Revision as of 19:55, 1 November 2010 edit41.237.215.206 (talk) →Just a thought: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:55, 25 December 2024 edit undoKiddKrazy (talk | contribs)79 edits →How the war started, and the addition of Iranian attempting to provoke war.: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit App talk reply | ||
(736 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
|target=/Archive index | |||
|mask=/Archive <#> | |||
|leading_zeros=0 | |||
|indexhere=yes}} | |||
{{Skip to talk}} | {{Skip to talk}} | ||
{{Talk header}} | {{Talk header}} | ||
{{Article history | |||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
{{WPMILHIST|class=Start<!-- B-Class checklist --> | |||
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> | |||
|B-Class-1= no | |||
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> | |||
|B-Class-2= yes | |||
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> | |||
|B-Class-3= no | |||
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> | |||
|B-Class-4= no | |||
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> | |||
|B-Class-5= yes|peer-review= |attention= |Middle-Eastern-task-force=yes}} | |||
{{WikiProject Iran|class=Start|importance=Top}} | |||
{{WikiProject Iraq|class=Start|importance=High}} | |||
{{WPARAB|class=Start}} | |||
{{WikiProject United States|class=Start|importance=Low}} | |||
}} | |||
{{ArticleHistory | |||
|action1=FAC | |action1=FAC | ||
|action1result=not promoted | |action1result=not promoted | ||
Line 35: | Line 13: | ||
|action2oldid= | |action2oldid= | ||
|action2link=Talk:Iran–Iraq War/Archive 3#Quick-failed "good article" nomination | |action2link=Talk:Iran–Iraq War/Archive 3#Quick-failed "good article" nomination | ||
|currentstatus=FGAN |
|currentstatus=FGAN|otd1date=2004-09-22|otd1oldid=16335425 | ||
|otd2date=2005-09-22|otd2oldid=23728441 | |||
{{OnThisDay|date1=2004-09-22|oldid1=16335425|date2=2005-09-22|oldid2=23728441|date3=2006-09-22|oldid3=76980934}} | |||
|otd3date=2006-09-22|otd3oldid=76980934 | |||
|otd4date=2020-09-22|otd4oldid=979413091 | |||
}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Military history|class=c<!-- B-Class checklist --> | |||
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->|B-Class-1=n | |||
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->|B-Class-2= y | |||
<!-- 3. has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content-->|B-Class-3= y | |||
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->|B-Class-4= y | |||
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams-->|B-Class-5= y | |||
|peer-review= |Middle-Eastern-task-force=yes|Cold-War=y}} | |||
{{WikiProject Iran|importance=Top}} | |||
{{WikiProject Iraq|importance=Top}} | |||
{{WikiProject Western Asia|importance=Top}} | |||
{{WikiProject Arab world|importance=High}} | |||
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Mid|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject International relations |importance=Mid}} | |||
}} | |||
{{Copied | |||
|from = Iran–Iraq War | |||
|from_oldid = 697399451 | |||
|to = Iraq Invasion of Iran (1980) | |||
|to_diff = https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Iraq_Invasion_of_Iran_(1980)&oldid=697484296 | |||
|date = 30 December 2015 | |||
}} | |||
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|irp}} | |||
{{section size}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|archiveheader = {{ |
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} | ||
|maxarchivesize = 100K | |maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 11 | ||
|algo = old(90d) | |algo = old(90d) | ||
|archive = Talk:Iran–Iraq War/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Iran–Iraq War/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=90 |small=yes}} | |||
|target=/Archive index | |||
|mask=/Archive <#> | |||
== Belligerents == | |||
|leading_zeros=0 | |||
|indexhere=yes}} | |||
First, the US and the USSR should be removed, as they neither officially supported Iraq's position nor had troops involved in the warfare. Selling arms to parties of the conflict did not make ] a military commander involved in that war, as the article in its present state suggests. Funny belligerence would it have been, if we recall the ] affair.<br>Secondly, some years ago, ] and ] were listed as belligerent of Iraq. Why was that removed? The suggestion had some sources at least. - <ref></ref><ref><blockquote><small>''"He then makes an oblique reference to the fact that Ghassemlou and his party had collaborated with Saddam Hussain during Iraq's war against Iran"''</small></blockquote></ref> | |||
{{reflist}} | |||
== USS Stark Incident == | |||
] | ] 19:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
Currently the section for this notes that an Iraqi Mirage fighter jet fired the missiles at the USS Stark--but shouldn't this read more like "a modified Dassault Falcon 50" fired the missiles, or something along those lines (in correct wikipedia syntax of course) | |||
:This nonsense is re-added by a static IP, already having served a 1 month block was disruption last year. Having checked the page history, I see /first and foremost) {{User|Xashaiar}} () and an IP whose 'arguments' are confined to the </tt> and a now banned supporting that line, while a number of users have decided to remove it , , , . There's definitiely no consensus to include the US as belligerent in that conflict. --] | ] 17:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
I didn't want to make the edit because I've got no idea how to cite anything, but the USS Stark Incident page cites the following (along with two other relevant citations): | |||
:<u>Note</u> also that this issue has been discussed extensively and there was a vote, whether or not to list the US as belligerent. See ]. There seemed to be a slight majority for '''no''' over the '''yes''' vote, but there were a few users asking to '''scrap''' this label from the infobox, given the multitude of opinions and controversy. --] | ] 17:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-modified-iraqi-falcon-50-business-jet-nearly-destroyed-us-frigate-66772 | |||
::Right. Even if we consider American operations part of the war, that doesn't make Reagan a commander on the side of Iraq, third party at best. Just like James Madison is not listed alongside Napoleon I in the infobox of the Napoleonic Wars, Reagan has no place here. ] (]) 17:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
Worth noting I suppose that the Stark initially thought it was a Mirage fighter, perhaps that led to the confusion? ] (]) 17:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Also as the sources state explicitly that "US was involved in direct military confrontation with Iran and alongside Iraq" the article must state that and list US as Belligerent (the old ] as reflected in the archive of this talk page did). This was not just a support for Iraq as Brasil was among the heavy supporter of Iraq but can not be listed as Belligerants. See also ]. ] (]) 12:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
== How the war started, and the addition of Iranian attempting to provoke war. == | |||
'''Nonsense'''. The US similarly attacked the Iraqi navy when they saw Kuwaiti oil tankers threatened. This did not make them cobelligerents of Iran. And don't prop up with the old and discredited ] of “US was involved in direct military confrontation with Iran” --> was cobelligerent with Iraq. ] ] 12:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
:'''Not even non-sense''': you better say why you are concerned about USA being listed but the rest on the Iranian side are there without single sourcing and you are not concerned. USA was involved in military conflict with Iran. This is what the sources say. This is the only criterion that wikipedia requires: RS sources and not ]. You need to be civil and read wikipedia rules: ] as you did . | |||
] (]) 12:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Incorrect. You do no even have single source to back up you claim. The U.S never attacked Iraqi forces in direct response to attacks on Iranian oil tankers. In fact, the U.S did not even "attack" Iraq after the ] incident, which left 37 American sailors dead, and a U.S Navy frigate crippled. <b><i>]</i></b> 09:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Nope. A source claiming that the US was at war with Iran is irrelevant here. What is needed here to support your position is a consensus among reliable sources that the US was a co-belligerent of Iraq, not your own synthesis that they were on the same side. ] (]) 15:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::As of 1988, it ]. <b><i>]</i></b> 09:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::: Being in war with Iran does not mean it was aligned with Iraq AGAINST Iran. Please stop being disruptive. Until consensus is again reached, keep the US out of the list. Thank you. ] (]) 13:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::Until a consensus has been reached, you have no right to REMOVE information that is sources. You clearly have an agenda, and a revisionist one at that. One that no scholarly source would even begin to back up. <b><i>]</i></b> 22:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::Persistently adding Egypt and Jordan as co-belligerents of Iraq, without no sources whatsoever, is no longer just POV-pushing, but simply idiocy. ] ] 20:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::Here is a source. . Do you need ten more? Please do not use Misplaced Pages as a means of pushing an agenda. Egypt sent a battalion sized unit to fight along side Iraqi forces in the war. If you are not aware of this, you either know nothing of the conflict, or a pushing a revisionist agenda. Your clear bias and absurd POV pushing should be be brought to the attention if the Wikiepdia community, as soon as is possible. <b><i>]</i></b> 22:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::I don't need ten sources, a couple of sources that we could all verify would be all right for the assertion that Egyptian units participated in the conflict. Until we have zero (or just your words that a book refers to this), it's patently you who's pushing an agenda, not me. <br>After all those years of edit warring by your gang, absolutely <u>no reliable sources</u> have been presented that would unequivocally treat the US as a co-belligerent of Iraq. It won't. That has no prevented POV-pushers like you to re-introduce this nonsense ad nauseam. Instead of convincing others at talk of your factual basis, you just enter the US and a couple of other countries into infobox, hoping that this unsourced stuff could somehow remain there. <br>The same seemed to be true of your case regarding Egyptian involvement. Hence, reliable sources first at talk, preferably quotations from the books that show you are right. Otherwise many are inclined to believe that you are simply falsifying and presenting ] just like that Xashaiar troll above. Sources, explanation and consensus at talk please! ] ] 12:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::PS I could access a few pages of the book you referred to . The source, entitled ''Iranian perspectives on the Iran-Iraq war'' merely mentions that Egyptian volunteers and mercenaries took part in the conflict. So if we can ascertain what kind of units they formed (and if they were notable), we can add the ''particular unit'' as combatant. ] ] 12:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
I have been studying the Iran-Iraq war for a couple of years now, and something the wikipedia page does not cover is how much iran actually provoked Iraq into an attack, also the page includes stuff about how Saddams regime wanted to take kuzhesthan, but this dosent have much sufficent evidence, and alot of sources differ, expescially considering Iraq had accepted a cease-fire on september the 28th, 4 days after the war offically started, which they wouldnt have accepted if they had wanted to taken iranian land, | |||
== Nature of the "green light" == | |||
"Within days, Iraqi forces invaded Iran. At the same time, Iraq bombed Iranian air bases and other strategic targets. In the week following the invasion, the UN Security Council called for a cease-fire and appealed to Iran and Iraq to settle their dispute peacefully. The Iraqi president replied, saying that Iraq would accept a cease-fire provided Iran did as well. Iran’s response, however, was negative. The war thus continued and in succeeding years was extended to the gulf area."Source, | |||
The article alleges that in 1980 the Carter administration gave a "green light" for Iraq to invade Iran. But what exactly does that mean? What specifically was communicated to the Iraqis that could interpreted as a "green light"? A committment not to support Iran? I don't think Iraq needed a "green light" to figure out the U.S. would not support Iran in the middle of the hostage crisis. Did Carter and co. promise aid to Iraq? But in 1980 Iraq was a Soviet client state and was designated as a state sponsor of terrorism by the U.S. from 1979 until 1982, no actual aid was given by the Carter administration or Reagan up until 1982-85. | |||
Also before this, Saddam had constanly praised and congraulated Khomeini on his success, with Saddam quoting in one of his speeches, "We congraulate the Iranian people on there freedom.', even after Khomeini announced that the shias must rise up and get rid of the "Infidel" Saddam Hussein, Saddam responded yet again with praise, just wanting to establish mutual ties, instead, Iran constantly had border skirmishes, and launched artillery strikes onto the Iraqi side of the shatt-al arab, and even on populated towns. | |||
So can this be clarified? ] (]) 21:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
''The Iran–Iraq War: 1980–1988,'' Osprey Publishing | |||
:I think this all of this is very dubious. The section relies on a documentary that seems to be of the conspiratorial genre. ] ] 13:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
"It is difficult to pinpoint when tensions began to build, but there were frequent cross-border skirmishes, largely at Iran's instigation. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini called on Iraqis to overthrow the Ba'ath government, which was received with considerable anger in Baghdad. On 17 July 1979, despite Khomeini's call, Saddam gave a speech praising the Iranian Revolution and called for an Iraqi-Iranian friendship based on non-interference in each other's internal affairs. When Khomeini rejected Saddam's overture by calling for Islamic revolution in Iraq, Saddam was alarmed. Iran's new Islamic administration was regarded in Baghdad as an irrational, existential threat to the Ba'ath government, especially because the Ba'ath party, having a secular nature, discriminated and posed a threat to the Shia movement in Iraq, whose clerics were Iran's allies within Iraq and whom Khomeini saw as oppressed." | |||
If anyone wants aswell, i have documented violations by the Iranians on iraqi land pre-war, which are up to a 100 documented cases of Iranian violations of Iraqi soverignity, the war (unoffically) started on september 4th according to the Iraqi's, which wouldnt be far-feched, due to the fact the Iranians were already attacking Iraqi towns with artillery and attempted to assainate Tariz Aziz, which failed, and instead killed several Iraqi Students, which was one of the reasons Iraq decided to cross the border, the war was meant to last only a week, just to warn the Iranians, and attempt to force-khomeini into argeeing to non-aggression, which is why Iraq agreed to UN security councils proposal for peace. | |||
== Belligerents (again) == | |||
The Myth of Iraq wanting kuzehstan is extremely debunkable, it has been proven countless times, that Iraq did not want to annex any Iranian-land, both Saddam publically declared this, and so did his Ambassdor. | |||
Who claims Saudi-Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait and the UAE were involved? --] (]) 13:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Simple. They funded, equipped, supported, and in the case of Egypt, even sent troops to fight on the side of Iraq. <b><i>]</i></b> 09:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:: Reliable sources? ] (]) 18:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::...I got about ten more where that came from. If you know nothing of the conflict, why even bother to edit? Unless you are an agenda driven editor. Which in this case, is very obvious. <b><i>]</i></b> 23:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::: That does not qualify as a reliable source. Not even as a source, since you do not provide the page and passage. Please provide a reliable source. ] (]) 01:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::So you are saying that a scholarly book, written by a noted and well-known historian on the topic of the Iran-Iraq War, is not a reliable source for an article ON the Iran-Iraq War? I'll have to dig the book up for an exact page number, but you CLEARLY have an agenda here, and one that is not going to stand up to any scrutiny. I'd love to see your "sources," since you proclaim such expertise on the topic. <b><i>]</i></b> 02:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::You seem not to understand how WP works. If you want to add disputed content, you have to provide reliable sources, submit them to the community of editors and when consensus is reached (either directly or through mediation) the content is included. If you believe that I have an agenda, feel free to make a request for mediation. If not, please stop making false accusations. There has been a wide and long standing consensus on this topic, that you seem to prefer to ignore. Either please provide realiable sources (and in this polemic topic, several different sources) or refrain yourself from making disruptive edits. Thank you. ] (]) 02:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Try here. This one says Egypt supplied arms to Iraq. This one says "military assistance"........, notably Egypt. --] (]) 04:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::There has not been a long standing consensus on this topic, as actually more Wikipedians disagree with your position, than agree. Look at the thread yourself. As for knowing how Misplaced Pages works, you might want to read through the policy on what constitutes legitimate sources. You are in no position to pick and choose, simply to back up your own viewpoint. I am going to let more folks chime in, before making a request. Thus for, your behavior has been far from exemplary, and has been noted. <b><i>]</i></b> 03:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Those countries partially funded Iraq for war and diplomatically supported it during the war, number of sources are given here and more are availble. But I am not sure what exactly defines being an official party to the war. Is financial and diplomatic support enough to consider those countries an official party?] (]) 04:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::What does "partially funded Iraq" mean? Billion of dollars, sending soldiers, providing and encouraging use of chemical weapons against Iranian people is partial? I wonder what "full" support would mean. Palestinian authorities and the entire arab league should also be included in the list of Iraqi Belligerents. Also "what exactly defines being an official party" is understood as "being involved" like USA navy. ] (]) 10:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::: Please read ], then maybe you will understand. And again, if you think me and other users are pushing an POV, please request mediation instead of trying to push your POV. I'll probably do it soon anyway. ] (]) 12:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::The point is that you should read that page. MKO is a Belligerent and USA is not?! By removing USA and leaving others you are clearly violating ] and interestingly you still accuse other editors of pushing pov. Please respect the cons between the good editors above. ] (]) 17:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::Also, as I see, you seem to be the only one who disagrees with others (per ]). And the stable version of the article has been "USA and Arab league in the list" (per history page). This means you should not "immediately" engage in reverting and reverting and reverting (as ]) a version of the article which is at least similar to the stable version. ] (]) 17:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::Xashaiar, I thought we had finished discussing this '' matter in summer. No way, here you come again with the same 'source' for this ] assumption. If people keep rejecting your sole 'source', then perhaps it's sth wrong with your assumption, not that all others are Zionist-Masonic-pro-US POV-pushers, right? ] ] 17:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::Source is source even if already used! This means: Try to make a minimum amount of sense (referring to "No way, here you come again.."). The very fact that you link these things to Zionism is itself enough to dismiss whatever you say, no matter what, no matter where, no matter how, no matter why. One should not make such comments (per ]). ] (]) 08:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::Your source was discarded by others, simply because it did not list the US as a co-belligerent of Iraq against Iran. It was merely your own ] that it did. ] ] 13:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::What? Then which source mentions other countries/parties (like PUK or Daawa ,...) as such (that is "co-belligerent") and which you have kept? This is not pov and synth? Interesting. ] (]) 15:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Misleading title. == | |||
"We have no claim or ambition in any Iranian territory at all, we have just said that defintely." - Sa'dun Hammadi | |||
The title of "US shoots down civilian airliner" is a misleading line that gives the impression the US deliberately shot the aircraft down with knowledge it was a civilian aircraft. A more neutral title would be along the lines of "Flight 665 incident" <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
"So the Iraqi army will withdraw from the east bank of the Shatt-al-arab?" - Interviewer | |||
== the Iran Iraq war- Iranian opinion == | |||
"Certainly." - Sa'dun Hammadi | |||
the title "the Iran Iraq war- an Iranian opinion" is what i suggest for this article, as is so biased, so biased that it seems silly to me, i read this a long time ago and in the past i remember it differently. | |||
but it seems to me some Iranians got there hands on it. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
I have loads of archived footage, and videos, and documents etc etc if anyone wants more proof, the above interview was filmed, i have the footage of it if anyone wants, i am just seeking approval to make the large-ish edit to the article, to include a more correct version. ] (]) 02:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
It's okay, because the Arabic version of this article must have been written by Saddam himself. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:@] This is interesting. Where is this footage? I think the page regarding the Iran-Iraq War has bias towards Iran. The entire prewar section almost glosses over Iran's aggression and only mentions it sparingly, which contributes to a false narrative of "Iraq started the war unprovoked in a land grab of post-revolutionary Iran" More needs to be written about Iranian aggression. ] (]) 18:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
wow i find that an awkward comment, what has the Arabic version got to do with this one? or the Persian one for that matter. | |||
::The claim that tensions and cross-border incidents were largely instigated by Iran is not substantiated by more recent scholarship. For example, see Murray and Woods 2014 on Iraq's many provocative actions leading up to the ] on September 22, 1980: | |||
::<blockquote>"By late 1979, there was little left of Saddam's optimism about accommodation with the revolutionary government next door. ... expelled tens of thousands of Iraqi Shi'as, attempted to organize his potential allies in the Arab world (particularly among the Gulf states) into a united pan-Arab front against Iran, had the spiritual leader of the ] killed, and supported separatist Kurdish and Arab elements within Iran. In April 1980, the Iraqis escalated the level of violence. On the last day of the month, a group of Iranian Arabs, recruited and trained by the Iraqis, ] in London. ... By the end of summer, serious cross-border penetrations by aircraft and artillery raids by both sides had developed. Reporting of these events is generally unreliable, but the Iraqis complained publically of 544 incidents while Iran reported 797 cases involving airspace violations, artillery strikes, and cross-border raids. ... On 7 September 1980, Iraq accused Iran of shelling Iraqi villages in the territories of Zain al-Qaws and Saif Saad on 4 September 1980. Iraq demanded that the Iranian forces in those territories evacuate and return the villages to Iraq. ... Iraqi forces then moved to 'liberate' the villages, and on 10 September announced that its forces had done so in a short, sharp military engagement. ... On 22 September, Iraqi units crossed the frontier."—<small>Source: {{cite book|last1=Murray|first1=Williamson|last2=Woods|first2=Kevin M.|title=The Iran–Iraq War, A Military and Strategic History|chapter=A context of 'bitterness and anger'|publisher=]|year=2014|isbn=978-1107062290|pages=58–63}}</small></blockquote> | |||
::According to the ]: {{tq|"Even if before the outbreak of the conflict there had been some encroachment by Iran on Iraqi territory, such encroachment did not justify Iraq's aggression against Iran—which was followed by Iraq's continuous occupation of Iranian territory during the conflict".}}–<small>Source: {{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1991/12/11/iraq-blamed-for-starting-iran-war/9c12d9a5-298a-4a54-a6e4-c70a0177f709/|title=IRAQ BLAMED FOR STARTING IRAN WAR|work=]|date=December 10, 1991|accessdate=December 24, 2024}}</small> | |||
::The fact that Iraq had already regained all disputed territory twelve days prior to launching a massive surprise attack deep inside Iran proper makes it difficult to see the invasion as a valid case of ] under international law. As ] writes: {{tq|"Granted that this might have been a genuine motive for abrogating the ], and reclaiming title to the whole Shatt, what was the point of the invasion on September 22? Iraq had taken back by unilateral action on September 10 the only strips of territory it still claimed under the treaty. There was no longer any 'territory' as such on the other side to conquer. The Ba'th had already followed ]'s example of 1971 when he unilaterally took over the three islands in the Gulf."}}–<small>Source: {{cite book|authorlink=Kanan Makiya|last=Makiya|first=Kanan|title=Republic of Fear: The Politics of Modern Iraq, Updated Edition|publisher=]|year=1998|isbn=9780520921245|page=270}}</small> | |||
::{{U|KiddKrazy}}, in you wrote: {{tq|"The Iraqis continued to occupy 9600 sq.km of Iranian land and maintained full sovereignty over the Shatt al-Arab. It was in 1990, when Iran and Iraq signed a formal peace treaty, that it went to status quo ante bellum."}} In context, you were arguing that Iraq holding some Iranian territory until a formal settlement could be reached two years after the ] proved that Iraq emerged "victorious" in its war aims. However, Iran accepting a ceasefire without first regaining all of its occupied territories could be seen as contradictory with the common narrative of a fanatical Iran that was wholly incapable of negotiation and determined on war regardless of the human cost.] (]) 20:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::@] Different scholars and historians have differing opinions regarding the war. Alistair Finlan stated that Saddam was drawn into a conflict with Iran due to border conflicts and interference in Iraqi affairs. He also said the war was only meant to be a short offensive to send a political message to Iran. | |||
:::"Source: Finlan, Alistair (2003). Essential Histories – The Gulf War 1991. New York: Routledge. p. 1. ISBN 0-203-57971-2." | |||
:::The cause of the war was not only over disputed territory, which Iraq liberated on 10 sep. 1980. | |||
:::It also has to do with countering Iran's aggression against Iraq. This is highlighted by Israeli historian Efraim Karsh. | |||
:::Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini called on Iraqis to overthrow the Ba'ath government, which was received with considerable anger in Baghdad. On 17 July 1979, despite Khomeini's call, Saddam gave a speech praising the Iranian Revolution and called for an Iraqi–Iranian friendship based on non-interference in each other's internal affairs. Iran's new Islamic administration was regarded in Baghdad as an irrational, existential threat to the Ba'ath government, especially because the Ba'ath party, having a secular nature, discriminated against and posed a threat to the fundamentalist Shia movement in Iraq, whose clerics were Iran's allies within Iraq and whom Khomeini saw as oppressed. | |||
:::"Source: Karsh, Efraim (2002). The Iran–Iraq War: 1980–1988. Osprey Publishing. pp. 1–8, 12–16, 19–82. ISBN 978-1-84176-371-2." | |||
:::Fact of the matter is, Iraq liberated Zayn al Qaws and Seif Saad (areas promised to Iraq by the Algiers Treaty) and have kept them since. Iraq also defended successfully against Iranian aggression. Also, Iraq did not capture the Shatt al-Arab waterway until 22 Sep. 1980 due to Iraq's commitment to the Algiers Agreement, which was only nullified after Iran did it. | |||
:::Militarily speaking, the war was not inconclusive. Iraq had ] and strengthened its army. (it became the 4th largest army in the world) The Tawakalna operations, together with ] had crushed the Iranian Army and demoralised the Iranian public. | |||
:::Economically speaking, the war damaged both countries economically, with Iran nearing bankruptcy and Iraq owing huge sums of debt. | |||
:::Geopolitically speaking, Iraq came out ahead. They had made many new allies through the war and Iran continued as a pariah state. Only after the Gulf War did this change, as did the narrative of who started and who won. | |||
:::Iraq made it clear from 28. sep 1980 and onwards that their goal was to end the war, to get rid of Iranian meddling and to prevent Iran from pushing around Iraq while expecting no consequences. | |||
:::After the UN-proposed ceasefire in 1982, it became clear that Iran's goal was to topple the Ba'ath government and to install a theocracy in Iraq. | |||
:::Iran was unable to topple Saddam's government and install their theocracy and ended up accepting the same ceasefire they rejected from 1980-1987. | |||
:::Iraq ended the war, got rid of Iranian meddling, kept their disputed areas and largely prevented Iranian meddling in Iraq through the duration of Saddam's reign. They also had the added bonus of a strengthened army. | |||
:::Iran did not achieve their goals in the war while Iraq achieved theirs, therefore: Iraqi victory. ] (]) 21:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::If you have something i can send you videos on, i will gladly, worst case, i can send you twitter posts of where i found some of the footage and the dcouemnted papers ] (]) 09:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::@] Is it possible to send any footage here on Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 12:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Sino Soviet split and Arab Israeli conflict == | |||
The USSR supported Iraq while China supported Iran. Also Israel launched an airstrike on the Iraqi nuke reactor ] ] (]) 13:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
I totaly agree, we should add "Iranian opinion" to the title. | |||
Just before the Iranian lose, they accept UN Secutiry council resolution to cease fire, and then many years later they claim victory online? I know it's sometimes hard to accept the facts, but seriously, you can't change the history. | |||
I also like the way they write "The Iranian forces crushed Iraqi forces overnight and took complete control over Baghdad <reff>>:ww.iranlovers.c0m<reff>" <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
== Can the Iran-Iraq War be considered an Iraqi Victory? == | |||
I agree that this article should be called "Iranian perspective of the Iran-Iraq war". I'd rather not go into an edit war, with some of the more ludicrous claims in this article, instead I propose that a second article called "Iraqi view of the Iran-Iraq war" be written, and a placeholder article linking to both be put in place of "Iran-Iraq war". This should avoid edit wars as well as showing both perspectives (and I certainly intend the Iraqi article to be less biased and full of misinformation than this one). ] (]) 19:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Hayder, you are a known poster at the ACIG forum, but I have to ask, are you at all familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies on sockpuppetry? <b><i>]</i></b> 23:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
The largely popular consensus around the war is that it was a stalemate until the war ended in 1988. This is largely incorrect, due to Iraq breaking the stalemate in 1988, months before the ceasefire was signed, which is what many consider as the end of the war, with 5 decisive victories which expelled all Iranian forces from Iraq and regained ≈9000 km² of Iranian land. This, along with Iraq being able to force Iran to the peace table, despite Iran's repeated provocations before the Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980 and Iran's repeated refusals of any attempts at peace, whether it be by the United Nations or the Iraqi government. In addition to this, Iraq had become a powerhouse as a result of an unpreccedented military buildup. These points alone would usually constitute victory for a nation, but yet they do not in the case of Iraq. Instead, the war gets labeled as Inconclusive, largely due to the stalemate from 1982-1987 and Iraq giving back their captured land to Iran in 16 August 1990. ] (]) 12:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I think you guys need to be more specific about your claim. Which parts you see biased and what are your neutral-sourced-material to contradict them?] (]) 04:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:I also wonder why certain editors always revert the territorial change to Status quo ante bellum when the Iraqi occupation of Iranian land didn't end until many years after 1988 (which to be fair the note states) ] (]) 12:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Economic Cost == | |||
::@] i tried to change it to include that, but someone reverted it saying that the infobox needs to be simplistic and that is what the note is for. Still though, i think the war can be considered an Iraqi Victory, largely due to the points i made. ] (]) 12:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::To quote ]: {{tq|The "result" parameter has often been a source of contention. Particular attention should be given to the advice therein. The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "Inconclusive".}} ] (]) 13:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::@] True, but could there be an argument for changing it from "Inconclusive" to "Iraqi victory" based on the points i made? ] (]) 13:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::That would not be an accurate summary of the article (particularly the 'Aftermath' section) or the sources it cites. Making your own argument, not based direct statements from sources, is ], and is not how Misplaced Pages is written. ] (]) 14:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::@] Oh. Makes sense. Thanks for explanation. ] (]) 14:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{ping|KiddKrazy}} Since you were pleased with the explanation, why did you three months later? ] (]) 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:@] The more i research this war, the more it becomes an Iraqi victory and a war caused by Iran's Radical rhetoric. | |||
Would like a functioning, and reliable, source for the 500 billion USD cost. Seems to be greatly exaggerated considering the actual size of the Iraqi and Iranian economies (neither which exceeds 500 billion USD even today, 22 years after the end of the war, despite economic growth and inflation) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:Iran starts the war by interference in Iraq's affairs (a breach of the 1975 Algiers Agreement) by way of inciting sectarian hatred in Iraq and numerous border conflicts against Iraq. Iranian-backed terrorists also attempted to assassinate Tariq Aziz (Assyrian Ba'ath Party official) when he visited a University in Baghdad, instead killing dozens of students. Iran regards the 1975 Algiers Treaty void on 14 sep. 1980 and Iraq nullifies it on 17 sep. 1980. | |||
:Iraq launches an invasion 22. sep 1980 (what's considered the beginning of the war) as a response to Iranian intrusions, they initially capture Zayn al Qaws and Seif Saad, areas promised to Iraq by the Algiers Treaty. They also invade Qasre Shihrin to put further pressure on Iran. | |||
:On 28. sep 1980, the UN Security Council issues a resolution demanding a ceasefire, which Iraq agreed to, but Iran boycotted the session altogether. Iraq then continued invading to put further pressure on Iran to accept, to no avail. | |||
:In 1982, Iraq retreats from their captured Iranian land in an effort to reconcile with Iran. However Iran continued to reject all attempts for ceasefire, instead presenting Iraq with ceasefire on impossible terms. | |||
:Since then, the war devolves into trench warfare and both sides lose a lot of materials and money. Iraq continues to accept ceasefire attempts and Iran continues their hateful rhetoric. | |||
:In 1987, when Iranians attempted to capture Basra, they failed spectacularly, losing their forward momentum by enormous casualties taken and only captures slivers of land in Basra. | |||
:In April 1988, after months of Iraqi preparing, the Iraqis swiftly liberated Al-Faw. Surprised by the overwhelming success, they expanded it into a larger offensive to drive Iran out of Iraq. The offensive was a decisive Iraqi victory, with the Iranian forces on the run and Iraq liberating occupied land in Iraq and recapturing land in Iran (9600 sq.km) | |||
:The swift and decisive Iraqi victories led to the Iranian government to accept the ceasefire and quit fighting. The Iraqis continued to occupy 9600 sq.km of Iranian land and maintained full sovereignty over the Shatt al-Arab. It was in 1990, when Iran and Iraq signed a formal peace treaty, that it went to status quo ante bellum. | |||
:Both countries were economically devastated by this war, though Iran suffered higher losses. Iran suffered also higher casualties and lost land. The Iraqi Army was strengthened, becoming the 4th largest army in the world. Iraq also gained powerful new allies in the Middle East. | |||
:Iran's goal in the war was to topple the Baghdad government and install a theocracy. | |||
:Iraq's goal in the war was to defend against Iranian aggression and weaken Iran. | |||
:Iraq achieved its goal, and therefore it won. | |||
:Since those three months passed, i had been doing a lot more research and it became clear that the war is very different from the common narrative. ] (]) 15:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::{{tq|"Iraq achieved its goal, and therefore it won. Since those three months passed, i had been doing a lot more research and it became clear that the war is very different from the common narrative."}} Again, the above is ] and is not how Misplaced Pages decides article content. Please provide ] rather than original analysis if you are seeking to establish consensus for any change to article content. Additionally, note that Misplaced Pages reflects the {{tq|"common narrative"}} found in reliable sources by design; if you are unable to accept that, then you should advocate for your views in a more appropriate forum.] (]) 15:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Too little is written about the provocations and attacks of Iran leading to the war. == | |||
== RfC: Belligerents == | |||
In the "prelude" section, not much is written about the provocations of Iran, despite it being a major reason for the war, it is mentioned in passing as if its a small detail. Some key details regarding provocations are not even written about here. | |||
{{rfctag|hist}} | |||
I translated the Farsi Misplaced Pages page regarding the war and it included speeches Khomeini made calling for an overthrow of the Ba'ath government, Iranian newspaper articles about Iranian attacks against Iraq before the war, the attempted assassination of Tariq Aziz and lots more information. | |||
This is a request for comment, since the previous consensus is being constantly changed (and those changes disputed). The previous consensus (as can be seen in the section "Belligerents" above was to keep the USA out of the list, as well as other countries. Thank you. ] (]) 18:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:I think the involvement of most Arab nations and some developed nations like US in support for Iraq is well sourced. However, I am not sure where we draw the line as whom was a Belligerents/participant of the war and whom was not enough involved to be called that. I have my opinion on this but I hope we can have a more concrete way of distinguishing this. Maybe there is already an established procedure in Misplaced Pages for other wars? Anyone knows?] (]) 20:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::If solely military or financial assistance to a party makes the third country effectively a co-belligerent of the country receiving supplies, then Israel must have been a co-belligerent of Iran. See ]. <br>My argument here of course won't convince the Scythian POV zealots, but I hope this helps to explain to uninvolved users like you why it's nonsensical to talk of the US as a co-belligerent of Iraq. Some months ago, the same loony editors would insert the USSR as such, too. It must have been a great alliance then of all those otherwise unfriendly nations having their detachments fight alongside Iraqis! ] ] 14:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
They also write about the supposed "fact" that Saddam wanted to take over Khuzestan, when this can be disproved. Both by statements issued by Saddam and his ministers saying they had no interest in a land grab and wanted to spread the message that Khomeini's regime could not threaten Iraq, which makes sense regarding previous Iranian provocations and by the UN resolution to stop the war passed shortly after the outbreak of full on war in sep. 1980, where Iraq accepted but Iran denied. | |||
::First I have to ask: why PUK and Daawa are listed as Belligerents in Iran's list and PMK as a Belligerent in Iraq's list. The criteria which make these addition OK and acceptable to those not letting USA being mentioned, should apply to USA too. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to act like that: (per ] and ]). ] (]) 15:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
] raised this issue before, though it went unanswered. | |||
:::I think both comments above shows the lack of a clear standard here for deciding who is a Belligerent. I hope that in some other place like an Academic setting or at least in a wikipedia well-discussed previous consensus about wars we can find the answer. Any help or suggestion on this? | |||
:::But if we are the ones to decide (not a good way at all), but I guess one criteria would be that the support should have been "consistent", "broad", and "significant". | |||
::::* Consistent: meaning the party involved should has offered the support for the whole duration or at least a considerable duration of the war. | |||
::::* Broad: meaning the support should have been more than just in one sense. For example only a diplomatic support (even if consistent and significant) might not be enough to call the involved a Belligerent. | |||
::::* Significant: meaning the support offered was of a level which would be worthy to the cause (war in this sense). | |||
:::These were just my immediate ideas on this, feel free to suggest yours and even better find what others have done about this. cheers ] (]) 16:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::: About PUK, Daawa and PMK, I have no idea why they are listed as belligerents. I propose we reamove all beligerentes except for Iran and Iraq and individually discuss each party that someone would like to add. My arguments for not including the US (and several other countries) are: | |||
:::::* The US did not take part on the iraqi side of the war as an ally. | |||
:::::* It did provide economic support (through differente forms) to both Iran AND Iraq | |||
:::::* It did enter in conflict with BOTH Iran and Iraq. | |||
:::::* It is a third party, who despide being related to the conflict did not take part on it as an one-sided entity. | |||
:::::* The article itself cites that one of the reasons that Iran decided to end the conflict was fear of direct confrontation with the US due to escalating hostilities between the two countries. | |||
:::::* There was no open conflict between the two countries, only limited operations in response to Iran's mining of international waters | |||
:::: The same reasons apply to several other countries. The US has been off the list for a long time, from time to time the same users try to add it back, but it is eventually reverted. They keep trying to push their POV. If this issue is unresolved, I am willing to apply for mediation. And I hope Xashaiar and Scythian agree to it. Thank you. ] (]) 20:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::RFC comment:Providing material support to one side of a war (or even both sides) doesn't make you a belligerent. USA shouldn't be on there. ] (]) 03:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Yes it should. USA did engage in direct military conflict with Iran and only Iran and in support of Iraq during this war. This makes USA support to Iraq different from support from other parties that gave for example chemical weapons to Iraq. Anyway this is just infobox and the relevant materials could otherwise be put back into the lead. ] (]) 13:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::: Incorrect. Iraq even attacked an American ship, oficially claiming it was inside the Iran-Iraq war zone. This makes no sense if the US was aligned with Iraq. Also, the US did not attack Iran to secure Iraq's interests, but to ensure freedom of navigation (as supported by ]) and as retaliation for Iranian attacks on US ships (] and ]). It goes even to the point that there was never open war between Iran and the US, only minor engagements, as well as there is no peace traty or anything like it (as there is between Iran and Iraq). ] (]) 13:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Nonsense. Iraq's attack on a U.S ship was a mistake. They believed they were attacking an Iranian corvette. As for U.S actions not benefiting Iraq, that is utter nonsense. Operation Praying Mantis directly coincided with the most massive Iraq ground attack of the war, directly causing Iran to finally bargain at the peace table. <b><i>]</i></b> 22:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
*RFC comment. This is stupid dispute. What is a belligerent? Obviously a person doing the fighting. Did the USA engage in fighting? NO. Was USA truly neutral? perhaps not, but that does not make it a belligerent. The mutually hostile attitude of Iran and USA since the Iranian Revolution has been well known, but that does not make it a belligerent. ] (]) 18:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
**The U.S did some "fighting." That fighting directly benefited Iraq. That makes the U.S a belligerent. See ]. <b><i>]</i></b> 22:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
So the question is: Why? Why are key details of the prelude to the war left out, as if to spread the false narrative that Iraq invaded unprovoked and out of opportunism? ] (]) 14:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Just a thought == | |||
==Broken link == | |||
It appears that most Iraqis in the "Commanders and leaders" column are now either executed (Saddam Hussein, Ali Hassan al-Majid, Taha Yassin Ramadan, Adnan Khairallah, Saddam Kamel and Qusay Hussein), waiting to be executed (Tariq Aziz) or on the run (Izzat Ibrahim ad-Douri). ] (]) 19:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Ref. 126: "Viewpoints of the Iranian political and military elites". Archived from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 31 December 2015. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Latest revision as of 12:55, 25 December 2024
Skip to table of contents |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iran–Iraq War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Iran–Iraq War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 22, 2004, September 22, 2005, September 22, 2006, and September 22, 2020. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Iran–Iraq War was copied or moved into Iraq Invasion of Iran (1980) with this edit on 30 December 2015. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1978 Iranian politics, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
USS Stark Incident
Currently the section for this notes that an Iraqi Mirage fighter jet fired the missiles at the USS Stark--but shouldn't this read more like "a modified Dassault Falcon 50" fired the missiles, or something along those lines (in correct wikipedia syntax of course)
I didn't want to make the edit because I've got no idea how to cite anything, but the USS Stark Incident page cites the following (along with two other relevant citations): https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-modified-iraqi-falcon-50-business-jet-nearly-destroyed-us-frigate-66772
Worth noting I suppose that the Stark initially thought it was a Mirage fighter, perhaps that led to the confusion? 2603:8080:7400:DF2:452:8089:9BB5:7889 (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
How the war started, and the addition of Iranian attempting to provoke war.
I have been studying the Iran-Iraq war for a couple of years now, and something the wikipedia page does not cover is how much iran actually provoked Iraq into an attack, also the page includes stuff about how Saddams regime wanted to take kuzhesthan, but this dosent have much sufficent evidence, and alot of sources differ, expescially considering Iraq had accepted a cease-fire on september the 28th, 4 days after the war offically started, which they wouldnt have accepted if they had wanted to taken iranian land,
"Within days, Iraqi forces invaded Iran. At the same time, Iraq bombed Iranian air bases and other strategic targets. In the week following the invasion, the UN Security Council called for a cease-fire and appealed to Iran and Iraq to settle their dispute peacefully. The Iraqi president replied, saying that Iraq would accept a cease-fire provided Iran did as well. Iran’s response, however, was negative. The war thus continued and in succeeding years was extended to the gulf area."Source,
Also before this, Saddam had constanly praised and congraulated Khomeini on his success, with Saddam quoting in one of his speeches, "We congraulate the Iranian people on there freedom.', even after Khomeini announced that the shias must rise up and get rid of the "Infidel" Saddam Hussein, Saddam responded yet again with praise, just wanting to establish mutual ties, instead, Iran constantly had border skirmishes, and launched artillery strikes onto the Iraqi side of the shatt-al arab, and even on populated towns.
The Iran–Iraq War: 1980–1988, Osprey Publishing "It is difficult to pinpoint when tensions began to build, but there were frequent cross-border skirmishes, largely at Iran's instigation. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini called on Iraqis to overthrow the Ba'ath government, which was received with considerable anger in Baghdad. On 17 July 1979, despite Khomeini's call, Saddam gave a speech praising the Iranian Revolution and called for an Iraqi-Iranian friendship based on non-interference in each other's internal affairs. When Khomeini rejected Saddam's overture by calling for Islamic revolution in Iraq, Saddam was alarmed. Iran's new Islamic administration was regarded in Baghdad as an irrational, existential threat to the Ba'ath government, especially because the Ba'ath party, having a secular nature, discriminated and posed a threat to the Shia movement in Iraq, whose clerics were Iran's allies within Iraq and whom Khomeini saw as oppressed."
If anyone wants aswell, i have documented violations by the Iranians on iraqi land pre-war, which are up to a 100 documented cases of Iranian violations of Iraqi soverignity, the war (unoffically) started on september 4th according to the Iraqi's, which wouldnt be far-feched, due to the fact the Iranians were already attacking Iraqi towns with artillery and attempted to assainate Tariz Aziz, which failed, and instead killed several Iraqi Students, which was one of the reasons Iraq decided to cross the border, the war was meant to last only a week, just to warn the Iranians, and attempt to force-khomeini into argeeing to non-aggression, which is why Iraq agreed to UN security councils proposal for peace.
The Myth of Iraq wanting kuzehstan is extremely debunkable, it has been proven countless times, that Iraq did not want to annex any Iranian-land, both Saddam publically declared this, and so did his Ambassdor.
"We have no claim or ambition in any Iranian territory at all, we have just said that defintely." - Sa'dun Hammadi
"So the Iraqi army will withdraw from the east bank of the Shatt-al-arab?" - Interviewer
"Certainly." - Sa'dun Hammadi
I have loads of archived footage, and videos, and documents etc etc if anyone wants more proof, the above interview was filmed, i have the footage of it if anyone wants, i am just seeking approval to make the large-ish edit to the article, to include a more correct version. Local Mandaean (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Local Mandaean This is interesting. Where is this footage? I think the page regarding the Iran-Iraq War has bias towards Iran. The entire prewar section almost glosses over Iran's aggression and only mentions it sparingly, which contributes to a false narrative of "Iraq started the war unprovoked in a land grab of post-revolutionary Iran" More needs to be written about Iranian aggression. KiddKrazy (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The claim that tensions and cross-border incidents were largely instigated by Iran is not substantiated by more recent scholarship. For example, see Murray and Woods 2014 on Iraq's many provocative actions leading up to the invasion of Iran on September 22, 1980:
"By late 1979, there was little left of Saddam's optimism about accommodation with the revolutionary government next door. ... expelled tens of thousands of Iraqi Shi'as, attempted to organize his potential allies in the Arab world (particularly among the Gulf states) into a united pan-Arab front against Iran, had the spiritual leader of the Dawa Party killed, and supported separatist Kurdish and Arab elements within Iran. In April 1980, the Iraqis escalated the level of violence. On the last day of the month, a group of Iranian Arabs, recruited and trained by the Iraqis, seized the Iranian embassy in London. ... By the end of summer, serious cross-border penetrations by aircraft and artillery raids by both sides had developed. Reporting of these events is generally unreliable, but the Iraqis complained publically of 544 incidents while Iran reported 797 cases involving airspace violations, artillery strikes, and cross-border raids. ... On 7 September 1980, Iraq accused Iran of shelling Iraqi villages in the territories of Zain al-Qaws and Saif Saad on 4 September 1980. Iraq demanded that the Iranian forces in those territories evacuate and return the villages to Iraq. ... Iraqi forces then moved to 'liberate' the villages, and on 10 September announced that its forces had done so in a short, sharp military engagement. ... On 22 September, Iraqi units crossed the frontier."—Source: Murray, Williamson; Woods, Kevin M. (2014). "A context of 'bitterness and anger'". The Iran–Iraq War, A Military and Strategic History. Cambridge University Press. pp. 58–63. ISBN 978-1107062290.
- According to the Secretary-General of the United Nations:
"Even if before the outbreak of the conflict there had been some encroachment by Iran on Iraqi territory, such encroachment did not justify Iraq's aggression against Iran—which was followed by Iraq's continuous occupation of Iranian territory during the conflict".
–Source: "IRAQ BLAMED FOR STARTING IRAN WAR". The Washington Post. December 10, 1991. Retrieved December 24, 2024. - The fact that Iraq had already regained all disputed territory twelve days prior to launching a massive surprise attack deep inside Iran proper makes it difficult to see the invasion as a valid case of preemption under international law. As Kanan Makiya writes:
"Granted that this might have been a genuine motive for abrogating the 1975 treaty, and reclaiming title to the whole Shatt, what was the point of the invasion on September 22? Iraq had taken back by unilateral action on September 10 the only strips of territory it still claimed under the treaty. There was no longer any 'territory' as such on the other side to conquer. The Ba'th had already followed the Shah's example of 1971 when he unilaterally took over the three islands in the Gulf."
–Source: Makiya, Kanan (1998). Republic of Fear: The Politics of Modern Iraq, Updated Edition. University of California Press. p. 270. ISBN 9780520921245. - KiddKrazy, in this edit, you wrote:
"The Iraqis continued to occupy 9600 sq.km of Iranian land and maintained full sovereignty over the Shatt al-Arab. It was in 1990, when Iran and Iraq signed a formal peace treaty, that it went to status quo ante bellum."
In context, you were arguing that Iraq holding some Iranian territory until a formal settlement could be reached two years after the ceasefire proved that Iraq emerged "victorious" in its war aims. However, Iran accepting a ceasefire without first regaining all of its occupied territories could be seen as contradictory with the common narrative of a fanatical Iran that was wholly incapable of negotiation and determined on war regardless of the human cost.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- @TheTimesAreAChanging Different scholars and historians have differing opinions regarding the war. Alistair Finlan stated that Saddam was drawn into a conflict with Iran due to border conflicts and interference in Iraqi affairs. He also said the war was only meant to be a short offensive to send a political message to Iran.
- "Source: Finlan, Alistair (2003). Essential Histories – The Gulf War 1991. New York: Routledge. p. 1. ISBN 0-203-57971-2."
- The cause of the war was not only over disputed territory, which Iraq liberated on 10 sep. 1980.
- It also has to do with countering Iran's aggression against Iraq. This is highlighted by Israeli historian Efraim Karsh.
- Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini called on Iraqis to overthrow the Ba'ath government, which was received with considerable anger in Baghdad. On 17 July 1979, despite Khomeini's call, Saddam gave a speech praising the Iranian Revolution and called for an Iraqi–Iranian friendship based on non-interference in each other's internal affairs. Iran's new Islamic administration was regarded in Baghdad as an irrational, existential threat to the Ba'ath government, especially because the Ba'ath party, having a secular nature, discriminated against and posed a threat to the fundamentalist Shia movement in Iraq, whose clerics were Iran's allies within Iraq and whom Khomeini saw as oppressed.
- "Source: Karsh, Efraim (2002). The Iran–Iraq War: 1980–1988. Osprey Publishing. pp. 1–8, 12–16, 19–82. ISBN 978-1-84176-371-2."
- Fact of the matter is, Iraq liberated Zayn al Qaws and Seif Saad (areas promised to Iraq by the Algiers Treaty) and have kept them since. Iraq also defended successfully against Iranian aggression. Also, Iraq did not capture the Shatt al-Arab waterway until 22 Sep. 1980 due to Iraq's commitment to the Algiers Agreement, which was only nullified after Iran did it.
- Militarily speaking, the war was not inconclusive. Iraq had liberated Iraqi land occupied by Iran and recaptured Iranian land. and strengthened its army. (it became the 4th largest army in the world) The Tawakalna operations, together with Iran's failed attempt to capture Basra had crushed the Iranian Army and demoralised the Iranian public.
- Economically speaking, the war damaged both countries economically, with Iran nearing bankruptcy and Iraq owing huge sums of debt.
- Geopolitically speaking, Iraq came out ahead. They had made many new allies through the war and Iran continued as a pariah state. Only after the Gulf War did this change, as did the narrative of who started and who won.
- Iraq made it clear from 28. sep 1980 and onwards that their goal was to end the war, to get rid of Iranian meddling and to prevent Iran from pushing around Iraq while expecting no consequences.
- After the UN-proposed ceasefire in 1982, it became clear that Iran's goal was to topple the Ba'ath government and to install a theocracy in Iraq.
- Iran was unable to topple Saddam's government and install their theocracy and ended up accepting the same ceasefire they rejected from 1980-1987.
- Iraq ended the war, got rid of Iranian meddling, kept their disputed areas and largely prevented Iranian meddling in Iraq through the duration of Saddam's reign. They also had the added bonus of a strengthened army.
- Iran did not achieve their goals in the war while Iraq achieved theirs, therefore: Iraqi victory. KiddKrazy (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you have something i can send you videos on, i will gladly, worst case, i can send you twitter posts of where i found some of the footage and the dcouemnted papers Local Mandaean (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Local Mandaean Is it possible to send any footage here on Misplaced Pages? KiddKrazy (talk) 12:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Sino Soviet split and Arab Israeli conflict
The USSR supported Iraq while China supported Iran. Also Israel launched an airstrike on the Iraqi nuke reactor Operation Opera 2A00:23EE:2738:4326:451E:A45E:F52B:498B (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Can the Iran-Iraq War be considered an Iraqi Victory?
The largely popular consensus around the war is that it was a stalemate until the war ended in 1988. This is largely incorrect, due to Iraq breaking the stalemate in 1988, months before the ceasefire was signed, which is what many consider as the end of the war, with 5 decisive victories which expelled all Iranian forces from Iraq and regained ≈9000 km² of Iranian land. This, along with Iraq being able to force Iran to the peace table, despite Iran's repeated provocations before the Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980 and Iran's repeated refusals of any attempts at peace, whether it be by the United Nations or the Iraqi government. In addition to this, Iraq had become a powerhouse as a result of an unpreccedented military buildup. These points alone would usually constitute victory for a nation, but yet they do not in the case of Iraq. Instead, the war gets labeled as Inconclusive, largely due to the stalemate from 1982-1987 and Iraq giving back their captured land to Iran in 16 August 1990. KiddKrazy (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- I also wonder why certain editors always revert the territorial change to Status quo ante bellum when the Iraqi occupation of Iranian land didn't end until many years after 1988 (which to be fair the note states) Damian Lew (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Damian Lew i tried to change it to include that, but someone reverted it saying that the infobox needs to be simplistic and that is what the note is for. Still though, i think the war can be considered an Iraqi Victory, largely due to the points i made. KiddKrazy (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- To quote WP:RESULT:
The "result" parameter has often been a source of contention. Particular attention should be given to the advice therein. The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "Inconclusive".
MrOllie (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)- @MrOllie True, but could there be an argument for changing it from "Inconclusive" to "Iraqi victory" based on the points i made? KiddKrazy (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- That would not be an accurate summary of the article (particularly the 'Aftermath' section) or the sources it cites. Making your own argument, not based direct statements from sources, is original research, and is not how Misplaced Pages is written. MrOllie (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- @MrOllie Oh. Makes sense. Thanks for explanation. KiddKrazy (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- That would not be an accurate summary of the article (particularly the 'Aftermath' section) or the sources it cites. Making your own argument, not based direct statements from sources, is original research, and is not how Misplaced Pages is written. MrOllie (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- @MrOllie True, but could there be an argument for changing it from "Inconclusive" to "Iraqi victory" based on the points i made? KiddKrazy (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- To quote WP:RESULT:
- @Damian Lew i tried to change it to include that, but someone reverted it saying that the infobox needs to be simplistic and that is what the note is for. Still though, i think the war can be considered an Iraqi Victory, largely due to the points i made. KiddKrazy (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
@KiddKrazy: Since you were pleased with the explanation, why did you disregard it three months later? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Mikrobølgeovn The more i research this war, the more it becomes an Iraqi victory and a war caused by Iran's Radical rhetoric.
- Iran starts the war by interference in Iraq's affairs (a breach of the 1975 Algiers Agreement) by way of inciting sectarian hatred in Iraq and numerous border conflicts against Iraq. Iranian-backed terrorists also attempted to assassinate Tariq Aziz (Assyrian Ba'ath Party official) when he visited a University in Baghdad, instead killing dozens of students. Iran regards the 1975 Algiers Treaty void on 14 sep. 1980 and Iraq nullifies it on 17 sep. 1980.
- Iraq launches an invasion 22. sep 1980 (what's considered the beginning of the war) as a response to Iranian intrusions, they initially capture Zayn al Qaws and Seif Saad, areas promised to Iraq by the Algiers Treaty. They also invade Qasre Shihrin to put further pressure on Iran.
- On 28. sep 1980, the UN Security Council issues a resolution demanding a ceasefire, which Iraq agreed to, but Iran boycotted the session altogether. Iraq then continued invading to put further pressure on Iran to accept, to no avail.
- In 1982, Iraq retreats from their captured Iranian land in an effort to reconcile with Iran. However Iran continued to reject all attempts for ceasefire, instead presenting Iraq with ceasefire on impossible terms.
- Since then, the war devolves into trench warfare and both sides lose a lot of materials and money. Iraq continues to accept ceasefire attempts and Iran continues their hateful rhetoric.
- In 1987, when Iranians attempted to capture Basra, they failed spectacularly, losing their forward momentum by enormous casualties taken and only captures slivers of land in Basra.
- In April 1988, after months of Iraqi preparing, the Iraqis swiftly liberated Al-Faw. Surprised by the overwhelming success, they expanded it into a larger offensive to drive Iran out of Iraq. The offensive was a decisive Iraqi victory, with the Iranian forces on the run and Iraq liberating occupied land in Iraq and recapturing land in Iran (9600 sq.km)
- The swift and decisive Iraqi victories led to the Iranian government to accept the ceasefire and quit fighting. The Iraqis continued to occupy 9600 sq.km of Iranian land and maintained full sovereignty over the Shatt al-Arab. It was in 1990, when Iran and Iraq signed a formal peace treaty, that it went to status quo ante bellum.
- Both countries were economically devastated by this war, though Iran suffered higher losses. Iran suffered also higher casualties and lost land. The Iraqi Army was strengthened, becoming the 4th largest army in the world. Iraq also gained powerful new allies in the Middle East.
- Iran's goal in the war was to topple the Baghdad government and install a theocracy.
- Iraq's goal in the war was to defend against Iranian aggression and weaken Iran.
- Iraq achieved its goal, and therefore it won.
- Since those three months passed, i had been doing a lot more research and it became clear that the war is very different from the common narrative. KiddKrazy (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
"Iraq achieved its goal, and therefore it won. Since those three months passed, i had been doing a lot more research and it became clear that the war is very different from the common narrative."
Again, the above is original research and is not how Misplaced Pages decides article content. Please provide reliable sources rather than original analysis if you are seeking to establish consensus for any change to article content. Additionally, note that Misplaced Pages reflects the"common narrative"
found in reliable sources by design; if you are unable to accept that, then you should advocate for your views in a more appropriate forum.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Too little is written about the provocations and attacks of Iran leading to the war.
In the "prelude" section, not much is written about the provocations of Iran, despite it being a major reason for the war, it is mentioned in passing as if its a small detail. Some key details regarding provocations are not even written about here.
I translated the Farsi Misplaced Pages page regarding the war and it included speeches Khomeini made calling for an overthrow of the Ba'ath government, Iranian newspaper articles about Iranian attacks against Iraq before the war, the attempted assassination of Tariq Aziz and lots more information.
They also write about the supposed "fact" that Saddam wanted to take over Khuzestan, when this can be disproved. Both by statements issued by Saddam and his ministers saying they had no interest in a land grab and wanted to spread the message that Khomeini's regime could not threaten Iraq, which makes sense regarding previous Iranian provocations and by the UN resolution to stop the war passed shortly after the outbreak of full on war in sep. 1980, where Iraq accepted but Iran denied.
Local Mandaean raised this issue before, though it went unanswered.
So the question is: Why? Why are key details of the prelude to the war left out, as if to spread the false narrative that Iraq invaded unprovoked and out of opportunism? KiddKrazy (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Broken link
Ref. 126: "Viewpoints of the Iranian political and military elites". Archived from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 31 December 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.103.21 (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Categories:
- Former good article nominees
- C-Class level-4 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in History
- C-Class vital articles in History
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
- Middle Eastern military history task force articles
- C-Class Cold War articles
- Cold War task force articles
- C-Class Iran articles
- Top-importance Iran articles
- WikiProject Iran articles
- C-Class Iraq articles
- Top-importance Iraq articles
- WikiProject Iraq articles
- C-Class Western Asia articles
- Top-importance Western Asia articles
- WikiProject Western Asia articles
- C-Class Arab world articles
- High-importance Arab world articles
- WikiProject Arab world articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- C-Class United States History articles
- Mid-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class International relations articles
- Mid-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles