THE IRAQ-IRAN CONFLICT
TO Al-Moharer Readers,
We have received many letters inquiring about the Iraq-Iran Conflict and the reason behind the role of Iran in occupying Iraq alongside with the United States and its allies.
The roots of the hostility of Iran against Iraq and the Arab Nation go back for many centuries ago. We find it imperative to answer the readers by publishing THE IRAQ-Iran Conflict which was published in 1981 by Institute of Studies and Research”. Reading this book will shed light on the present role of Iran in the destruction of Iraq and its support of the sectarian gangs. Those who believe that Iran is the enemy of the United States are wrong because facts speak against this belief, Iran of the Mullahs is very hostile to Iraq and the Arab people equally like the Iran of the Shah and the United States of the neoconservatives.
Best Regards
Ibrahim Ebeid,Al-Moharer.net
INTRODUCTION
The Arab-Iranian conflict is as old as the history of this region of the world. The historian will not fail to call attention to the fact that the present-day war between Iraq and Iran has broken out between two peoples belonging to dissimilar civilizations, and whose origins date back to the ancient times of Arabia and Persia (1). As history amply demonstrates, the numerous divergences between these two countries are obvious from a purely geographical point of view as well as from the ethnic and cultural traits of their peoples.
The Iranian language is considered as one of the ancient Indo-European languages (2) along with Greek, German and Armenian, among others. The Arabic tongue belongs to the Semitic language group, in the same way as the Arabs would be included in the Semitic ethnic ensemble. Despite their geographical proximity, the differences between Iraq and Persia have always been greater than their similarities. Relations between the two countries were frankly hostile until the birth of Islam and the Arab conquest of Persia. Islam, carrying a novel message, brought about considerable changes in Persia and in its relations with the neighboring countries.
The Arabs settled in Mesopotamia before recorded history. There, they edified a brilliant civilization and marked this region with their cultural imprint. The Arabs left the Arabian Peninsula by successive waves in order to attain the Mediterranean Sea, where they became known under the name of Phoenicians, as well as reaching the fertile lands of Iraq. Among them, there were the Acadians, the Assyrians, the Chaldeans and before them, perhaps, the Sumerians, whose origins still pose the historian problems. In any case, the experts agree on the fact that the Sumerians always inhabited Iraq, where they have left substantial traces. Some writers even claim that the men living in Mesopotamia were the first to use cuneiform writing (3).
The Arabs of contemporary Iraq thus inherited an illustrious civilization having benefited from all those that were to flourish on Mesopotamian land over the centuries: Assyria, Babylonia, etc. Hence, Iraq must be considered as one of the richest regions of the world with respect to both its history and culture. The mountains of Zagros constitute a natural barrier to the east of this country. A new life and a new people are to be found on the other side of those mountains, that is, a people belonging to a civilization which differs from that of the Arabs: the Persians.
Persia, too, had known a specific cultural development. It had its own sciences, its own customs and its own religion, namely, Zoroastrianism. The historian J.M. Roberts writes that the central idea in the Persian religions was the affirmation of the divine nature of royalty. Moreover, "the doctrines in which they (the Persians) believed stressed the existence of a creature, Ahura
Mazda, whose viceroy on earth was the king." (4). He notes that their science, customs and religion were foreign to those of the Arabs.
With respect to military strategy, the Arabs and the Persians also had varying conceptions, as clearly shown by the battle of Qadisiyah. It is indeed at this site that the decisive battle took place, allowing the Arab Muslims led by Sa'ad bin Abi Waqqas under the Omar bin Al-Khattab Caliphate to defeat the Persians headed by Rustom (4). This victory occurred on the last day of May or the first day of April 637 A.D. (5). The Arabs were surprised during the battle by the Persian army's use of elephants. Protected within small, wooden fortresses mounted on the backs of the elephants, the Persian archers succeeded in inflicting serious losses upon the Arab infantry and cavalry which were momentarily stunned by a war technique unknown to them. After the bitter defeat at Qadisiyah, having ended with the death of Rustom and the routing of the Sasanid army, the way was cleared for the Muslim conquests in Persia, India and other Asian countries.
The Arab conquest of Persia meant that this country would become part of the region governed by the Arabs, and thus marked the beginning of a history common to both peoples. The situation did not last long. Persia took advantage of the decline of the Abbasids (and thus, of Arab leadership) as well as the overthrow of the Caliphate by other Muslim peoples, namely, the Turks, in order to free itself from Arab control and to assert its independence. As for the Arabs, they found themselves under Turkish rule for a long period that only ended with the First World War. In 1501, Persia retrieved its independence under Ismail, the founder of the Safawid dynasty (6). Historian Philippe Hitti considers the Safawid Kingdom as "one of the greatest and most glorious Persian Muslim states" (7).
The conflict was to again break out between Persia and Iraq (henceforth occupied by the Turks) in a way almost analogous to the pre-Islamic period. International agreements concluded between Persia and Iraq and to which specialists in international law refer in the debate over today's conflict, were in fact signed between Persia and the Ottoman Empire. The most significant treaties were those of Ard Roum (Erzeroum) in 1847 and the Constantinople Protocol of 1913. We have analyzed these conventions in the context of the developments that this book treats with regard to Arabistan and Shatt-al-Arab. To bring to light the true facts opposing Iraq and Iran today, the history of the relations between these two countries must be retraced and closely examined. It is for this reason that we have axed our discussion upon three main themes. First of all, we have recalled the direct causes of the war which broke out in September 1980 (Chapter 1). The historical roots of the Iraq-Iran conflict are then exposed through the geographical and historical development of the region from its origins to the present day (Chapters 2 and 3). The period subsequent to the Turkish occupation has been considered in detail because events which took place then were later to have important consequences (Chapters 4 and 5). The sixth and seventh chapters describe the turns taken by the war.
Even though this book is to be published at a moment when the war is still going on, we hope to have attained our goal of clarifying some of the ill-known aspects of the present conflict. It is also our hope that an objective presentation and analysis of its causes, both ancient and modern, will favor a better understanding of the realities behind this ferocious clash, whose theater is one of the most vulnerable and vital regions in the world.
Note
(1) In 1935, under the reign of Reza Khan, the name of Persia was changed to Iran.
(2) Cf. Course on French Linguistics of Professor Georges Matore at the University of Paris IV - Sorbonne.
(3) Matore G. Ibid.: "The Sumerians invented writing around 3500 B.C.'
(4) J.M. Roberts, The Hutchinson History of the World. Hutchinson Publishing Group Ltd. London, 1976, p. 356.
(5) Rustom was the head of King Chosroe's Persian army.
(65) Philippe Hitti, History of the Arabs, Macmillan Student Editions. 10th ed. London, 1974, p, 155
(6) J.M. Roberts, /bid. p. 430.
(7) J.M. Roberts, /bid. p. 430.
(8) Philippe K. Hitti, History of the Arabs.5th edition, 1974, p. 797 (Arabic).
CHAPTER 1
TOWARDS WAR
THE UNIVERSITY BOMBING
Tuesday, April 1st, 1980, thousands of students from all over the Arab world and Asia were assembled at Al-Mustansiriyah University (1) in Baghdad. They were awaiting the arrival of Tareq Aziz, Deputy Premier of Iraq and member of the Revolution Command Council (R.C.C.), who had been scheduled to inaugurate the International Economic Conference organized by the National Union of Iraqi students in collaboration with the Asiatic Student Committee. In the crowd, a young man was waiting - he was Iranian.
When Tareq Aziz made his entrance, greeted by peals of applause, the young Iranian threw a bomb in his direction. Seeing the danger, the President of the Student Union, Mohammed Dabdab, hurled himself toward Tareq Aziz, shouting: "Look out! There's a bomb!" Immediately the Deputy Premier flung himself to the ground, just missing the full force of the explosion. In the midst of the bellowing crowd the student leaders rushed towards Tareq Aziz to find him only very lightly injured.
As the ambulances were taking away the numerous wounded and dead, the Deputy Premier took control of the situation and rapidly met with the student organizers of the conference. Together they took the decision to carry on the inaugural ceremony as planned. However, due to his state which required hospitalization, Tareq Aziz was unable to deliver the speech he had prepared. A second bomb was later discovered in the same area and defused in time. If it had exploded, this bomb would have slaughtered many students.
In the meantime, the President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, was visiting the borderline province of Suwayra from which the Iranian summits can be seen. This visit was one of those that the President regularly paid throughout the country. Rarely a day would pass without his touring a city, a neighborhood, a school, a university or an industry, generally ending up each trip with a visit to an Iraqi home.
At the time of the bombing at the University, the Iraqi president was addressing the crowd that had gathered to welcome him to Suwayra. especially intending his message for the Iranian neighbors, he strongly affirmed: “The Iraqi people do not wish to break off relations with any state unless some state so desires and believes it could endanger the sovereignty of our country or offend the honor and will of our nation... We proclaim to any state wanting to halt relations with Iraq and the Arab Nation that we are determined to combat its interference. .. We are not prepared to give way before our duty and the defense of our principles... "
The opening of the Student Conference at Al-Mustansiriyah went on without any further incident; the Deputy Premier's speech was read to the audience and won the success expected. News of the bombing was broadcast on the radio, and when the Iraqi president arrived in Baghdad that evening from Suwayra, he went directly to the hospital to visit those injured.
THE OATH OF PRESIDENT SADDAM HUSSEIN
The next day, April 2nd, President Saddam Hussein went to the place where the bomb had exploded. Pain and sadness could be read on his face. Beginning to speak in the midst of a throng of students, he firmly summoned Iran not to intrude in the internal affairs of Iraq or the neighboring Arab countries. “Yesterday ", he said, " a miserable agent caused the very dear blood of young AI-Mustansiriyah students to be shed... “The President then vowed three times that this criminal act would not remain unpunished.
The Iraqi people have become an unyielding mountain that they (the Iranians) are not capable of attaining with their bombs or by any other means. Fourteen-hundred years ago the Arabs took it upon themselves to accomplish a divine mission on this holy ground. It is still they who are the most apt to fulfill such a calling for the honor of the Arabs and in the interest of all humanity... Our people are ready to fight to defend their honor and sovereignty, as well as to maintain peace among the Arab nation... We shall pursue this vocation, in the service of the Arabs...
After the speech, the President's threefold oath was considerably commented by the crowd. Nevertheless, people's minds were soon occupied by the preparations for (the celebration of the 33rd anniversary of the Ba'ath Party. Since the ninth summit held in Baghdad in November 1978 at the close of which the Camp David politics were condemned, and since the eight-principle national proclamation of the Head of State on February 8, 1980 (2) in which Iraq committed itself not to resort to force in its relations with the neighboring countries, except for cases of its own legitimate self-defense or that of the other Arab countries, Iraq has taken on a determining political role in the Middle East region. Indeed, this phenomenon has been commented upon by the French newspaper "Le Monde":
Baghdad, which just a few years ago had the appearance of a modest, old-fashioned provincial capital, has become the rallying place of a steadily increasing number of presidents of small, unaligned countries and leaders of national liberation movements of Africa, Asia and Latin America.
The oil revenues of Iraq have attained the record figure of 150 billion French Francs, allowing the regime not only to improve the standard of living of the population, but also to play a political role in the Arab region and in the Third World...
Baghdad is getting ready to welcome in 1982 the Movement of Nonaligned Countries, the exercising president of which will be Saddam Hussein, succeeding Fidel Castro. (3)
THE PREPARATION FOR THE CRIME
An investigation brought to light the fact that the Iranian student who was responsible for the bombing at the University, was a member of the Daawat Al-Islam Organization whose headquarters are in Qom in Iran. Daawat Al-Islam (the "Call of Islam") is a small faction of religious inspiration adhering to the ideas of Khomeini (4). This movement was organized in Iraq after the Revolution of 1958. It was then manipulated by the Shah in order to foment disorder in the surrounding countries. Even before the fall of the Shah, the Iraqi authorities had discovered ammunition dumps containing immense quantities of arms and propaganda (tracts, brochures, etc...). The Iranian Revolution aided in the revival of Daawat Al-Islam, which reorganized its cells and proceeded to obtain financial and military assistance from Teheran. Thereafter, the authorities noticed a multiplication of the actions of this movement whose ties with Iran were confirmed after the University bombing.
Iraq's moderation following that attack gave way to more severity when another bomb was thrown from the window of an Iranian school (5) April 5, 1980, during the funeral of the victims of the University attack. An investigation of the Al-Daawat Party led to the discovery of several depots in which great amounts of money and weapons (especially bombs and guns with silencers) were found. In the same hiding-places there were tracts, pamphlets and printed matter of all kinds attacking the Iraqi leaders as well as the Ba'ath Party. Hence, the authorities decided to investigate the Iranians residing in the country. All Iranians having secretly entered Iraq, in particular, the adherents to the Al-Daawat movement and those having been found guilty of activities against the security of the State were deported. Most of the persons in question were either shop owners or wealthy merchants.
On April 12, 1981, another attempt was made to assassinate a member of the Iraqi Government, this time Latif Nsaif Jassim, Minister of Culture and Information. The assailant was soon arrested and confessed his ties with the al-Daawat Party.
The Al-Mustansiriyah bomb was therefore part of a long series of incidents having begun long before April 1, I'JHO, the inevitable consequences of which increased the tension between Baghdad and Teheran to the point of rupture. Iran's President Bani Sadr himself openly recognized “that the state of tension between Baghdad and Teheran exists since the founding of the Islamic Republic..." (6) Furthermore, Dr. Saadoun Hammadi, Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs, had pointed out the gravity of the situation when he declared:
The Arab nation, and especially Iraq, is linked to Iran by very close ties coming from their common geographic location, from the unity of their religion and from their both belonging to one and the same Islamic civilization. .. However, Iran, since the return of Khomeini, has opted for fanaticism, and has again become as in the Shah's time a threat to the sovereignty and security of the neighboring Arab countries around the Gulf and Iraq in particular (7).
The positions taken by each capital confirm that Khomeini’s arrival at the top coincided with a multiplication of the incidents between Iraq and Iran. (8)
After the aggression at the University the crisis continued to deteriorate until September 4, 1980, the day Iran took the initiative to bombard several Iraqi cities and oil installations. This discreetly publicized attack by the Iranians fixed the real beginning of the war between these two countries. The University bombing is not an arbitrary reference point selected as the actual commencement of events; it was chosen from the latter chiefly because of the oath taken by the Iraqi President on that occasion. Saddam Hussein repeated this pledge in his press conference of November 11, 1980 in asserting: '' We set forth the truth of the situation to the Iranians and we took an oath that the bloodshed at Mustansiriyah would not be an act without repercussions ".
STORMY RELATIONS BETWEEN IRAQ AND IRAN
• The period when Khomeini was still in Iraq
When the Shah's regime tried to carry out reforms under the name of the White Revolution at the end of 1963, the Iranian Parliament met to ratify them. The amendments adopted partly undermined the privileges that the mullahs had acquired over the centuries. Imam Khomeini voiced their opposition by denouncing the reforms decided upon by the Parliament. The Shah reacted by deporting the Ayatollah, who took refuge in Iraq at the beginning of 1964. Baghdad took the necessary precautions to guarantee his security. However, in order to avoid any incidents with Teheran, Iraq put some restrictions upon the political activities that Khomeini would be able to exercise on Iraqi territory, and the Ayatollah promised to respect those conditions.
The Shah took offense at the welcome reserved the religious leader by Baghdad. On several occasions he requested that the latter be handed over. Expelling Khomeini from Iraq was one of the basic conditions he attempted to impose before undertaking an official visit to that country. The Iraqi authorities refused this kind of pressure and continued to guarantee the safety of Khomeini.
In January 1978, at the outbreak of incidents at Qom and Tabriz between the Iranian security forces and demonstrators from the opposition, the Ayatollah's followers obtained additional protection from Baghdad so as to eliminate any possibility of Khomeini being assassinated by the Shah's agents. The Iranian Revolution brought about a movement of sympathy in Iraq that can be seen by reading the press. The latter defended the struggle of the Iranian people whose demands — takeover of the power by the masses and deposition of the Shah — were in perfect agreement with the principles defended by Iraq, a democratic state intending to remain independent of all alignment with any foreign power whatsoever. In this respect, the Imperial regime represented exactly the opposite option for the Ba'ath leaders: according to them, the reinforcement of the American presence in Iran was aimed at stifling the liberation movement in the Arab world.
At the end of 1978, the events in Iran acted as a spearhead in strengthening the position and influence of Khomeini, who then became involved in activities which went well beyond the limits defined by the authorities and agreed to by him, besides violating Iraq's international obligations towards Iran. Baghdad was to give the Ayatollah a choice, that is, greater discretion or his departure from the country. Khomeini thus decided to leave Iraq and to settle in France at Neauphle-le-Chateau in the Parisian suburbs.
In the atmosphere of collective exaltation then reigning in Iran, the news of Khomeini’s departure from Iraq raised a general outcry, and all the more so as certain collaborators of the Ayatollah misrepresented the real circumstances. For example, it was said that Khomeini had been placed under house arrest by the Ba'athist authorities. The publication of this false information brought on mass demonstrations in front of the Iraqi Embassy in Teheran and its Consulate in Mohammarah (Khorramshahr).
• Khomeini’s return to Iran and aggravation of the crisis
After the return of Khomeini to Iran in February 1979, relations between Baghdad and Teheran became more embittered, despite the support affirmed by the Iraqi leaders towards the Iranian Revolution on several occasions and their desire to see the ties between the two countries renewed. Baghdad's demonstrations of good will, however, were incapable of disarming the hostility of the Iranian leaders. When the former President of Iraq, Ahmed Hassan Al-Bakr, addressed a telegram of congratulations to Khomeini on the occasion of the founding of the Iranian Republic, April 5, 1979, the Ayatollah had a response printed that largely exceeded the rules of courtesy existing between states. It represented “the incarnation of aggressivity itself... ““On two occasions Iraq invited Iranian Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan to make an official visit to Iraq in order to clear up their divergences and create the basis for bilateral cooperation. These offers were never answered ". (9) Such initiatives had the effect of spreading the anti-Iraqi tendencies of Khomeini and his partisans throughout the Iranian masses. Another instance was the appeal to overthrow the Iraqi regime as well as the attacks against the Arab Revolution broadcast by the Iranian media. This interminable campaign was soon transformed into more and more violent demonstrations outside the Embassy of Iraq, located on Mossadegh Avenue in Teheran. That Embassy also became the target of various aggressions and threats on the part of the demonstrators (such as arson and occupation of the premises) who returned each day before its walls to scan hateful slogans against Iraq, the Ba'ath and the Iraqi President, and entreating the people to revolt against the Iraqi regime. The walls of the Embassy were blackened by graffiti insulting the Ba'ath and the Iraqi Revolution. The Iraqi Ambassador himself became the object of a press campaign accusing him of spying, led chiefly by the newspaper "Joumhouri Islami ", organ of the Islamic Republican Party, stronghold of the Iranian Revolution. In spite of repeated requests for the Iranian authorities to intervene in order to put an end to these acts of aggression, they did not react. At the end of 1979 the Iraqi Consulate in Mohammarah was attacked four times (October 11th and 26th, November 1st and 7th), the mobs breaking both the doors and the windows of the building, wounding the guard and civil servants. On October 7, 1979, Iran demanded that Iraq close its Consulate in Mohammarah within three months. Nevertheless, on January 11, 1980, before the expiry date, the Iranians attacked the Consulate. They seized diplomatic mail and other consular documents, tore up the Iraqi flag and portraits of President Saddam Hussein, before expelling the diplomatic corps they had already insulted and beaten. Iraq reacted by closing the two Iranian Consulates of Basra and Karbala.
AGGRESSION AGAINST THE IRAQI CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS IN IRAN
The Iranian authorities refused to prolong the residence permit of the Iraqi teachers working at the Iraqi schools in Iran. Different methods were used against these institutions. The Revolutionary Guard besieged several schools, threatened the students, ripped up Iraqi flags and multiplied its acts of provocation so as to find a reason for closing them down. In his press conference of November 11, 1980, the Iraqi Head of State incriminated the behavior of the Iranian state employees posted in the Iraqi schools in Iran and accused them of assisting in the preparation of attacks against these institutions. On this subject, Saddam Hussein was to explain that “these schools teach Arabic to our compatriots in Iran in the same way that the Iranian schools do for their citizens residing in Iraq, in conformity with the agreement signed between the two countries ".
Subsequently, the Iranian authorities took their own decision to close all of these schools. The teachers were either deported or arrested for "concealing explosives", and only released after the Iraqi government protested energetically. Next, it was Iraq's turn to close the Iranian schools on its territory, because of subversive goings-on. Furthermore, the Iranian authorities arrested a considerable number of Iraqi citizens inhabiting the region of Arabistan.
These demonstrations took on a new dimension once the Iranian leaders proved to be tacitly in agreement with the acts of aggression committed by the Revolutionary Guard against the Iraqi Embassy, consulates, schools and personnel. The stands taken by those leaders revolved around several main themes:
- Attack against the Iraqi regime and appeal to the Iraqi people to revolt against it.
- Provocative behavior toward the Arab regimes in the Gulf area, in particular, Bahrain, threatened by annexation.
- Refusal by the Iranian leaders to honor their agreements concerning withdrawal from the three islands (the Greater Tumb, the Lesser Tumb and Abu Musa) occupied by the Shah in 1971.
- Finally, profound animosity against Arab nationalism.
The accentuation of the revolutionary process in Iran, shown notably in the elimination of the army's higher echelons and the founding of the Islamic Republic, brought about an aggravation of the conflicts between the various ethnic, political or confessional groups in that country.
Rather than concentrating their efforts on bringing about internal unity and maintaining pacific relations with the neighboring countries, the Iranian leaders tried to export their revolution beyond the borderline.
ATTACKS AGAINST ARAB NATIONALISM
Bani Sadr, at the time Minister of Finances and Economy, declared on December 23, 1979 to the Lebanese newspaper "An-Nahar”: "Arab nationalism presents the same features as Zionism. It is by no means in keeping with Islam". He explained in another interview that "Arab countries like Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Oman, Dubai, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia constituted, in the eyes of Iran, states that are not independent ", before adding "that his country did not at all plan to evacuate the Tumb Islands nor Abu Musa"(10). This assertion was in contradiction with promises made beforehand by the leaders of the Iranian Revolution to give back those territories conquered by the Shah and to guarantee to respect the rights of all minorities.
On the same token, while on tour in the Gulf countries in May 1980, the Iranian Foreign Affairs Minister, Sadegh Ghotbzadeh, attempted to convince his counterparts to support the principles of the Iranian Revolution in overcoming their Arab national feelings. Several Arab leaders advised Ghotbzadeh not to exasperate Arab sensitivity by constantly defying it, and informed him of their conviction that the movement for Arab unity was perfectly compatible with that of Islam.
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!
FALSE NEWS EMITTED BY IRAN: THE ASSASSINATION OF SADDAM HUSSEIN
During his trip through the Middle East, Sadegh Ghotbzadeh announced in Damascus that President Saddam Hussein had been assassinated during an alleged military coup. He also confirmed his government's support of the Iraqi opposition. Furthermore, the Iranian Foreign Affairs Minister gave a press conference on April 28, 1980 in Hazmieh (in the outskirts of Beirut) during which he revealed: "We uphold the Iraqi people so that it can free itself of its criminal regime". Then, replying to a question raised about the possibility of war between Iran and Iraq, he declared that "anything can happen".
ETHNIC AGITATION IN IRAN
Besides the Persians, the Iranian territory includes other ethnic communities, such as those of Arabistan, Baluchistan, Kurdistan and Azerbaijan. Throughout history and more particularly during the reign of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, these communities suffered the immoderate domination of the Persian occupiers. However, each of the attempts to bring about their "Persianization" remained unfruitful; these ethnic groups conserved their specificity. During the revolution, their attitude eased Ayatollah Khomeini’s victory. The different ethnic communities started to rebel against the Shah's power and in fact supported the Iranian Revolution in the hope that Khomeini would grant them certain rights. In reality, not only did the Ayatollah fail to answer their expectations, but pursued the harsh methods of the Shah in trying to subdue them. Ayatollah Sadegh Khalkhali, head of the revolutionary courts of justice in Teheran and leader of the Fidaiyou-Islami Party, declared: "The Iranian government is opposed to non-Persian minorities claiming the right to autonomy" (12). This policy rapidly created troubles within the various ethnic communities whose hopes for relative autonomy were dashed. However, as soon as a bomb exploded in Baluchistan, Arabistan, Kurdistan or Azerbaijan, or whenever arms were discovered anywhere in Iran, Iraq was immediately accused by the authorities in Teheran.
CLAIMS UPON BAHRAIN AND THE ARAB COUNTRIES OF THE GULF
During an interview at Radio Monte-Carlo, April 30, 1980, Minister Ghotbzadeh indicated that "all the countries in the Gulf are historically a part of Iranian territory."
• Bahrain
April 18, 1980, Sadegh Rouhani, politically close to Ayatollah Khomeini and one of the leaders of the Islamic Revolution, stated that:
Iran would again lay claim to Bahrain if Iraq continued to demand its retreat from the three islands in the Gulf conquered by the Shah in 1971. The decision of the Shah’s Parliament to give up Iranian claims on Bahrain is not binding because it emanated from an organism to which we deny any legitimacy.
On June 15th, Sadegh Rouhani returned to the question, declaring during a press conference:
Bahrain is an integral part of the Iranian territory. According to the new constitution of Iran, Bahrain constitutes the fourteenth department of Iran. In the Algiers agreements the dethroned Shah made too many territorial concessions to Iraq. Today, we feel there is a need to elucidate Iran's position on Bahrain due to the claims formulated by certain Arab countries, notably Iraq, regarding the three islands in the Gulf.
• The Tumb Islands and Abu Musa
On April 19, 1980, the radio of Riyadh broadcast a declaration of Bani Sadr in which he once again affirmed Iran's will to maintain its occupation of the TumbIslands and Abu Musa.
THE REACTIONS OF IRAQ
In July 1980, the international press agencies cited Iraqi information in announcing an Iranian military reinforcement of the border with Iraq. Border incidents between Iraq and Iran had multiplied since January 1980, becoming almost daily by July. During a major press conference held before several hundred international journalists in July 1980, Saddam Hussein once again raised the problem of Iraq-Iran relations:
Iraq publicly declared to the new Iranian authorities that it wished to establish relations of cooperation and neighborliness with Iran, based upon a mutual respect and non-interference in the other's internal affairs, but our good intentions came up against the hate of the arrogant, racist leaders of Teheran. Khomeini should therefore not expect us to be friendly in his regard. We shall not bend before one who has revealed himself a mere assassin in his own country. We do not want war, but if he provokes us, we shall know how to react - we shall not remain arms folded... (13)
* * *
One question arises: What is the reason for Iran's interference in the internal affairs of neighboring Arab countries and its incessant attacks against Iraq? Several explanations have been proposed; in principle, two must be recalled: according to the first, war with Iraq would offer the means to end the conflict opposing the diverse factions in Iran, thus creating the unity which would guarantee that a regime whose economic and social accomplishments are negligible would be kept in place. The second explanation deals with the historical causes of the conflict, the Iraq-Iran war simply representing another episode of Persia's perennial undertaking to annex Arab lands, notably those of Iraq, Shatt-al-Arab and Arabistan. Consequently, the events only expose one aspect of the clash between Iraq and Iran. To better understand the various elements, it is necessary to recall the history of this region to provide a key to the present confrontation over Shatt-al-Arab.
Notes
(I) Founded by the Ba'ath Party following the 8th February 1963 Revolution, and named after the Al-Mustansiriyah School created by Abbasid Caliph Al-Mustansiriyah in 1234.
(2) Cf.Appendix I (p.167) for the integral text of this proclamation.
(3) Le Monde, September 21-22, 1980.
(4) Le Monde, September 20, 1980.
(5)According to an Iraqi-Iranian agreement, Iranian schools exist in Iraqi territory and vice versa.
(6) Le Monde, September, 19, 1980.
(7) Quoted from the declaration distributed to the Arab Ministers of Foreign Affairs at their meeting in Amman on November 21, 1980.
(8) Cf. Iraq-Iran Conflict-Documentary file, 1980 and "Why the Algiers agreement was nullified ", Paris 1980.
(9) Saadoun Hammadi-Cf Appendix II (p.171for integral text of these invitations, addressed to Prime Minister Bazargan.
(10) An-Nahar, Al Arabi Wa al-Dawli, March 24, 1980, Paris.
(11) Cf. Appendices III and IV (p. 175, p. 179) for the integral text of both letters.
(12) Al-Mostakbal, December 15, 1979, and the text of the new Iranian Constitution (Cf. Iranian review Kayhan April 28, 1979).
(13) Le Monde, July 21, 22, 1980.
Al-Moharer .net note: Dawa Party is the death squads sectarian party of Maliki, “the Prime Minister of the Green Zone”