The Iran- Iraq War - Research Paper Example

The Iran- Iraq War The Iran Iraq war began in 1980 and lasted for eight years. The war was a distinct marker for the end of the industrial age warfare style that had its roots, in the mid 19th century, and hit its peak during the first and second World Wars. In this type of warfare, mass played a vital role: extremely large armies that had large firepower quantities and had complex networks of logistics. Though the two countries were not key industrial powers, the late 19th century and early 20th century extreme power warfare lessons shaped their armies. The two states, however, would find war frustrating, and they were both eluded by any sort of decisive victory. The United States covertly supported Iraq, even as they had arm dealings with the Iranian government. However, by the end of the war, neither Iran and Iraq, nor the United States got any benefits from this war. This paper aims at analyzing this war, and discussing the United State’s involvement and role in this war. Introduction Saddam Hussein had steadily risen to become Iraq’s most powerful leader by the mid 1970s (Yetiv 79). In 1979, he forced the country’s incumbent leaders to step down, and hold a meeting of the Ba’ath party’s leadership, where he arrested and executed his imagined and key political opponents. His position as Iraq’s dictator was an insecure one in 1980 since he had just grabbed power in bloodthirsty fashion. He, however, did not consider himself one of the thug-life dictators who were in power in most third world countries. He saw himself as an enlightened and modern leader whose purpose was to make Iraq the Middle East’s leading country. While he would sometime lean on religious rhetoric, especially in his battles with the US in later years, his regime was secular (Yetiv 80). His party’s ideology grounded itself on socialism rather than Islamic teachings. His government took to many reforms, including the secularization of Iraq’s legal code, which was opposed by a majority of the Iraqi’s on grounds of religion. While Saddam and his men were Sunni Muslims, a vast majority of Iraqi’s were Shia’s, which bothered Saddam who distrusted their loyalty. Iran also saw a change of government in 1979 which was, however, more fundamental than the one undergone by their neighbours (Yetiv 78). Shah Mohammad Pahlavi was a pro-Western monarch overthrown by an amalgam of opponents that ranged from Islamist radicals to Communists. After a couple of months characterized by power scuffles, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini led Islamists came into power. This development had a significant impact on Middle Eastern politics since Iran’s previous ruler had been the US and Israel’s closest ally in the region (Yetiv 79). The state thus became a bitter enemy of the two states. This was clearly demonstrated during the hostage crisis, during which a radical group of students stormed the US embassy grounds and took hostages. During the succeeding weeks, it soon became apparent that the Iranians were milking this for international and domestic gain. A rescue mission launched by the US failed, resulting in the death of the eight technicians whose aircrafts crashed. While the hostages were released, the incident earned the Iranians a new enemy, which would take on extra significance in the war. Reasons for war Various overlapping factors fuelled the conflict (Tucker & Priscillah 60). These included the fate of Khuzestan province in Iran, as well as access to the Persian Gulf by the Iraqis. Another factor had to do with Iraq’s deep mistrust for the new Iranian regime. However, the most significant conflict catalyst was Saddam Hussein’s personality. During his quarter century rule over Iraq, he proved to be a consistent aggressor against his neighbours (Tucker & Priscillah 60). The oil-rich region of Khuzestan, which bordered Iraq, majorly had a non-Persian population, with its residents being representative of varied ethnicities, though many were Arabs, who were culturally tied to Iraq. Iraq thus had historically laid claim to this region, as well as a series of other small islands that lay in the gulf. Another dispute concerning territory had to do with the Shatt al-Arab waterway (Tucker & Priscillah 60). Iran and Iraq had vied for control of this vital waterway since the creation of the Ottoman Empire. The 1975 Algiers Accord supposedly settled this dispute, but on the outbreak of the war, Iraq resurrected its claims to the waterway. Unlike Iran, Iraq had a limited coastline, the Shatt al-Arab was strategically and economically critical to Iraq. In addition to these goals, Iraq had a well-established strategic plan that made it go to war with Iran (Tucker & Priscillah 60). This was to shape itself as the regions leading state. During the Shah’s reign in Iran, the alliance with the US made Iran the regions formidable force. Tehran had access to sophisticated US weapons and was in the ear of American presidents. However, with the hostage crisis, coupled with Iran’s unwillingness to seek out Soviet favour, Iran was isolated from assistance by superpowers. While Iraq was not a bosom friend of either, she enjoyed a much healthier relationship with Washington and Moscow. Much of the modern Iraqi arsenal was manufactured in the USSR. War Tensions rose in 1980 between Tehran and Baghdad (Powel et al 56). The Iranians sponsored a failed attempt on the Iraq foreign minister’s life, which angered and increased Iraq’s suspicion. The Iraqi government then captured and executed a prominent Iraqi, Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, a Shia cleric who was an Iraqi Shia cleric and a public defender of his neighbour’s revolution. In June, Iran and Iraq broke off all diplomatic ties, with minor clashes on the border occurring. The Iraqi’s declared, in September, that the Shatt al-Arab waterway was their territory, before invading Iran on the 22nd. The Iraqi’s, who were equipped with modern artillery and armour, encountered immense success, pushing back the Iranians and gaining territory, which included Khuzestan (Powel et al 56). Iranians were surprised and shaken by the invasion of Iraq. “The regime, new and still attempting to establish itself domestically and internationally, was caught off guard as well, just as Saddam had hoped” (Jacek 50). Progress began to falter, with the Iraqi’s shocked by the degree that the Iranian public rallied against them and the formidable nature of the Iranian Air Force. The Iranians launched a massive counteroffensive that failed and resulted in a stalemate. Both sides were, however, reluctant to resolve the conflict with Tehran, especially non-committal, until occupied territory was returned (Powel et al 57). Iran devised ways to harness the Islamic revolutions true believers and their fanaticism in order to neutralize Iraqi military superiority. This was a form of jihad, with volunteers clearing minefields in the form of human waves to open up paths for Iranian troops, as well as performing other missions along these lines. These tactics drew international controversy since the greatest percentage of volunteers consisted of teenagers. However, the 1982 operations where Iran claimed their territory and moved into Iraq proved that it was a success. Iraq soon began to seek an end to the war, but Tehran shifted goal posts and began to press for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and Iraqi humbling. Involvement of the United States in the War Both aggressors began to attack oil tankers headed for the enemy’s ports in an attempt to strangle their foreign earnings (Tarock 48). As the war dragged into a stalemate, they began to target neutral vessels. This seriously concerned oil-exporting countries in the Middle East and Western states that imported the oil. Interruption of oil flow in the gulf began to have ramifications on the global economy. Responding to Iranian attacks on vessels from Kuwait, President Ronald Regan assented to re-flagging of Kuwaiti tankers, which allowed them to sail under the United State’s protection. This provided the US with international rights to strike back if these vessels were attacked. This happened to be an immense advantage for the Iraqi’s since some of their oil was transported by Kuwaiti tankers and would thus continue to be shipped (Tarock 48). Iran attacked a Kuwaiti tanker in October of 1987 to test the US’s resolve, causing the US to respond by bombing offshore platforms run by the Iranians (Tarock 48). In 1988, a US frigate was damaged severely while travelling in international waters by Iranian mines. Washington criticized international water mining by the Iranians for a long time, and struck back by destroying military facilities run by the Iranians, as well as sinking of an Iranian frigate. In July, the USS Vincennes tragically shot down a passenger jet carrying Iranian civilians believing that it was a military aircraft set for attack (Tarock 49). The attack killed three hundred civilians and widespread condemnation of the US resulted from the international community. This incident caused irreparable damage to US- Iran relations. In "US Role in the Iran-Iraq War and its Negative Implications on US-Iran Relations.", Brian Jacek argues that involvement in this war for the US caused damage that was irreparable to the relations between the US and Iran and continues in shaping the two countries’ relations: As a result of such policy, Iran felt abandoned not only by the US, but also by the rest of the world. Since the US was one of the two global hegemons at the time, US action, or inaction, produced a similar response amongst its allies. Not only were Western countries verbally, economically and militarily supporting Iraq and opposing Iran, but so too were Arab countries. The fact that Iran had very little support, as a result of US wishes, left Iran to fend for itself economically and militarily. (50) Earlier, the US had also been involved in the Iran-Contra scandal (Tarock 49). Americans living in Lebanon had been taken hostage in 1980 by terrorists with Iranian backing, with Regan administration officials devising a secret plan to sell Iran arms in exchange for hostage release. The scheme over time became more convoluted, with a decision reached to sell arms to Iran at a gain. These profits were to be granted to the Contra rebels fighting Nicaragua’s soviet backed government. The program became a serious scandal when it was leaked, in late 1986, and caused much consternation, in the Regan administration (Tarock 49). The president got away with it since it could not be proven that he was complicit in his deputies’ activities. However, only small amounts of these arms were given to the Iranians, so the actual impact of this deal was negligible in the context of the war. Despite this deal, the US visibly favoured Iraq in this war, and while they were not leading suppliers of arms to the Iraqis, they provided intelligence during various phases of the war. Saddam was, however, mistrustful of the United State, and most dealings were done with his local allies in the Middle East. The war weakened Iraq and Iran an immense, with neither of the sides gaining anything of significance from this war. The prevailing status quo before the war remained as it was after it, even as Iraq was forced to cede some ground on the Shatt al-Arab matter. This war, despite gifting very little to both sides, still managed to be one of the bloodiest wars of the 20th century latter half. Hundreds of thousands died from the war. The United States also suffering from the loss of some degree of credibility, due in large part to the downing of the Iranian passenger jet and the Iran-Contra scandal. Work Cited Powel, Roy Fullick and Geoffrey. The role of airpower in the Iran-Iraq War. London: DIANE Publishing, 2006. Print Retrieved from: www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199289783/.../iran_iraq_war Tarock, Adam. The superpowers involvement in the Iran-Iraq War. NHew York: Nova Science Publishers, 1998. Print Tucker, Spencer and Priscilla Mary Roberts. The encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli conflict : a political, social, and military history. Santa Barbara,: ABC-CLIO, 2008. Print Yetiv, Steve A. Crude awakenings : global oil security and American foreign policy. ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 2004. Print Jace, Brian, B.A. "US Role in the Iran-Iraq War and its Negative Implications on US-Iran Relations." Kulna: For All of Us (2009): 50-51. Print Read More