What were the causes of the Iran-Iraq War?

[Oldandeasilycofused]

Hitler loved " Grapes of Wrath "

Didn't know that, didn't think of because I learned that both the book and the film "The Grapes Of Wrath" were very popular in Russia. Seems the Communists told people the book and film accurately described American society, rather than aspects of it during specific times.

I guess dictators tend to be similar under the skin, being interested in power rather than ideology. (?)

 

[starman]

Iraq in 1979 also had its own share of weaknesses and vulnerabilities.

AD being one of them. Even before osirak, the Iraqi AF c October 1980 is said to have stopped sending up fighters because Iranian jets and aircrew outclassed them. Eventually though, Iraq gained the upper hand in the air as well as on the ground.

 

[starman]

Except with Saddam it did because after the war Iraq is essentially bankrupt. Saddam took a huge gamble in easing Iraq's debts to its neighbours and it backfired spectacularly . That's why in the long run Iran beat Iraq and badly at that.

The coalition did the beating in '91. Eventually, Iran just picked up the pieces--but that's post 2000.... Saddam could've just pressured gulf states for more $ without attacking. He probably could've gotten something besides $10 billion. Iraq didn't have to invade to survive.

 

[starman]

The economy was not a top priority for Khomeini and his regime, as famously stated by Khomeini himself: "economy is for donkeys."

I recall an interview with Khomeini in which he said "islam is not against civilization…the shah destroyed our agriculture…."

Today, younger Iranians are experiencing unacceptable levels of economic, which even their predecessors were willing to tolerate during the war.

I don't think we're supposed to be talking about "today."

 

[delta1]

Autocratic regimes like the Shah tend to be inherently stable because they eliminate all competing forces to their rule, albeit at the expense of repressing and stunting the growth and development of democracy in a nation. This is evident in China today, where the communist regime provides stability while suppressing any movement towards democracy and pluralism in society.

Even in places like Iraq and Libya, there are nostalgic impulses for Saddam and Gaddafi, who were murderers but provided stability.

Autocracies are stable but brittle. They tend to crack under pressure rather than bend.

 

[Rostam]

Sanctions are a tricky buisness. South Africa was under a mandatory UN Arms Embargo in 1976 but less then ten years latter was in the top ten arms exporters due largely to selling G- 5 155mm howitzers and ammo to both sides of the Iran- Iraq War. Not to say South Africa didn't receive military weapons and technology from UN member states that ignored said sanctions. If there is money to be made there will always be sanctions busting to at least some degree.
Leftyhunter

So true.

 

[starman]

Autocracies are stable but brittle. They tend to crack under pressure rather than bend.

Depends on which ones. The USSR didn't crack under the "pressure" of 1941-42, nor did the Roman Empire from c 251-268. As I noted elsewhere, the kaiser cracked after a few months of bad news but Adolf's regime endured two years of it. Saddam btw held out for a decade after the '91 disaster compounded by sanctions.

 

[Dreamhunter]

Autocracies are stable but brittle. They tend to crack under pressure rather than bend.

The bamboo bends with the storm winds and lives to stand another day. The oak resists and breaks.

 

[Dreamhunter]

Depends on which ones. The USSR didn't crack under the "pressure" of 1941-42, nor did the Roman Empire from c 251-268. As I noted elsewhere, the kaiser cracked after a few months of bad news but Adolf's regime endured two years of it. Saddam btw held out for a decade after the '91 disastert compounded by sanctions.

Perhaps the ones who held on for longer were more skilful and adept at making themselves 'look good' in the eyes of their people?

 

[Rostam]

The coalition did the beating in '91. Eventually, Iran just picked up the pieces--but that's post 2000.... Saddam could've just pressured gulf states for more $ without attacking. He probably could've gotten something besides $10 billion. Iraq didn't have to invade to survive.

Saddam underestimated the response of the United States to his decision to invade Iraq.

 

[Leftyhunter]

The coalition did the beating in '91. Eventually, Iran just picked up the pieces--but that's post 2000.... Saddam could've just pressured gulf states for more $ without attacking. He probably could've gotten something besides $10 billion. Iraq didn't have to invade to survive.

Evidentially Saddam thought differently. Iran has oil so it was going to at least somewhat recover from the war plus it had then a high birth rate so in a few years it has more young men for its military. Iran broke off its military sales relations with Israel but Russia, China , North Korea and Pakistan were happy to take their place . Iran post war did start to rebuild their own military industrial complex although with a fair amount of foreign components. If the coalition didn't pulverize Iraq it's certainly possible a vengeful Iran would do so.
Leftyhunter

 

[starman]

If the coalition didn't pulverize Iraq it's certainly possible a vengeful Iran would do so.

I doubt Iran (either state) had the stomach for another round after the ruinous losses of 1980-88 and the defeats of the latter year. Without the shellacking of '91 Iraq would've remained strong enough to ward off attack from Iran.

 

[starman]

Perhaps the ones who held on for longer were more skilful and adept at making themselves 'look good' in the eyes of their people?

And/or were more firmly entrenched in power.

 

[Dreamhunter]

And/or were more firmly entrenched in power.

Well, Nicolae Ceasescu seemed like he thought he was. But look what happened to him eventually.

 

[Rostam]

The coalition did the beating in '91. Eventually, Iran just picked up the pieces--but that's post 2000.... Saddam could've just pressured gulf states for more $ without attacking. He probably could've gotten something besides $10 billion. Iraq didn't have to invade to survive.

In my view, the 1990 Gulf War was a significant turning point for the Islamic Republic of Iran. Although their arch-enemy Saddam Hussein remained in power, he was significantly weakened and isolated by the United States and other Arab countries in the region. This allowed Iran to establish strong connections with the Shia community in Iraq.

In the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq war, Iran conducted a disinformation campaign aimed at persuading the United States that invading Iraq would be a simple military operation and that the Iraqi people would greet the Americans warmly. Although Iran cannot claim full responsibility for the invasion, their campaign was effective, in part due to Ahmad Chalabi and other Iraqi leaders who had become Iranian agents and were serving as close advisors to the Americans on Iraq.

Following the invasion, Iran collaborated closely with its Shia allies to resist the American occupation and the plans for reconstructing Iraq according to American blueprints. This collaboration turned the occupation into a nightmare.

Lastly, Iran has gained influence in Iraq with the intention of keeping the country divided and politically paralyzed. This strategy ensures that Iraq, for the foreseeable future, does not become an obstacle to Iranian expansion and ambition.

 

[starman]

In my view, the 1990 Gulf War was a significant turning point for the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Actual war didn't come til '91.

Although their arch-enemy Saddam Hussein remained in power, he was significantly weakened and isolated by the United States and other Arab countries in the region. This allowed Iran to establish strong connections with the Shia community in Iraq.

Sure, heightened Iranian influence (longterm) was one of the things the US failed to take into consideration--or take seriously enough-- when it launched "desert storm." But Iranian influence owed much more to latter events, as Saddam did a pretty good job suppressing the shiites in '91, considering his losses he had just taken in the gulf war.

In the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq war, Iran conducted a disinformation campaign aimed at persuading the United States that invading Iraq would be a simple military operation and that the Iraqi people would greet the Americans warmly. Although Iran cannot claim full responsibility for the invasion, their campaign was effective, in part due to Ahmad Chalabi and other Iraqi leaders who had become Iranian agents and were serving as close advisors to the Americans on Iraq.


Lastly, Iran has gained influence in Iraq with the intention of keeping the country divided and politically paralyzed. This strategy ensures that Iraq, for the foreseeable future, does not become an obstacle to Iranian expansion and ambition.

I'd love to answer this at some length but was under the impression we're not supposed to be discussing events post 2000.

 

[starman]

Well, Nicolae Ceasescu seemed like he thought he was. But look what happened to him eventually.

I think the key issue here was that communism, the basis of east European authoritarianism, was not indigenous to Eastern Europe. Unlike in Russia and china it did not have much genuine local backing; it had been imposed from outside. Once the power that imposed it had abdicated, it collapsed like a house of cards.

 

[Leftyhunter]

The Iran- Iraq War was inevitable. Sadam Hussein had every reason to fear the new hostile theological regime in Iran that was spreading the message that Iraq should not be ruled by a Sunni religious minority but instead by the Shia majority. The Ayotola Kolmenei stated that Sadam was a puppet of the US and Israel.
Sadam was facing a low level insurgency from the Kurdish minority and the majority Shia population. The Iranian military was in disarray has many of its officers fled Iran or were imprisoned by the Kolmenei government. Much of the Iranian militaries equipment was from the US and Great Britain but sales of new arms and spare parts were suspended due to the holding of US hostages at the US Embassy in Theran. Sadam knew if he wanted to conquer Iranian territory and instal a mire friendly regime in Iran he had to act fast before the Kolmenei government stabilized and eventually rebuild their larger armed forces.
Leftyhunter

 

[starman]

The Iran- Iraq War was inevitable. Sadam Hussein had every reason to fear the new hostile theological regime in Iran that was spreading the message that Iraq should not be ruled by a Sunni religious minority but instead by the Shia majority.

I don't think it was inevitable. Iran may have seemed a threat ideologically but I don't think Saddam grip on power, and his country, was likely to be challenged very seriously.

The Ayotola Kolmenei stated that Sadam was a puppet of the US and Israel.

What an absurd claim. A puppet of the US and Israel, after Iraq's participation in the '73 war?

Sadam was facing a low level insurgency from the Kurdish minority and the majority Shia population.

He had essentially licked the Kurds in '75.

The Iranian military was in disarray has many of its officers fled Iran or were imprisoned by the Kolmenei government. Much of the Iranian militaries equipment was from the US and Great Britain but sales of new arms and spare parts were suspended due to the holding of US hostages at the US Embassy in Theran.

Teheran.

Sadam knew if he wanted to conquer Iranian territory and instal a mire friendly regime in Iran he had to act fast before the Kolmenei government stabilized and eventually rebuild their larger armed forces.
Leftyhunter

I don't think Saddan felt he had to beat Iran or face an existential threat from it later. It was just opportunistic aggression--get the shat al arab etc while Iran seemed weak.

 

[At Each Kilometer]

I don't think Saddan felt he had to beat Iran or face an existential threat from it later. It was just opportunistic aggression--get the shat al arab etc while Iran seemed weak.

Indeed, the war was caused by a border dispute over the Shatt al-Arab River, formed by the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates. An agreement was reached to move the border to the middle of the river during Pahlavi' regime in 1975. However during the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran's military forces were significantly weakened, so Saddam thought it was good time to grasp some land.