The Lasting Impact of the Iran-Iraq War
                               
Henry Srebrnik, [Toronto] Jewish Tribune 

This coming Sept. 22 marks the date, in 1980, when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran.

Taking advantage of the political turmoil in his much larger neighbour following the downfall of Iran’s Shah and his replacement by Ayatollah Khomeini’s theocratic regime, the Iraqi dictator thought he could score a quick victory and grab the oil rich, Arab-majority province of Khuzestan.
Instead, the struggle became a war of attrition that lasted eight years – it became the longest conventional conflict of the twentieth century – and cost hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides.

Oil production was affected as each country targeted the other’s oil terminals. Both nations also attacked oil tankers and merchant ships in the Persian Gulf, including those of neutral nations, in an effort to deprive the opponent of trade.

Although the war terminated in a military stalemate on Aug. 20, 1988 – Khomeini said he “drank the cup of poison” when he accepted a truce mediated by the United Nations – Iran was the effective victor, having withstood the Iraqi aggression with far less modern weaponry than Iraq possessed.

Iran also had fought without any allies, while Iraq was supported financially by the Arab Gulf states and Saudi Arabia, was supplied with arms by the Soviet Union, and even received covert help from the United States.

As we know, Saddam went on to defeat in the 1991 Gulf War, after having conquered Kuwait, and was finally eliminated altogether by the American invasion of 2003.

Iran, on the other hand, despite Khomeini’s death in 1989 and some internal opposition in recent years, has gone from strength to strength, geopolitically.

Today, ironically, the post-Saddam Iraqi government, led by prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, who is, like the Iranians, a Shi’a Muslim, has become quite close to Tehran. (Saddam’s Ba’ath Party regime was Sunni-dominated and oppressed the country’s Shi’a majority.)

The even more radical Shi’a cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army commands the loyalty of followers in the poorer areas of Baghdad and in the country’s south, is believed to have spent part of the last four years studying to be an ayatollah in Iran.

For these reasons, some analysts call Iran the true beneficiary of the American defeat of Saddam.

Iran has also extended its influence in the Arab world, particularly in Lebanon – where Hezbollah is its political proxy – and Syria.

When Iran’s foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, at the end of August called on the government in Damascus to recognize its people’s “legitimate” demands, this probably had more effect on Bashar al-Assad than anything Washington says.

But Salehi also warned NATO against any temptation to intervene in Syria. “Syria is the front-runner in Middle Eastern resistance” to Israel and NATO “cannot intimidate this country with an attack.” Tehran still considers Assad’s survival a key strategic goal. Iran relies on Syria to help facilitate arming and financing Hezbollah as well as Hamas.

And despite denials by current president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran is clearly in the process of developing a nuclear capability, and makes no bones about threatening to wipe Israel off the map.

“Recognizing the Palestinian state is not the last goal. It is only one step forward towards liberating the whole of Palestine,” Ahmadinejad told worshippers at Tehran University on Aug. 26, ‘International al-Quds Day,’ according to The Jerusalem Post.

In August 1979, Khomeini declared the liberation of Jerusalem (al-Quds in Arabic) a religious duty to all Muslims.

In language reminiscent of Nazi rhetoric, Ahmadinejad declared that “the Zionist regime is a centre of microbes, a cancer cell and if it exists in one iota of Palestine it will mobilize again and hurt everyone.”

Three decades after the start of the Middle East’s longest and deadliest 20th century war, Iran has definitely become a major regional power.