Nerve Gas against Iranian troops. The ''NY Times'' reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name." [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ NSA Archive Source] ]] Western support for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war has clearly been established. It is no secret that the Soviet Union, West Germany, France, the United States, many western companies, and Britain provided military support and even components of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction program. The role the United States played in the war against Iran however is not as well known. After the revolution, with the Ayatollahs in power and levels of enmity between Iran and the US running high, early on during the Iran-Iraq war, realpolitikers in Washington came to the conclusion that Saddam was the lesser of the two evils, and hence efforts to support him became the order of the day, both during his long war with Iran and afterward. This led to what later became known as the ''Iraq-gate'' scandals. Much of what Saddam received from the West, however, were not arms per se, but so-called dual-use technology—ultra-sophisticated computers, armored ambulances, helicopters, chemicals, and the like, with potential civilian uses as well as military applications. It is now known that a vast network of companies, based in the US and abroad, eagerly fed the Iraqi war machine right up until August 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait [http://www.cjr.org/archives.asp?url=/93/2/iraqgate.asp]. The Iraq-gate scandal revealed that an Atlanta branch of Italy's largest bank, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, relying partially on US taxpayer-guaranteed loans, funneled $5 billion to Iraq from 1985 to 1989. In August 1989, when FBI agents finally raided the Atlanta branch of BNL, the branch manager, Christopher Drogoul, was charged with making unauthorized, clandestine, and illegal loans to Iraq—some of which, according to his indictment, were used to purchase arms and weapons technology. Who reported Iraq-gate? Beginning in September 1989, the ''Financial Times'' laid out the first charges that BNL, relying heavily on US government-guaranteed loans, was funding Iraqi chemical and nuclear weapons work. For the next two-and-a-half years, the ''Financial Times'' provided the only continuous newspaper reportage (over 300 articles) on the subject. Among the companies shipping militarily useful technology to Iraq under the eye of the US government, according to the ''Financial Times'', were Hewlett-Packard, Tektronix, and Matrix Churchill, through its Ohio branch [http://www.cjr.org/archives.asp?url=/93/2/iraqgate.asp]. Even before the Persian Gulf War started in 1990, the ''Intelligencer Journal'' of Pennsylvania in a string of articles reported: "If U.S. and Iraqi troops engage in combat in the Persian Gulf, weapons technology developed in Lancaster and indirectly sold to Iraq will probably be used against U.S. forces. . . . And aiding in this . . . technology transfer was the Iraqi-owned, British-based precision tooling firm Matrix Churchill, whose US operations in Ohio were recently linked to a sophisticated Iraqi weapons procurement network." [http://www.cjr.org/archives.asp?url=/93/2/iraqgate.asp] Aside from the ''New York Times'', the ''Los Angeles Times'', and ABC's Ted Koppel, the Iraq-gate story never picked up much steam, even though The US Congress became involved with the scandal. [http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920519l.htm FAS report] Yet the evidence was nowhere to leave: In December 2002, Iraq's 1,200 page Weapons Declaration revealed a list of Western corporations and countries—as well as individuals—that exported chemical and biological materials to Iraq in the past two decades. Many American names were on the list. Alcolac International, for example, a Maryland company, transported thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor, to Iraq. A Tennessee manufacturer contributed large amounts of a chemical used to make sarin, a nerve gas implicated in Gulf War diseases. A [http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/23/news-crogan.php full list] of those companies and their involvements in Iraq [http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/18/features-crogan1.php] [http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/18/features-crogan2.php]. On 25 May 1994, The U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs released a report in which it was stated that ''pathogenic (meaning ''disease producing''), toxigenic (meaning ''poisonous'') and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq, pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce.'' It added: ''These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction.'' [http://www.gulfwarvets.com/arison/banking.htm] The report then detailed 70 shipments (including anthrax bacillus) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding ''It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program.'' See another list [http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/flow/iraq/seed.htm here], and [http://groups.msn.com/exposureofthetruth/biologicalssoldtoiraq.msnw another here]. The [http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-986 list of American companies involved in the arming of Iraq] was simply embarrassing. Twenty-four US firms exported arms and materials to Baghdad [http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php]. Donald W. Riegle, Jr., Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs that made the report, said, "''UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs.''" He added, "''the executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual -use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record.''" The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent Iraq 14 agents "with biological warfare significance," including West Nile virus, according to Riegle's investigators [http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/16/Perspective/How_Iraq_built_its_we.shtml] [http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/politics/4186725.htm]. Even [http://www.wiesenthal.com The Simon Wiesenthal Center], an international Jewish human rights organization dedicated to preserving the memory of the Holocaust, released a list of US companies and what they exported to Iraq. See page [http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/images/b11.gif 11] of this report: [http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/images/b1.gif p1] [http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/images/b2.gif p2] [http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/images/b3.gif p3] [http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/images/b4.gif p4] [http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/images/b5.gif p5] [http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/images/b6.gif p6] [http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/images/b7.gif p7] [http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/images/b8.gif p8] [http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/images/b9.gif p9] [http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/images/b10.gif p10] [http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/images/b11.gif p11] A [http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=us_support_of_iraq_wmd timeline] of US support for Saddam against Iran. Another [http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html timeline]. For the Statement of Henry B. Gonzalez, Chairman, House Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs on Iraq-gate, see links given on [http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/Features/iraq.html this page]. More sources: * [http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorintelligence/ussentgerms.html University of Missouri School of Journalism database] * [http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/Sussexreport.htm University of Sussex report] * [http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/2001/1022iraq.htm A Global Policy Forum Report] * [http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/riegle1.html Text of the US Senate Riegle Report] * [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ NSA Archives] * [http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/18/1029114048796.html?oneclick=true Sydney Morning Herald report] ==A war with Weapons of Mass Destruction== With more than 100,000 Iranian victims (1) of Saddam Hussein's Chemical and Biological weapons during the eight-year war with Iraq, Iran is the world's top afflicted country by Weapons of Mass Destruction, only after Japan. The official estimate does not include the civilian population contaminated in bordering towns or the children and relatives of veterans, many of whom have developed blood, lung and skin complications, according to the Organization for Veterans of Iran. Nerve gas agents killed about 20,000 Iranian soldiers immediately, according to official reports. Of the 90,000 survivors, some 5,000 seek medical treatment regularly and about 1,000 are still hospitalized with severe, chronic conditions. Many others were hit by Mustard gas. Furthermore, 308 Iraqi Missiles were launched at population centers inside Iranian cities between 1980 and 1988 resulting in 12,931 casualties.(1) Despite the removal of Saddam and his regime by American forces, there is deep resentment and anger in Iran that it was Western companies (West Germany, France, US) that helped Iraq develop its chemical weapons arsenal in the first place, and that the world did nothing to punish Iraq for its use of chemical weapons throughout the war. Also See Halabja poison gas attack. Further reading on surviving veterans of these weapons: * [http://www.nj.com/specialprojects/index.ssf?/specialprojects/mideaststories/me1209.html The New Jersey Star Ledger, report] * [http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=39470 The South Africa Star, report] * [http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0213-05.htm The NY Times report] * [http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3068535/site/newsweek/ MSNBC report] * [http://www.netiran.com/?fn=artd(1585) Report: Iranian WMD Veterans sue Germany] * [http://www.payvand.com/news/00/nov/1108.html Vets suing the US] * [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1742878 NPR report on Iranian WMD veterans] (audio) * [http://www.chronicillnet.org/PGWS/tuite/IRMED/IRANTOC.htm Medical reports] (1) Center for Documents of The Imposed War, Tehran. ==Human Wave Attacks in the Iran-Iraq War== Many people claim that the Iran-Iraq conflict spawned a particularly gruesome variant of the "Human Wave" attack. The Iranian clergy, with no professional military training, were slow to adopt and apply professional military doctrine. The country at that time lacked sufficient equipment to breach Iraqi minefields and were not willing to risk their small tank force. Therefore, Pasdaran forces and Basij volunteers were often used to sweep over minefields and entrenched positions developed by the more professional Iraqi military. Allegedly, unarmed human wave tactics involving children as young as 9 (apparently considered expendable) were employed. One unnamed East European journalist is reported to have seen "tens of thousands of children, roped together in groups of about 20 to prevent the faint-hearted from deserting, make such an attack."[http://countrystudies.us/iraq/104.htm] There has been a suggestion that girls were more commonly used for frontline mine clearance, and boys for unarmed "assaults". Reliable firsthand accounts of the use of children in human wave attacks are rare, however. The most serious contemporary firsthand account recently surfaced at the end of an article[http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20041104.html] by the respected technology journalist Robert X. Cringely, who relates the experience of a trip to the front for an unconnected ''Penthouse magazine'' magazine assignment. ==Aftermath== The war was disastrous for both countries, stalling economic development and disrupting oil exports, and costing an estimated 1.5 million casualties for Iran alone (1, p. 206), and $350 Billion in total damages (1, p. 1). Iraq was left with serious debts to its former Arab backers, including fourteen billion US dollars loaned by Kuwait, a debt which contributed to Saddam Hussein 1990 decision to Persian Gulf War. Much of both sides' oil industry was damaged. Air raids had been launched by both nations against the oil infrastructure. The end of the war left the borders unchanged. Two years later, as war with the western powers loomed, Saddam recognized Iranian rights over the eastern half of the Shatt al-Arab, a reversion to the status quo ante which he had repudiated a decade earlier. The war was extremely costly; one of the deadliest wars since the Second World War in terms of casualties. (Conflicts since 1945 which have surpassed the Iran-Iraq War in terms of casualties include the Vietnam War, Korean War, the Second Sudanese Civil War, and the Second Congo War, amongst others. ==Final ruling== On 9 December 1991, the UN Secretary-General reported the following to the UN Security Council: :''"That Iraq's explanations do not appear sufficient or acceptable to the international community is a fact. Accordingly, the outstanding event under the violations referred to is the attack of 22 September 1980 against Iran, which cannot be justified under the charter of the United Nations, any recognized rules and principles of international law or any principles of international morality and entails the responsibility for the conflict.'' :''Even if before the outbreak of the conflict there had been some encroachment by Iran on Iraqi territory, such encroachment did not justify Iraq's aggression against Iran - which was followed by Iraq's continuous occupation of Iranian territory during the conflict - in violation of the prohibition of the use of force, which is regarded as one of the rules of jus cogens.'' :''On one occasion I had to note with deep regret the experts "conclusion that "chemical weapons ha[d] been used against Iranian civilians in an area adjacent to an urban centre lacking any protection against that kind of attack" (s/20134, annex). The Council expressed its dismay on the matter and its condemnation in resolution 620 (1988), adopted on 26 August 1988."'' ==Sources used== # The Iran-Iraq war: the politics of aggression. Farhang Rajaee. Gainesville : University Press of Florida, 1993. # UN Secretary General report to the UNSC: [http://www.irna.com/occasion/defence/english/un/page1.pdf p1] [http://www.irna.com/occasion/defence/english/un/page2.pdf p2] [http://www.irna.com/occasion/defence/english/un/page3.pdf p3] ==See also== *Iran-Contra ==External links and further reading== * [http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement] * [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3324053.stm How Saddam could embarrass the West (How the USSR, France, and the US armed Iraq)] * [http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/iraniraq.htm Global Map of countries who took sides in the Iran-Iraq war] * [http://www.iranian.com/Revolution/war.html Memoirs, Photos, Essays about the war.]
* [http://www.irna.ir/occasion/defence1/index1.html IRNA's webpage on ''Sacred Defense''] * [http://www.irna.com/occasion/defence/index.html Another IRNA website on the war.] * [http://www.sabokbalan.net Sabokbalan] ("The light winged") * [http://www.janbazanesfahan.ir/ Isfahan's War Veterans Foundation] * [http://www.jao.ir/ Iran Veterans Affairs Organization] * [http://www.avini.com Martyr Avini's website]. A prominent photographer of the war. * ''Reading Lolita in Tehran'', by Azar Nafisi. Wars of Iran Iraqi wars
Iran-Iraq War
The author of the "comment" just below mine misses the entire point of the article. The article focused on the facts of the war, and then the zealot below starts harping on about muslims and Israel. This isn't a political forum where you state whatever idiotic opinion you have regarding the region- you are meant to discuss the article, and only the article not go off on a ridiculous tangent. == Iran Iraq War == The author of the dispute misses the entire point. They should concentrate on the stupidity of the conflict. Estimates ( and only estimates are possible ) put the number of dead and direct casualties at some where between 1 - 1.5 million human lives. If you add this to the list of fellow muslims killed by their own brothers including the Shia's and Kurds killed by Saddam, the endless purges and coups that take place in muslim countries with regularity, this is more than muslims killed by anyone else including the Israelies who are only protecting their own people and land. All I can say to muslims is WAKE UP! Stop being so blindsided. Israel has the right to the land. Muslim countries put together have more land and God given mineral resource. The only reason why Israel is always picked as a scrapegoat is for the mullahs and the religious teachers to distract their followers form the real nature of Islam : corrupt and filled with lust and greed. Just like their father : SATAN disguised as you know who. : Just to reply to your first point ("The author of the dispute misses the entire point") - Wikipedia is here to give just the facts, with a neutral point of view. It sounds to me like you want us to pass judgement, which we don't do. User:Raul654 11:19, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC) i hope everyone will please ignore that last comment since it is obviously a bigoted and inappropriate conclusion. a cautious reader will hopefully direct their attention to other sources than the prejudiced meanderings of an internet contributor. : Just to reply completely, Raul654 is correct, as someone who has spent most of his life researching the Arab Israeli conflict I can say that this page is completely fine. Wikipedia is not a source of opinion on topics, Wikipedia is a source of fact and summary. "The stupidity of the conflict" is not a fact, it is an opinion, if you want to discuss your opinion on the conflict, theres forums everywhere that support this topic of discussion, this site is here to make sure you get the facts straight about the topic your discussing. I would also like to challenge the fact that this page is considered un-neutral. {User: TyraelDargan, 28 May 2004} I was curious as to why the Iran-Contra Affair is not mentioned in this article. It seems relevent, as the affair was directly related to the war, and assisted Iran in the aquisition of modern weapons. I would consider editing it myself, however my whole IP block is banned, and I cannot. The article currently says: :''The United States of America armed and encouraged Hussein to attack Iran over this disputed waterway as a possible way of undermining the Iranian Revolution of 1979 which had eliminated U.S. influence in Iran.'' However, the Soviet Union and France were by far the largest providers of arms to Iraq in this period, with the US accounting for a very small fraction by comparison, so it seems a little inaccurate to say that "the United States armed" them. "The Soviet Union armed Iraq" would be a reasonable statement, as they provided the vast bulk of arms, and "France armed Iraq" would be the second-best statement (but still inaccurate). --User:Delirium 10:37, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC) it was like a toilet The edits of User:130.88.96.66 are very biased and also removes some important information. Please consider partial reverting. User:Roozbeh 03:20, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC) ---- The article seems to be missing quite a bit of background information. Ie Iran supporting attempts to overthrow the Iraqi government, and subsequent negotiations of withdrawing their support in exchange for the border change. The ethnic and religious divisions that contributed to dispute. While the ambitions to power are true, it is not even close to the whole story. ==Iranian Chemical Weapons Usage== I am not aware that Iran ever used chemical weapons during this war. If so this use must have been minimal in comparison to the Iraqi use, both against Iranian soldiers and Iraqi (Kurdish) civilians. I am aware that the USA have several times accused both countries, but this appeared to more based on political expediency than on anything else. Could someone please provide evidence for this assertion ? User:Refdoc 23:03, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) :Most websites focus mostly on Iraqi usage. Info on Iranian usage is much more sparse and vaguer, ie: [http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/dc/briefs/030701.htm]. :This site, however claims that Iran did use weapons: [http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960702/72566_01.htm] :It states: "SINCE 1983, IRAN HAS USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS EVERY YEAR IN ITS WAR WITH IRAN" and "BOTH IRAN AND IRAQ CONTINUE TO EMPLOY CHEMI- CALS IN PRIMARILY DEFENSIVE OPERATIONS". :So, there is at least some vague web based support for the idea that Iran used chemical weapons, but certainly to a lesser degree than Iraq. However, if you want to make certain, I suggest you check out a library. You really can't trust the web. (Wikipedia excluded ; ) User:Peregrine981 23:24, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) No, as I said I have never ever heard of confirmed allegations. The SIPRI report is probably the most authoriative and also denies confirmation. The US allegations agaisnt Iran were mainly based on Halabja, which in turn is now generally accepted to have been Saddam's work. The allegations against Iraq are well founded and the use was massive. I would suggest altering the reference. I hope I provoke no revert war... :-) User:Refdoc 08:24, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::Well, I think we should at least include mention that Iran is alleged to have used chemical weapons until we can prove it one way or the other. I'll try to find something more definitive in the meanwhile. User:Peregrine981 12:57, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) You are right, and I have tried to put this in. Tell me what you think. I think the distinction must be very clear that Iraq did use chemical weapons confirmedly and on massive scale, while the allegations agaisnt Iran are weak and in all likelihood false. User:Refdoc 13:17, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) Your addition seems quite appropriate. Consulting several books from the library today, including a report by the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, I have found no confirmation of Iranian chemical weapons use. Iraqi use is mentioned repeatedly, and a discussion of Iranian countermeasures is included, but nowhere does it mention Iranian chemical weapons even in a very detailed examination of tactics employed by both sides. The only weakness of these reports is that they were written within a year or 2 of the war's end. For our purposes I think we can conclude Iran never used Chemical weapons. User:Peregrine981 16:29, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) == NPOV notice == This article has the 'dispute' message now since several months. There has been very little dispute apart from the bits about the chemical warfare we just slugged out. Could we go and produce a list of points which should be verified/altered/NPOVed or added and get the notice off? User:Refdoc 14:22, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) I will go first : * Human Wave attacks should be linked to use of poison gas. Iran did a lot of the former attacks. Iraq claimed Human wave attacks justified its use of gas, and the Western world condoned this argument. * The role of the USA is still underplayed - I am aware that the US AWACS system was heavily involved in supporting Iraqi airforce, but I do not have references * the use of untrained militia's (Pasdaran/Basiji/child soldiers) on Iranian side should really be part of it (and the role of these in the Human Wave attacks) * the spiritual role of the war in Iran, which was and is enormous. User:Refdoc 14:41, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) :I would say that the article is fairly NPOV, especially considering the elements involved and the possiblity for demonization of Hussein, Iran, or even "the West." :Certainly we could use more information and elaborate on certain points. *As you mentioned, the American role could use some elaboration. By the end of the war they were supplying a lot of valuable intelligence to Hussein. *More discussion of what actually happened for 8 years both militarily and socially. *Perhaps a discussion of the UN's reaction. User:Peregrine981 16:29, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) Even looking at the history I can't remember exactly why I put the NPOV message there. The article look OK to me now. User:Roozbeh 17:12, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) : Probably because everything about Iran is currently POV ;-).I will remove the notice then.--User:Refdoc 17:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) == References for US Sale of Chemical/Biological Weapons? == ''In particular, the United States, along with its allies (among them Britain, France and Italy), provided Iraq with biological and chemical weapons and the precursors to nuclear capabilities.'' While I do not doubt the accuracy of this statement, I would like to see a reference cited. Given the current political climate surrounding the US, Iraq and "Weapons of Mass Destruction," this is a rather nontrivial statement to make. Agreed. The U.S. supplied intelligence, food and credit to Iraq during the war. The weapons were supplied by the Soviets and the French. User:Ellsworth 21:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) I just finished writing a whole section on the US involvement in the Iran-Iraq war. I hope it addresses your inquiries.--User:Zereshk 03:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) =="Human Wave tactics"== I dispute the accuracy of this article. Heres why: While 2 paragraphs (a whole separate section) go into detail about these so called Human Wave tactics, very little (almost nothing at all) is said about the 100,000 chemical weapons war veterans [http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0213-05.htm (see here)] Iran sustained during the war. 100000 is not a small number. '''It puts Iran as the world's top country afflicted by Weapons of Mass Destruction after Japan. Furthermore, when someone who doesnt know anything about the war comes and reads that human wave tactic thingy, they are bound to pick up an unfair representation of the war. The way those 2 paragraphs are written, it seems as if Iran only sent kids forward for mine sweeping and other lethal operations. Which is not true, because at that junction in time, the soldiers and volunteers in the front lines were going through no less of a treatment. Its not as if they were sending kids in mine fields while the rest waited for the fields to clear up. The article also makes little mention of the war of the missiles between cities, and the fact that Iran sustained close to 1 MILLION casualties and $360 Trillion in total estimated damages. Basically, the article ignores the exceptional value of volunteerism exhibited in that war. Some people really believe in Martyrdom. Theyre not brainwashed by Ayatollahs to run into mine fields. There were people from all walks of life volunteering''' to go into the minefields and front lines knowing of their chances of no return. And the majority of them werent "kids" either. Please somebody fix the incorrect proportions.--User:Zereshk 04:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Agreed on one point, disagreed on two == As the author of the section on Human Wave attaks, I can assure you that there was no intentional misrepresentation of the facts. I like your point about Iran suffering the second largest attack ever from weapons of mass distruction under the Iran-Iraq war, and feel that inclusion of a section pertaining to that subject would make the article more balanced. Your implication that Basij volunteers were engaged in an honourable activity that is acceptable in many parts of the world is wrong. Tens of thousands were, from accounts on both sides, lead by a tactically inept leadership to their slaughter. The same criticisms have also been rightly levelled at the costly human wave attacks of the British (volunteer) army under WW1. This is absurd, sickening, and something that the vast majority of people from all cultures find abhorrent. With reference to the use of children in human wave attacks under the Iran-Iraq war. This is true, and that fact should be recognised for the sake of all those that died. Again, when compared with the ages of European soldiers on the front line during WW1 (officially as young as 14 and sometimes younger), this cannot be seen as anti Iranian propaganda. ::''I think heres what we can do to resolve the issue:'' ::''1. Add a section specifically about the Chemical warfare aspect of the Iran-Iraq war.'' ::''2. That the military leadership was inept, I agree. However we are shining a misleading spotlight on the problem. Maybe we can clarify it up by saying something like "one of the many consequences of the inept leadershiop was the human wave tactic...". The way the text is written now, it seems as if the HWT was the axis or major method of Iran reacting to the Iraqi aggression. It was more than that. There WERE 14 year olds. But they werent all just 14 year olds either. The vast majority of our volunteer ''E'zams'' (from Isfahan where I lived for a while) were made up of college students and unemployed high school graduates. I myself served in the Basij during the war when I was 15. The way it's written now, it sounds as if there were only 14 year olds wasting away at the front lines. We had 65 year olds volunteering too.''--User:Zereshk 15:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==This article will stay NPOVed== My objections have not been answered. Therefore the dispute tag stays on this page. To be specific,,, I have a problem with the statement: ::"Basij volunteers as young as 9 years old were used to sweep over minefields". 9 years old. That sounds like Radio Mojahedin propaganda. This is a pretty serious accusation. Unless backed with evidence, it should be taken down or modified. Now, as for the statement: ::"However, a seemingly reliable firsthand account recently surfaced at the end of this unrelated article[4](http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20041104.html), by the respected technology journalist Robert Cringely." I strongly doubt that to be a ''reliable source''. Consider what this Mr. Cringely says in this article of his: ::"So I took a taxi to the front, introduced myself to the local commander, and spent a couple days waiting for the impending human wave attack." I mean...that is the most stupid thing Ive ever heard...Take a Taxi to the front like it's 5th Ave. and Broadway. An American journalist gets an assignment from Penthouse magazine to go up to the war front in Iran to report on how Iranians kill their 9 year olds? In a Taxi? In 1986 (1365)? I DONT THINK SO. --User:Zereshk 08:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) I have met at the time many Iranians (students abroad) who reported themselves similar things (human wave attacks and children being used), none related to the Mujahedin, most abhorring them, but obviously I cannot give names nor indicate any sources and for all I know these people might themselves have been confused by rumours instead of really knowing the truth. I also remember from Isfahan airport arrival's hall some display about one "martyr" or other, and the pictures did AFAIK show kids amongst the troups of basiji. Now this s a good few years back and I might be wrong in my recollections. If the display is still up any of you Iranian guys can check it probably when traveling next to Isfahan... WRT journalist, taxi and frontline - never underestimate the guts, improvisation skills and luck a good journalist might have and employ. Also a good "fare" might well convince an adventourous taxi drive to go where otrhers would not go. User:Refdoc 13:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::OK. Heres a solution: ::I'll edit that passage. See what you think. If you agree or dont agree, one way or the other, let me know. You can always revert back to the old passage, if you dont agree. See what you think. ::--User:Zereshk 05:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) I'm taking the NPOV tag off. I'm satisfied.--User:Zereshk 03:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) == UN assigns blame == I hate to stir up trouble again, but it seems to me that placing a passage, explicitely blaming Iraq for the war, in the first few lines of the article is contrary to POV policy. I have no problem with the source, or necessarily the claim, but it doesn't seem to be a balanced way to write a "neutral" article. It will give any reader the impression that Iraq did, for a fact, "cause" the war. We are not supposed be moral arbiters or presenting conclusions here. We should be presenting facts in a neutral way, that allows people to form their own conclusions. (As best we can) The UN and the author cited, may well be impeccable sources, and most people may agree with them. But I know for a fact that some people do not agree, and their opinions should not be subordinated in this article. I propose that we move the lines in question to a later portion of the article, not the introduction, or at the very least include a counter claim. Thanks, User:Peregrine981 08:53, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC) :There is actually no debate regarding the fact that the first military offense was by Iraqi side, no matter what the reasons or origins could be. I think that we can reword the phrase and shorten it to just include the UN report and add the other reference and a broader discussion about UN's opinion on who began the war on beginning paragraph of The war section. It's not uncommon to indicate the first one who invades in the introduction paragraph. See Winter War or Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945). --User:Pouya 21:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) I think, Peregrine, you just now seriously misunderstand NPOV - this does not mean that Wikipedia can not state bald facts if they are well documented and without reasonable doubt. Iraq's role in ''starting'' this war is beyond such doubt. There a re a lot of things one can blame Iran for and particular its current government, but starting this war is not one of them. This is a bit like insisting it is POV that WWII is started by Germany and NPOV would demand that both Poland and Germany get a reasonable share of the blame. Bullshit, obviously. The war was started by Germany and only (very few very stupid) revisionists will try to claim otherwise. Iran is not exactly everyone's best loved child just now, so it has a rougher time defending itself against unjust claims, but we at Wikipedia should not really try and play these games. A proper start would be ''Iraq started the war by attacking Khuzestan... '' Later then we can (and do) discuss the various contributing factors, and surely we will then also have a good look at the various claims re borders, support of hostile guerilla in the other country etc etc. But not in the first line where the plain fact that Iraqi soldiers crossed the border on suchandsuch a day in order to capture Khuzestan can (and should) be stated ''without'' qualifying comment. If you ''do'' have any ''serious'' divergent information, ok, this debate can be re-opened. But not before User:Refdoc 22:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::I have no problem with stating bald facts, such as "Iraq invaded Iran on September 22 1980." This is fairly well agreed upon. However, I believe that opening the article by citing a report saying that "'Iraq's aggression against Iran' in starting the war and breaching International security and peace is explicitly stated," is not very balanced. The use of the words "aggression" and "breaching international security" in association only with Iraq is misleading, giving the impression that Iraq invaded Iran totally without provocation. Pro-Iraqi sources claim that the Iraqi action was "pre-emptive" countering Iranian "aggression," as they were trying to promote unrest within Iraq. Iraqis could well claim that this was a violation of international security as well. I am not trying to be anti-Iranian here, I simply think that we should be open to many different perspectives on this war. We should not simply accept the UN's word as truth. User:Peregrine981 04:34, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC) I would be happy with a starting sentence like the one you provided. User:Refdoc 09:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) We can shuffle around parts of the article, but I dont think it would be balanced to take out any part of it. Otherwise we must also put the blame on the allies and Jews for agitating Hitler to start WW2.--User:Zereshk 16:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Origins == I am struggling with having the picture of Babylon vs Elam there. It serves no real purpose apart from stating the obvious - Human history is long and violent enough to have most pieces of ground fought over many times in the past and potentialy in the future too. We would not add the Roman Germanic wars to the discussion of WW2's origins (Germany against the civilised world...) User:Refdoc 13:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) :With the picture, I was trying to convey a point that, it seems, was not too obvious: :You see, According to the source posted by Pouya at the bottom of the page, Khuzestan was ''occupied'' by Persia in the last 200 years. The source specifically and repeatedly mentions that Khuzestan belonged to Arabs for many centuries, hence justifying Iraq's actions against Iran in the past 50 years. :Hence the source, puts the ''origins'' of the blame on Iran, for originating the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq, in their view, was merely ''taking back'' the lands Persia had occupied. :The picture was to indisputably demonstrate that Susa (capital of ancient Khuzestan) was not a Mesopotamian province, and was indeed part of Iran from day 1. The quote by Ashurbanipal on the picture's page clearly demonstarted that beyond any doubt. Thus showing that it was the Arabs that occupied Khuzestan, not the other way around. :But then if you failed to see my point, then there's no point in using the picture. So I went ahead and took it off. :Sorry for the confusion. I was just trying to clarify the true "origins" of the war.--User:Zereshk 20:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) Thanks for the somewhat backhanded compliment, Zereshk :-), I did 'get' it, but I also saw that you intended a teensy bit of POV pushing....I think my argument stands. User:Refdoc 20:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I didnt mean to be backhanded, Refdoc. But at least now you see why historians can get away with writing rubbish nonsense like "Arabistan was occupied by the Persians, changing its name to Khuzestan". :: I am not upset. You made me actually smile. User:Refdoc 21:36, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) :It's because we fail to mention the true "origins" of this war. And everytime we fail to mention what really happened, it gives the opportunity for revisionists to revise history. :Yes, your argument holds RefDoc. But then again, I dont think we should be using the term "origins" for heading that section. If youre gonna talk about origins, then talk about ''origins''. Perhaps something like "Antecedents of the Iran-Iraq War" would be more suiting as title for the section. Even the reference I talked about mentions the Arab Conquest of Iran, in its "origins" of the war.--User:Zereshk 21:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) I agree with "Antecedents..." Or what about even "Pre-war situation" to remove any hint of inevitability? Clearly the war was a matter of choice (for Saddam Hussein). User:Refdoc 21:16, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) :Acknowledged.--User:Zereshk 21:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Reasons for reverting back== Reasons for reverting back from User:David.Monniaux's changes: #Factual inaccuracy: Iraq did not oppose Iran "because Iran was a theocratic regime". Iraq had problems with Iran before the theocratic regime, in the Shah's time too. The opposition was a historical Arab vs Ajam (Persian) one. #Redundancy: The text already mentions that Iraq was considered the lesser of two evils by the west. Hence no need to repeat that.--User:Zereshk 07:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Why are captions centered? == In contrast to the normal wiki style, the captions on this page are wrapped in
Iran-Iraq war
#REDIRECT Iran-Iraq War
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
I
IA | IB | IC | ID | IE | IF | IG | IH | IJ | IK | IL | IM | IN | IO | IP | IR | IS | IT | IU | IW | IX | IY | IZ |Words begining with Iran-Iraq_War:
Iran-Iraq_War
Iran-Iraq_War
Iran-Iraq_war
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
