|
Noting in the Palestine/UNESCO thread that some people aren't aware of what I would assume are very prominent issues in the international scene today, I've decided to do a series of weekly or bi-weekly short blogs on international topics ([IT]), concentrating on areas people might not be too familiar with. Don't consider these to be anything more than a quick overview/introduction.
We will start with Iran's relations and interactions with the west, primarily with the United States and Britain, since it is rather prominent in the news these days due a variety of issues ranging from nuclear ambitions to an alleged assassination attempt on the Saudi ambassador to the United States on US soil. Specifically, we will attempt to address the source(s) of anti-US sentiment in Iran.
We begin in 1925 with the ascension of Reza Shah Pahlavi to the throne of Iran, which had previously been ruled by the Qajar dynasty, and before that by a series of dynasties. Indeed Reza Shah submitted a letter to the League of Nations that Iran be referred to as Iran and not as Persia. Reza Shah had in mind not an autocratic rule, but rather a slow transition into a more democratic system. To do this, he first had to modernize the country, as it was not in a particularly conducive state for democracy. He was wary of giving any one foreign country too much influence over Iran and was not afraid of direct confrontation with the most powerful western interests in the region, going so far as to demand 21% of the profits from the British owned Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC), one of the antecedents of the modern day British Petroleum (BP), which was met but considered as an affront by the British. More on oil later.
World War 2 was not without effect on Iran. As the Germans swept eastward in Operation Barbarossa, Allied supply lines to the Soviet Union were put under great strain as ice and U-boat attacks made shipping to Arkhangelsk very dangerous. The Allies thus eyed the Trans-Iranian Railway as a route to ship supplies by land to the Soviet Union directly from the British controlled Persian Gulf. Up to this point Iran was officially neutral in the war, and Reza Shah refused the Allies access to his nation, effectively blocking a potential lifeline for the Allies.
Under the pretext that Reza Shah was bringing Iran closer to Germany, the Allies invaded Iran on August 25, 1941 and won a quick victory. The official statement made to the Iranian government by US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was that despite the invasion, which was considered necessary for the purposes of resisting the Nazi war machine, the Allies had no designs on the independence or integrity of Iran. This would later not be upheld when the Soviet Union backed two breakaway regions of Iran.
The British gave Reza Shah one amicable out - abdicate in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, better known today as the Shah of Iran. This is what Reza Shah did, and so his son gained the throne, still as a constitutional monarch.
APOC figured centrally into the next great evolution of Iranian politics. In the late 1940s a large segment of Iran's public and politicians began to view APOC negatively as both exploitative and a vestige of British imperialism. As a result, in 1951 the government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh nationalized the oil industry in Iran, thus cutting off a huge portion of the British economy, as well as gutting Britain's main source of political influence in the region.
Initially, this action was met by sanctions targetted to pressure Iran economically. The British military was then mobilized to seize the Abadan oil refinery, which was the world's largest, but these plans did not go through. Instead, large scale mob riots were instigated on the CIA's payroll, as evidenced by declassified documents from the CIA itself. Many hundreds of people died in the riots, and Mosaddegh was eventually tried and found guilty of treason by the Shah's military court. Thus the Iranian coup of 1953 ended as the United States overthrew a democratically elected government for the first time, and the Shah's role changed from one of a constitutional monarch to an increasingly autocratic one.
From there, tensions eventually erupted into the 1979 Iranian Revolution, of which people are probably more familiar with and involved a change in rule from the secular Shah to the religious Ayatollahs. Iraq in 1980 began a massive invasion of the country. Various causes have been postulated - some saying Iraq eyed the oil fields of Khuzestan, others pointing out the antagonistic actions of Khomeini. The Soviet Union was opposed to this conflict and thus declined to give Iran aid. US aid to Iraq during the nearly 8 year war undoubtedly has contributed to anti-US sentiment in Iran, as the US supplied Iraq with diplomatic, training, technological, and intelligence support in addition to exports of chemical and biological weaponry which were later found by UN inspectors to be identical to the weaponry found in the Iraqi bioweapons program. It should be noted that Iraqi use of chemical and biological weapons during the Iran-Iraq war was widespread, with around 100,000 Iranian soldiers being victims of chemical weaponry.
There were also limited live-fire exchanges, in which the US attacked Iranian oil platforms in retaliation for the Iranian attack on an US-flagged Kuwaiti oil tanker. There was also the USS Vincennes incident, where the USS Vincennes, a US Navy cruiser, shot down Iran Air Flight 655 after mistaking it for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat. All 209 passengers and crew on board were killed.
In closing, it should also be noted that the Intra-Contra affair is another important case in US-Iranian interactions, but in a tangential way. During the Iran-Iraq war, President Reagan facilitated the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages, as well as allowing the US to fund the Nicaraguan contras.
Important Edits - The previous statement about the Soviet Union not supplying Iraq was a huge typo. Iraq and the Soviet Union had a huge arms exchange. It now reads that the Soviet Union did not supply Iran. In more detail, initially the Soviet Union had a strict neutrality between the two sides, as it wished to be on amicable terms with both. However, after Iran rebuffed the Soviet Union in 1982, it began tilting towards Iraq until full support (outside of already existing support) turned to Iraq to 1986.
  
|
FREEAGLELAND26780 Posts
|
Quick Attack :/
Or is it Extremespeed?
|
Thanks for the post. The history of that region of the world, particularly 20th century history, is illuminating.
It should be noted that the success of the CIA activities in Iran was used as a reason to increase destabilising forces around the world. It showed that to change government policy, or even governments, the US did not have to invade. It was much cheaper and more politically expedient to forment local animosity than to risk open conflict. This became the main modus operandi during the cold war (bar vietnam).
The issues in Afghanistan are somewhat related to these actions. By funding the mujahadeen in an attempt to prevent russian influence, the US sowed the seeds of the current afghan conflict.
The contra affair displayed the nasty side of these dealings and at least publicly these covert destabilisations have become less frequent.
|
Shouldn't this be titled... Iran During the Shah?
Or more precisely... Iran from 1920's - 1953 , since you've left out two decades of history post Mossadegh (well I guess you just skip from 1953 to 1979 which is a pretty big error if you are trying to educate someone on Iran)
|
I disagree with your representation of Mosaddegh. You stated nothing wrong, but you left out the fact that near the end, he was becoming increasingly autocratic himself by consistently asking for Parliament to renew his "emergency powers."
|
Okay, there's a lot of wrong things in the OP, so it's time to lay down some knowledge.
If the US fucking left Iran alone when the republic with Mossadeq was established, I think things would be A LOT better. The only reason a crazy nutjob like Khomeini got the support he did was the Iranian people were fed up with the Shah's dictatorship combined with selling out to foreign powers (in particular, the US).
Unfortunately, Khomeini's extremism was also influential among some of the Iraqi Shi'a, who apparently went from secular Iraqis to Ayatollah-worshipping Sharia lovers. It's entirely doubtful there would have been a war if not for Khomeini, so there's really so many great things that would have happened for the Iranian people, and outside of Iran, had the CIA not overthrown the democracy in Iran. Simple as that.
Okay for one, the Soviet Union aided Iraq more than anyone else. I think this deserves its own paragraph because of how stupidly ignorant that sentence was. Almost all the weapons Iraq got were from USSR (with some from France, and chem. weapons from US, which also went to Iran).
Also, in the Iran-Iraq War, the Iranians were supported a lot more heavily lol. F-14s, helicopters, Paladins and Pattons, napalm and chemical weapons leftover from Vietnam, etc. and money mean a lot more than a pat on the back and some leftover chemical weapons from Vietnam. The US's role in the war was to cause the war to last as long as possible so as to hurt both countries as much as possible. If you don't see this, then I don't know what to tell you other than you're quite lacking on the topic. If you want to bring up the conspiracy theory that the US supported Iraq a lot and didn't support Iran at all, then the Americans would have been giving them the F-15s, Patton tanks, missiles, and other weapons. When it became obvious towards the later years that Iraq had secured the advantage and the Iranian military had become well.... military vehicles and arms were very lacking, the US came in through the UN and forced a status-quo cease fire, so no one would gain anything from the war.
As stated previously, the Iranians used tons of chemical weapons as well, especially on civilian areas. Also, your statement is wrong. If chemical weapons are WMDs, then Vietnam is the most hurt by WMDs. After them would be the Iranian military, and after them would be Iraqi civilians and military. The only reason why everything is tacked on Iraq was guess who was attacked just a couple years afterwards lol? There's this thing called propaganda and demonizing your enemy. That's what happened. It's ironic, because during the 80s, US media was saying the exact opposite.
Also, Iraq didn't "spot a weakness" or w/e (lolwut), and had no intention of any attack against Iran preceding the Islamic Revolution. Following the revolution, Khomeini made assassination attempts on Iraqi politicians, moved soldiers across the border as provocations, was mobilizing the military for war (when the Iraqis weren't), was inciting the part of the Shi'a population of Iraq who had been radicalized during his time there to attack the Iraqi govt. and society, and declared jihad against Iraq and the Iraqi government. He declared jihad. For Islamic extremist nutjobs, jihad means war. The Iranians very well already committed acts of war and declared war (albeit religiously and not politically), so the greatest accusation you can throw on the Iraqis is that they made a pre-emptive strike. Either way, your claim that the Iraqis had this long-term conspiracy to invade Iran and "found a weakness" is nothing but conspiracy theory. Not even American nationalists say things that ridiculous lol.
Additionally, it's not like the Iranian monarchy was some good happy one before the first overthrow. It was still pretty bad. That's kind of why it was overthrown the first time in the first place. rofl.
The other stuff I already know about and were generally correct as far as I can see. Basically, your post was what even Americans are taught, most of it correct, but with some incorrect slants considering just how bad the Shah was and including demonization of Iraq (which included making out Iran as innocent, never starting war in its history, etc. etc. (despite how much shit is tacked on Iran today) which sticks since the Gulf War, and also includes Iranian innocence and holiness until the past several years. That said, in the Gulf War, it was the opposite, with Iran being demonized pretty badly. lol. I like how the propaganda switched instantly, and no one bothered questioning why and how. XD
|
Wow, you really got worked up...
I am sure your points are valid but can you please rephrase some of what you wrote. It is hard to understand what you are saying. Your main points seem to be that the Shah was aweful and that the US was playing both Iran and Iraq against each other. Is that correct?
|
Well, there's a few things in there even more ridiculous than what appears in US media, and when it's that ridiculous, it really irks me. The Soviets didn't support Iraq? Really? Not even US stories and renditions of the war say things that bad ;S.
Unless I'm mistaken, MiGs and T-s were from the Soviet Union, not Iran. F-14s, M60s, and Cobras come from the US though. Those were employed by the Iranians. The US was also antagonistic towards both countries. Iran for obvious reasons, and Iraq because the Iraqi government worked for its country's interests and not American interests. As an example, some people have this crazy conspiracy theory that Iraq was a US client state like Mubarak's Egypt. If they were, they wouldn't have been invaded, and then on top of that 12 years of sanctions which crippled the country. Like to the degree of turning one of the highest standards of living in the Mideast (except maybe Turkey?) turned into worse than really poor countries/peoples it used to give humanitarian aid to (Egypt, Palestine, for example). Shit like that just makes me cringe. On top of that, there wouldn't have been the 2003 war either.
In any case, the linchpin was the Iranian refusal for peace in '82. It was obvious the Islamic Revolution's momentum was broken, and urban warfare was pretty tough, so why not try and make peace conferences. Khomeini refused it. I'm betting the American politicians were fistpumping. More damage to both countries. The war was really bloody. The next several years were the Iranians throwing its military, and its paramilitaries which numbered even greater, literally into the shredder. I'm not sure the paramilitaries' deaths are put into the war casualties (as they aren't actually soldiers), because the cost of death already noted from the war is terrible enough. If the war would have gone forever, even better for the US.
In any case, the only good thing was that by some time in '86, the Iranian was short on military vehicles, arms, and men, and the Iraqis were making some offensives while holding off the Basra front where a lot of the Iranian forces were congregated. Then by 1988 the Iranian military just broke. It's incredible because I don't think there's been a war in history where one belligerent just defended the offensives of another until the the one making offensives just couldn't militarily fight any longer. At that point, the same hardliners in the Iranian government that refused peace in '82 in other occasions were begging for it in '88, at which point the UN also came in with the proposed cease-fire. The only good thing to come of the war was Islamic extremists and fanatics being humiliated and defeated like that. It was a huge victory for secular ideals and politics in a region and era where things are beginning to regress.
What's really funny is that the war was as huge a concern to Iraq as it was to other countries, as the spread of the Islamic Revolution and Iranian theocratic regime threatened all of them, and yet none of them fielded soldiers. I mean, if some my cousin was in a fight with a thug, and I know that thug's going to come for me next, I'm not going to sit by and see what happens.
Yeah, history and military stuff is one of my fortes, and I'm also quite nitpicky.
|
On November 02 2011 10:52 Xeris wrote:
Shouldn't this be titled... Iran During the Shah?
Or more precisely... Iran from 1920's - 1953 , since you've left out two decades of history post Mossadegh (well I guess you just skip from 1953 to 1979 which is a pretty big error if you are trying to educate someone on Iran)
Well I meant Iran since the Shah's father took over. Didn't mention much on the Shah himself because I was trying to keep it relatively short, and just assumed stuff on him was probably more familiar, and anyone wanting to know more about him has his name so... wikipedia or something. I guess I should have, but like I mentioned in the beginning, it's just supposed to be a short summary. Further readings are necessary for any real understanding. It's just that a lot of Americans in particular (I live in the US) seem to actually believe Iran hates the US purely because of its freedoms. Outside of college towns anyways.
On to JudicatorHammurabi:
If the US fucking left Iran alone when the republic with Mossadeq was established, I think things would be A LOT better. The only reason a crazy nutjob like Khomeini got the support he did was the Iranian people were fed up with the Shah's dictatorship combined with selling out to foreign powers (in particular, the US).
Unfortunately, Khomeini's extremism was also influential among some of the Iraqi Shi'a, who apparently went from secular Iraqis to Ayatollah-worshipping Sharia lovers. It's entirely doubtful there would have been a war if not for Khomeini, so there's really so many great things that would have happened for the Iranian people, and outside of Iran, had the CIA not overthrown the democracy in Iran. Simple as that.
I didn't say things wouldn't be better or anything, was trying to not make a point of it either way.
Okay for one, the Soviet Union aided Iraq more than anyone else. I think this deserves its own paragraph because of how stupidly ignorant that sentence was. Almost all the weapons Iraq got were from USSR (with some from France, and chem. weapons from US, which also went to Iran).
Woops didn't mean to type Iraq, seeing as how the Soviet Union had a massive arms trade with them. Fixed to Iran, since the Soviets didn't really provide much tangible aid to Iran.
Also, in the Iran-Iraq War, the Iranians were supported a lot more heavily lol. F-14s, helicopters, Paladins and Pattons, napalm and chemical weapons leftover from Vietnam, etc. and money mean a lot more than a pat on the back and some leftover chemical weapons from Vietnam. The US's role in the war was to cause the war to last as long as possible so as to hurt both countries as much as possible. If you don't see this, then I don't know what to tell you other than you're quite lacking on the topic. If you want to bring up the conspiracy theory that the US supported Iraq a lot and didn't support Iran at all, then the Americans would have been giving them the F-15s, Patton tanks, missiles, and other weapons. When it became obvious towards the later years that Iraq had secured the advantage and the Iranian military had become well.... military vehicles and arms were very lacking, the US came in through the UN and forced a status-quo cease fire, so no one would gain anything from the war.
As stated previously, the Iranians used tons of chemical weapons as well, especially on civilian areas. Also, your statement is wrong. If chemical weapons are WMDs, then Vietnam is the most hurt by WMDs. After them would be the Iranian military, and after them would be Iraqi civilians and military. The only reason why everything is tacked on Iraq was guess who was attacked just a couple years afterwards lol? There's this thing called propaganda and demonizing your enemy. That's what happened. It's ironic, because during the 80s, US media was saying the exact opposite.
The aid to Iran was mostly from the days of the Shah though, when the gov was under US support. I mentioned how some arms were provided to Iran during Iran-Contra later on, anything else as far as I know is just speculation, however probable.
Also, Iraq didn't "spot a weakness" or w/e (lolwut), and had no intention of any attack against Iran preceding the Islamic Revolution. Following the revolution, Khomeini made assassination attempts on Iraqi politicians, moved soldiers across the border as provocations, was mobilizing the military for war (when the Iraqis weren't), was inciting the part of the Shi'a population of Iraq who had been radicalized during his time there to attack the Iraqi govt. and society, and declared jihad against Iraq and the Iraqi government. He declared jihad. For Islamic extremist nutjobs, jihad means war. The Iranians very well already committed acts of war and declared war (albeit religiously and not politically), so the greatest accusation you can throw on the Iraqis is that they made a pre-emptive strike. Either way, your claim that the Iraqis had this long-term conspiracy to invade Iran and "found a weakness" is nothing but conspiracy theory. Not even American nationalists say things that ridiculous lol.
I didn't say there was some long-standing Iraqi conspiracy to start the war. Numerous sources have stated that Hussein was eyeing the oil rich regions of Iran, and considered the weakened state of the Iranian military as more reason to attack then if ever. As it is, the assassination attempt on Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz is alleged, and the statement of the UN Secretary General in 1991 was that Iraq caused the war. I always wasn't aware Khomeini jihad against Iraq in specific, as opposed to the entire Gulf region in general. Do you have a source for that?
Additionally, it's not like the Iranian monarchy was some good happy one before the first overthrow. It was still pretty bad. That's kind of why it was overthrown the first time in the first place. rofl.
Which monarchy are you talking about? I never said any administration or another was a happy good time. I was trying to not comment much any such things beyond what was demonstrated, i.e. a certain administration being more open/democratic than others or leaning towards an autocratic nature as time passed, etc. And yea, that's why the Shah was overthrown. Because of his increasingly autocratic nature, as one can see if they look more into him.
The other stuff I already know about and were generally correct as far as I can see. Basically, your post was what even Americans are taught, most of it correct, but with some incorrect slants considering just how bad the Shah was and including demonization of Iraq (which included making out Iran as innocent, never starting war in its history, etc. etc. (despite how much shit is tacked on Iran today) which sticks since the Gulf War, and also includes Iranian innocence and holiness until the past several years. That said, in the Gulf War, it was the opposite, with Iran being demonized pretty badly. lol. I like how the propaganda switched instantly, and no one bothered questioning why and how. XD
I even said the Shah started becoming increasingly autocratic since the 1953 coup. Either way, my point in mentioning the Iran-Iraq war was not how bad either side was, but primarily the role of the US in supplying Iraq and Iran, and the damage caused from that. I said in the beginning that this was primarily a short explanation of some of the reasons Iran has a negative view of the US. Thus who started the war doesn't matter much if it doesn't directly involve the US.
On November 02 2011 11:09 ghrur wrote:
I disagree with your representation of Mosaddegh. You stated nothing wrong, but you left out the fact that near the end, he was becoming increasingly autocratic himself by consistently asking for Parliament to renew his "emergency powers."
Hmm didn't know that.
|
On November 02 2011 11:58 Probulous wrote:
Wow, you really got worked up...
I am sure your points are valid but can you please rephrase some of what you wrote. It is hard to understand what you are saying. Your main points seem to be that the Shah was aweful and that the US was playing both Iran and Iraq against each other. Is that correct?
The Shah was rather awful yes, and the US was most likely playing both sides, though we can't say for certain since many relevant documents are still classified as far as I know. But yes, it is very highly probable and makes sense, since Iraq wasn't a true client state of the US as JudicatorHammurabi said - they received weapons and help yes, but not in the way or for the purpose that a client state would. That and the fact they were a huge client state of the Soviet Union.
|
It's a shame I don't keep the millions of things I've read online and offline (along with many first-hand accounts and knowledge), since you know how people can be going on your comp. and looking through the files. However I did find a few things which will be posted later. In April 1980, Iran is saying it's going to conquer Iraq. lol. As I said, Iran was provoking and preparing for war since the rise of Khomeini. This "Iraq saw a weakness" argument is just conspiracy theory. The Iraqis had no conspiracy to invade Iran until it was obvious that through acts of terrorism against Iraq, the declaration of the overthrow of the government and the conquest of the country, and Iran was mobilizing for war, that Iran was going to war. The only "weakness" conspiracy that would make sense is that the Iraqis prepared and attacked while the Iranians were still slowly preparing before they were attacked. There was interest in Khuzestan, but this was nothing more than a secondary interest if Iraq and Iran were to go to war, kind of like similar things in WW1 where countries hoped to secure strategic resource zones once war broke out.
I'm certain there were more assassination attempts, but Aziz was the big news because he was Christian. I know about Jasim, as well, who was another one of the top politicians of the country. I know also that there were bombings, one of the most famous occasions being some sort of funeral procession for people who were just killed in a bombing tied to the Iranians. That shit's deep. First you bomb them, then you bomb them when they're dead.
In any case, here's something I found. It's important to note that Khomeini's problem with the Iraqi government was that they deported him (for teaching extremely violent Islamic extremism; he was also kicked out of Iran, Turkey, and I think somewhere else for doing the same) and that Iraq was a secular republic, the direct opposite of the Iranian theocracy.
"EXPORTING THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION
Iran's threats became more explicit when Khomeini multiplied his declarations urging the Iranian Revolution to be "exported". This idea was very clearly stressed in the speech drafted by Khomeini on March 31, 1980 and read for him by his son, in which the Ayatollah stated: "We are doing everything possible to export our revolution to other countries in the world". This declaration, in addition to the University bombing and the declarations of different Iranian leaders (notably the above-cited interview with Bani Sadr in the weekly "An-Nahar "), caused Baghdad to compose two letters of protest against the provocative acts of Teheran (11). These letters were sent April 2nd by the Iraqi Foreign Affairs Minister Saadoun Hammadi to Fidel Castro, in his capacity as President of the 6th Conference of Nonaligned Countries, and to Kurt Waldheim, Secretary General of the United Nations. In reply, on April 8, 1980, the Iranian Foreign Affairs Minister pretended that Aden and Baghdad composed two territories belonging to Persian sovereignty. The same day, Khomeini declared that in the case in which Iraq would continue to demand the evacuation of the three Arab Islands, Iran would lay claim on Baghdad. He also addressed an appeal to sedition to the Iraqi people and army. On April 9, 1980, Ghotbzadeh exclaimed that the Iranian government meant to conquer Iraq.
APPEALS FOR AN ISLAMIC REVOLUTION" IN IRAQ
On April 19, 1980, the Iranian newspaper "Joumhouri Islami" published an appeal of Khomeini: "The Iraqi people must not fall into the hands of its aggressors. Its duty as well as that of the army is to overthrow the Ba'ath, that non-Islamic party".
April 18, 1980, at a meeting with the National Reserve Committee, Khomeini declared : "The Iraqi government is not a real one, it doesn't even have a parliament ; it is a military clique which really holds power and does whatever it pleases. There are neither ties nor communication between the power and the people... Saddam Hussein boasts of his Arabness... It is necessary that all Muslim nations know the real meaning of this notion. 'We are Arabs' is equivalent to saying 'We are not Muslims'... At a certain moment in their history the Arabs stood up against Islam. They want to revive the period of the Umayyads, or that of Jahiliyah, during which force and power were on the side of the Arabs..."
On April 23, 1980, Ghotbzadeh announced in a broadcast message that the duty of the Iranian people was to give its aid to the people of Iraq who were subjected to the repressive measures of a “criminal " regime. He also revealed that only the downfall of Saddam Hussein's regime would satisfy him.
With regard to the Iranian Chief of Staff, he claimed that his army was capable of occupying Iraq and that the population would welcome it with open arms. In addition, on April 23, 1980, Mullah Mohammed Chirazi made the following announcement:
We invite the whole nation to do its duty, that is, to resist by all possible means to and until the fall of the Ba'ath gang:
- Militate within the Islamic factions which offer military training!
- Print and diffuse tracts, books! Intervene in the radio and television and in the newspapers! Cover the walls with slogans!
- Arm the Iraqi people so as to help them resist against tyranny!
Boycott everything that affects the Ba'ath in any way whatsoever!"
"
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-18-07/discussion.cgi.118.html
Note how he damns the Iraqis for not being Islamofascists when he says "We are Arabs" means "We are not Muslims." Yes, he was that hardcore. As stated previously, his problem with Iraq and the Iraqi government was secular republicanism. He wanted it to be replaced by an Islamic theocracy, plain and simple. Btw, the people he is calling to weren't Iraqis, but more precisely his fanatical followers in the south. As you know, Khomeini taught his nutjob beliefs in Iraq for quite some time, and had a strong following of people deluded by his teachings. Many Shi'a supported him and his teachings. This was no small threat facing Iraq. It was both a large scale foreign and domestic one.
In a book I read in the past called No god but God, the (Iranian) writer wrote something like: In 1979, the Ayatollah Khomeini relied on a militant interpretation of the jihad to fuel his destructive war with Iraq.
Also this:
http://books.google.com/books?id=GFBEiqNNnIYC&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=khomeini jihad against iraq&source=bl&ots=fpaxInob7J&sig=2Jkwh6Okm-lSJqb6Te-eCmLErX8&hl=en&ei=FMWwTqfXA5GNigKz46kO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=khomeini jihad against iraq&f=false
Note the part starting with "Khomeini held a grudge "... He was calling for jihad, and training and supporting Shi'a fanatics in Iraq to commit terrorist acts... this was before the war even started, one of the many acts of war Iran committed against Iraq, and people say Iraq just declared war for no reason (well, since '91 at least; in the 80s, all the blame was laid on Iran lol)?
Also, do note that the exportation of the Islamic Revolution was just a continuation of that very jihad. In effect, the war was just continuation of his jihad that started with overthrowing the Shah.
LOL at this:
"Khomeini had no interest in a negotiated peace. Instead, he seeks to overthrow the secular government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and replace it with a puppet regime modeled after his own fanatical Islamic one. Iraq had called repeatedly for a ceasefire, but Khomeini says the war will end only when the "heretic" Saddam is overthrown and Iraq agrees to pay 100, 000 million pounds in "war reparations." "This is not a war for territory," the Ayatollah thunders. "It is a war between Islam and blasphemy." Saddam Hussein, in turn, sneers at Khomeini as a "Shah in a turban.""
http://www.themodernreligion.com/ugly/unholy.html
Yes, blasphemy is when you aren't an Islamic extremist that worships Sharia, and prefer a secular and progressive society and politics and legal system.
Really people talk about bin Laden like this huge evil devil, and while they're generally correct, Khomeini was a lot worse and far more influential.
|
Iraq wasn't a client state of the Soviet Union.
Iraq's politics and foreign policy was not dominated by the Soviet Union nor even influenced too much (Iraq had plenty of negotiations with both the USSR and its allies and the USA and its allies), and on top of that, Iraq was defiantly anti-Communist. They had friendly political and trade relations with USSR, sure, but Soviet influence wasn't dominating Iraq. Think USA and China, rather than USA and Canada or Mubarak Egypt (the former being independent, while the latter cases being heavily under US suzerainty / influence).
Poland during the communist-era would have been a Soviet client state, for example.
|
On November 02 2011 13:38 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:+ Show Spoiler +It's a shame I don't keep the millions of things I've read online and offline (along with many first-hand accounts and knowledge), since you know how people can be going on your comp. and looking through the files. However I did find a few things which will be posted later. In April 1980, Iran is saying it's going to conquer Iraq. lol. As I said, Iran was provoking and preparing for war since the rise of Khomeini. This "Iraq saw a weakness" argument is just conspiracy theory. The Iraqis had no conspiracy to invade Iran until it was obvious that through acts of terrorism against Iraq, the declaration of the overthrow of the government and the conquest of the country, and Iran was mobilizing for war, that Iran was going to war. The only "weakness" conspiracy that would make sense is that the Iraqis prepared and attacked while the Iranians were still slowly preparing before they were attacked. There was interest in Khuzestan, but this was nothing more than a secondary interest if Iraq and Iran were to go to war, kind of like similar things in WW1 where countries hoped to secure strategic resource zones once war broke out. I'm certain there were more assassination attempts, but Aziz was the big news because he was Christian. I know about Jasim, as well, who was another one of the top politicians of the country. I know also that there were bombings, one of the most famous occasions being some sort of funeral procession for people who were just killed in a bombing tied to the Iranians. That shit's deep. First you bomb them, then you bomb them when they're dead. In any case, here's something I found. It's important to note that Khomeini's problem with the Iraqi government was that they deported him (for teaching extremely violent Islamic extremism; he was also kicked out of Iran, Turkey, and I think somewhere else for doing the same) and that Iraq was a secular republic, the direct opposite of the Iranian theocracy. "EXPORTING THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION Iran's threats became more explicit when Khomeini multiplied his declarations urging the Iranian Revolution to be "exported". This idea was very clearly stressed in the speech drafted by Khomeini on March 31, 1980 and read for him by his son, in which the Ayatollah stated: "We are doing everything possible to export our revolution to other countries in the world". This declaration, in addition to the University bombing and the declarations of different Iranian leaders (notably the above-cited interview with Bani Sadr in the weekly "An-Nahar "), caused Baghdad to compose two letters of protest against the provocative acts of Teheran (11). These letters were sent April 2nd by the Iraqi Foreign Affairs Minister Saadoun Hammadi to Fidel Castro, in his capacity as President of the 6th Conference of Nonaligned Countries, and to Kurt Waldheim, Secretary General of the United Nations. In reply, on April 8, 1980, the Iranian Foreign Affairs Minister pretended that Aden and Baghdad composed two territories belonging to Persian sovereignty. The same day, Khomeini declared that in the case in which Iraq would continue to demand the evacuation of the three Arab Islands, Iran would lay claim on Baghdad. He also addressed an appeal to sedition to the Iraqi people and army. On April 9, 1980, Ghotbzadeh exclaimed that the Iranian government meant to conquer Iraq. APPEALS FOR AN ISLAMIC REVOLUTION" IN IRAQ On April 19, 1980, the Iranian newspaper "Joumhouri Islami" published an appeal of Khomeini: "The Iraqi people must not fall into the hands of its aggressors. Its duty as well as that of the army is to overthrow the Ba'ath, that non-Islamic party". April 18, 1980, at a meeting with the National Reserve Committee, Khomeini declared : "The Iraqi government is not a real one, it doesn't even have a parliament ; it is a military clique which really holds power and does whatever it pleases. There are neither ties nor communication between the power and the people... Saddam Hussein boasts of his Arabness... It is necessary that all Muslim nations know the real meaning of this notion. 'We are Arabs' is equivalent to saying 'We are not Muslims'... At a certain moment in their history the Arabs stood up against Islam. They want to revive the period of the Umayyads, or that of Jahiliyah, during which force and power were on the side of the Arabs..." On April 23, 1980, Ghotbzadeh announced in a broadcast message that the duty of the Iranian people was to give its aid to the people of Iraq who were subjected to the repressive measures of a “criminal " regime. He also revealed that only the downfall of Saddam Hussein's regime would satisfy him. With regard to the Iranian Chief of Staff, he claimed that his army was capable of occupying Iraq and that the population would welcome it with open arms. In addition, on April 23, 1980, Mullah Mohammed Chirazi made the following announcement: We invite the whole nation to do its duty, that is, to resist by all possible means to and until the fall of the Ba'ath gang: - Militate within the Islamic factions which offer military training! - Print and diffuse tracts, books! Intervene in the radio and television and in the newspapers! Cover the walls with slogans! - Arm the Iraqi people so as to help them resist against tyranny! Boycott everything that affects the Ba'ath in any way whatsoever!" " http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-18-07/discussion.cgi.118.htmlNote how he damns the Iraqis for not being Islamofascists when he says "We are Arabs" means "We are not Muslims." Yes, he was that hardcore. As stated previously, his problem with Iraq and the Iraqi government was secular republicanism. He wanted it to be replaced by an Islamic theocracy, plain and simple. Btw, the people he is calling to weren't Iraqis, but more precisely his fanatical followers in the south. As you know, Khomeini taught his nutjob beliefs in Iraq for quite some time, and had a strong following of people deluded by his teachings. Many Shi'a supported him and his teachings. This was no small threat facing Iraq. It was both a large scale foreign and domestic one. In a book I read in the past called No god but God, the (Iranian) writer wrote something like: In 1979, the Ayatollah Khomeini relied on a militant interpretation of the jihad to fuel his destructive war with Iraq. Also this: http://books.google.com/books?id=GFBEiqNNnIYC&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=khomeini jihad against iraq&source=bl&ots=fpaxInob7J&sig=2Jkwh6Okm-lSJqb6Te-eCmLErX8&hl=en&ei=FMWwTqfXA5GNigKz46kO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=khomeini jihad against iraq&f=false Note the part starting with "Khomeini held a grudge "... He was calling for jihad, and training and supporting Shi'a fanatics in Iraq to commit terrorist acts... this was before the war even started, one of the many acts of war Iran committed against Iraq, and people say Iraq just declared war for no reason (well, since '91 at least; in the 80s, all the blame was laid on Iran lol)? Also, do note that the exportation of the Islamic Revolution was just a continuation of that very jihad. In effect, the war was just continuation of his jihad that started with overthrowing the Shah. LOL at this: "Khomeini had no interest in a negotiated peace. Instead, he seeks to overthrow the secular government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and replace it with a puppet regime modeled after his own fanatical Islamic one. Iraq had called repeatedly for a ceasefire, but Khomeini says the war will end only when the "heretic" Saddam is overthrown and Iraq agrees to pay 100, 000 million pounds in "war reparations." "This is not a war for territory," the Ayatollah thunders. "It is a war between Islam and blasphemy." Saddam Hussein, in turn, sneers at Khomeini as a "Shah in a turban."" http://www.themodernreligion.com/ugly/unholy.htmlYes, blasphemy is when you aren't an Islamic extremist that worships Sharia, and prefer a secular and progressive society and politics and legal system. Really people talk about bin Laden like this huge evil devil, and while they're generally correct, Khomeini was a lot worse and far more influential.
Good points, though in the end Iraq attacked, be it pre-emptive or not, and we have had rhetoric on that level occurring all the time. Honestly in the last 10 years we'd have more than enough reason to go to war with Iran if we were operating along those lines. So Iraq had good reasons yes, but since they attacked first and we've not got access to classified first or second-hand accounts, it's probably better that I leave any commenting on the reasons for the war out of my OP and just say that there were antagonizing forces from Iran as well.
|
Nah, just leave it if you wish. I don't care. I'm just very nitpicky. >: )
It's funny though, to bring up an example from the same region, because Israel was arguably in less of a tough scenario and yet was the aggressor in the 1967 war. Yet most claims I've seen (EDIT: idk why I said "made" since I don't make such claims lol) say that Israel did not start the war and has no responsibility, despite having made pre-emptive attack O_o. This is when such I have to lol at how politics and propaganda works.
Country is friendly to US: Propaganda says they didn't formally declare war first, even though they did and they don't even deny having been the 'starter' of the war (instead, they give this and that justification).
Country is an enemy of US: Propaganda says they were the starter of war for absolutely no reason despite they gave this and that justification, which are also more reasonable than the friendly case.
Things like that make me lol and make me want to pull my hair out at the same time. xD
|
On November 02 2011 14:15 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
Nah, just leave it if you wish. I don't care. I'm just very nitpicky. >: )
It's funny though, to bring up an example from the same region, because Israel was arguably in less of a tough scenario and yet was the aggressor in the 1967 war. Yet most claims I've made say that Israel did not start the war and has no responsibility, despite having made pre-emptive attack O_o. This is when such I have to lol at how politics and propaganda works.
Country is friendly to US: Propaganda says they didn't formally declare war first, even though they did and they don't even deny having been the 'starter' of the war (instead, they give this and that justification).
Country is an enemy of US: Propaganda says they were the starter of war for absolutely no reason despite they gave this and that justification, which are also more reasonable than the friendly case.
Things like that make me lol and make me want to pull my hair out at the same time. xD
It's just a matter of how much publicly (and easily) available information is leaked out by the US gov. The amount of implicit censoring in American media is quite amazing.
|
Yup.
The old history is written by the winners thing. Except in this case it is the most powerful. Anyway, thanks for the posts guys. Really informative 
|
Great read. I just had this one objection in the quote below.
On November 02 2011 12:24 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
Like to the degree of turning one of the highest standards of living in the Mideast (except maybe Turkey?) turned into worse than really poor countries/peoples it used to give humanitarian aid to (Egypt, Palestine, for example)
Egypt did not and does not receive humanitarian aid for US or and other country per se. The aid Egypt receives is part of the peace treaty with Israel and most of it is military aid anyway.
|
I really like the attempt to address the subject by the OP. Teamliquid is a gaming site. That being said, this game is quite intellectual. That doesn't mean everyone here has been presented all the facts to decide what's real, and what's percieved/public opinion. The U.S. might be at war with Iran any day now. Most people wouldn't know why, or see it as the run-on political sentence as I do.
This country(Iran) for better or worse has been beseiged by hostile public opinion, since Moss nationalized the oil. The Savak was no walk in the park, for the people, as a result of one leaders decision. It's been a long time since anyone could fairly argue Iran was/is a global threat, other than it's stubborn-spartanish refusal to completly fold to foreign influence. With so much pressure from the outside Iran is unfortunately is read to fight itself, as much as it's ready to fight Isreal, or NATO.
The moment you point out a inconvienient fact, your conspiracy, your tinfoil, your a commie nutjob(in america), or a capatalist pig(elsewhere). I can see your post held back the ugliest details in a attempt to maintain a nuetral overview. I'm not complaining at all. I'm just pointing out that there is a lot of info to break down from both perspectives. Next time, maybe a spoilered Pro + Con link section. With contradictory viewpoints. The level of bias on some topics such as Iran or Palestine can be overwhelming at times. I've spent 10 years pursing what was never mentioned in my public education here in the States. I can only compare the media's role as trying to make a 1 hour movie to fully express a novel the size of Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time(all of them) series. So much that remains to be told.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
