kcl mun study guide - the 1988 iran-iraq war (06/03/2012)

UN Historical General Assembly (1988)

“The Iran-‐‑Iraq War”

http://www.mununiversity.org

A study guide written as part of the KCL Model United Nations Chairing Training Program 2012 A didactic program by MUN University

2 “The Iran-‐‑Iraq War”

A study guide written as part of the KCL MUN Chairing Training Program 2011

A didactic program by MUN University

Table of Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 4

Historical origins of the conflict .................................................................................................................................. 4 Background .................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Key Political Actors ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Saddam Hussein ........................................................................................................................................................... 7

Causes for conflict ............................................................................................................................................... 8 Khuzestan .................................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Khuzestan Shatt al-‐‑Arab Waterway ........................................................................................................................... 8 Political Chaos in Iran .................................................................................................................................................. 8 The deaths of Tariq Aziz and Muhammad Baqir al-‐‑Sadr ....................................................................................... 8

The War itself ....................................................................................................................................................... 9 Outbreak and early stages ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Iraqi Retreats, 1982-‐‑1984 ............................................................................................................................................ 10 The War of Attrition, 1984-‐‑1987 ................................................................................................................................ 10

The War and its military tactics ...................................................................................................................... 12 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 12 1980: Air interdiction (AI) .......................................................................................................................................... 12 1981:Human wave attacks ......................................................................................................................................... 12 1982:Encouragement of heroism and martyrdom ................................................................................................. 13 1983-‐‑1984: Chemical weapons ................................................................................................................................... 13 1984:Tanker tactics ...................................................................................................................................................... 13 1984:Operation Dawn 5 and 6 ................................................................................................................................... 13 1985-‐‑1986:Another round of chemical warfare ....................................................................................................... 14 1987-‐‑1988: Poison gas attack ...................................................................................................................................... 14

Casualties ............................................................................................................................................................ 15 An overview ................................................................................................................................................................ 15




Total figures ................................................................................................................................................................. 16

International Community reactions .............................................................................................................. 17 Bloc positions ............................................................................................................................................................... 17 Relevant UN Action .................................................................................................................................................... 18

Issues a resolution must address ................................................................................................................... 19




Introduction

Historical origins of the conflict

Historically, the Middle East has always been a spot of contention on the world map. Wars have been fought and people killed from as far back as 632 AD. From the start of the 20th century, this region alone has seen around 37 conflicts, from the Turkish war of Independence to now, in July 1988. This most recent conflict is one that was brought on by a number of reasons, chief among them being the religious minority in Iraq and the consequent insecurities of its rulers, the Shatt-‐‑al-‐‑Arab waterway, and the oil rich region of Khuzestan. This war has been very costly to both countries involved in terms of both lives and money lost.

Background

Iraq and Iran have had a long history of conflict fuelled by religious differences between the Sunni Muslim Iraqi government and the mainly Shiite Muslim Iraqi population and the Shiite religious government of Iran. The majority of the world’s billion-‐‑odd Muslims are Sunnis. Approximately 10 to 15 percent of all Muslims follow the Shiite branch (pronounced Shi’ite, Shi’a or Shia). Beyond that, it gets slightly complicated, however. Who lives where, and why the differences and conflicts between them? The answer is less daunting than it seems. Sunnis form the overwhelming majority in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. Shiites form the majority only in Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, and Azerbaijan, but they constitute sizable minorities in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen. Islam has no codified laws per se. It has various schools of law. While Sunni doctrine is more rigidly aligned in accordance with those various schools, its hierarchical structure is looser and often falls under state, rather than clerical, control. The opposite is true in Shi’itism: The doctrine is somewhat more open to interpretation but the clerical hierarchy is more defined and, as in Iran, the ultimate authority is the imam, not the state. What are the sources for Sunni-‐‑Shi’a conflict? That'ʹs a loaded, condescending question best answered by raising a mirror to the more familiar: Why couldn'ʹt Catholics and Protestants get along for hundreds of years (and in straggling cases still aren'ʹt getting along?). The answer must take account of doctrinal and historical differences, however irrational those differences might seem to the objective, uninvolved eye. The answer must also take account of the inexplicable: Religious differences are, ultimately, as impossible to settle as metaphysical questions. Peaceful societies depend on what mechanisms or institutions they have developed




for channeling those differences into non-‐‑violent conflict. One of the factors contributing to hostility between the two powers was a dispute over full control of the Shatt al-‐‑Arab waterway (known as Arvand Rud in Iran) This waterway is the confluence between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and forms the southern border between Iraq and Iran. Iran claimed the border was the middle of the river while Iraq claimed the border was on the Eastern bank giving them complete ownership of this navigable waterway at the head of the Persian Gulf, an important channel for the oil exports of both countries. In 1937, Iran and Iraq signed a treaty that settled the long-‐‑standing dispute, which dated back to the Ottoman-‐‑Persian wars of the 16th and 17th centuries over the control of the Shatt al-‐‑Arab. In the same year, Iran and Iraq both joined the Saadabad Pact1, and relations between the two nations remained good for decades afterwards. In 1955, both nations joined the Baghdad Pact2. The 1937 treaty recognized the Iranian-‐‑Iraqi border as along the low-‐‑water mark on the eastern side of the Shatt al-‐‑Arab except at Abadan and Khorramshahr where the frontier run along the Thalweg (the deep water line) which gave Iraq control of almost the entire waterway; provided that all ships using the Shatt al-‐‑Arab fly the Iraqi flag and have an Iraqi pilot, and required Iran to pay tolls to Iraq whenever its ships used the Shatt al-‐‑Arab. The Iraqi regime'ʹs dissatisfaction with Iran'ʹs possession of the oil-‐‑rich Khu ̄zesta ̄n province (which Iraqis called Arabistan) which surfaced in 1959 that had a large Arabic-‐‑speaking population was not limited to rhetorical statements; Iraq began supporting secessionist movements in Khuzestan. In April 1969, Iran abrogated the 1937 treaty over the Shatt al-‐‑ Arab, and as such, Iran ceased paying tolls to Iraq when its ships used the Shatt al-‐‑Arab. Iraq threatened war over the Iranian move, but when on April 24, 1969 an Iranian tanker escorted by Iranian warships sailed down the Shatt al-‐‑Arab, Iraq being the militarily weaker state did nothing. The Iranian abrogation of the 1937 treaty marked the beginning of a period of acute Iraqi-‐‑Iranian tension that was to last until the Algiers Accords of 1975.

1 The Treaty of Saadabad (or the Saadabad Pact) was a non-‐‑ aggression pact signed by Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan on July 8, 1937 2 The Central Treaty Organization (also referred to as CENTO, original name was Middle East Treaty Organization or METO, also known as the Baghdad Pact) was adopted in 1955 by Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.




Key Political Actors

Iraq: Saddam Hussein

In the mid-‐‑1970s, Saddam Hussein had become one of the most influential figures in Iraqi politics. In 1979, he forced the country’s incumbent president to resign and organized a meeting of the Ba’ath Party, which is based on socialism and not Islamic thinking, during which everyone he considered an opponent was seized and executed. This bloody ascension to the office of president (or, as many say, dictator), left his control over the government shaky in the beginning of 1980. However, Hussein did not regard himself as just another of the thuggish dictators scattered throughout the Middle East. He saw himself as a great leader and modernizer whose goal it was to move Iraq into the First World, by making it the Middle East’s leading state. It is notable that Hussein, like many of his followers was a Sunni Muslim whilst the majority religious group of Iraq is Shia Muslims. Hence, Hussein never received full support of the Shias, who distrusted him. However, a greater problem existed in the fact that their neighbor, Iran, is the world’s preeminent Shia-‐‑Muslim state.

Iran: Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini

In 1979, Iran underwent a radical change on government, which entailed the overthrow of Iran’s leader Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, a modernizing, pro-‐‑Western monarch by a coalition of opponents who ranged across the ideological spectrum, from communists to Islamic radicals. Despite some initial scuffling for power, the Islamists came into control. Their leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini assumed power over the country and reversed all the diplomatic relations that the Shah had forged, for example alliances with Israel and the United States, and the state took on an active anti-‐‑Western ideology. Ayatollah Khomeini’s charismatic personality embodied the fears of all secular despots. Despite been sent into French exile by the Shah, he had laid the groundwork of the Islamic Revolution by smuggling tapes of his sermons into the country, and thus also got the support of the people of Iran. Their new boldness toward the United States was clearly displayed in the Iranian Hostage Crisis, when a group of radical young students stormed the American embassy and took all staff hostage. Over the course of the next few weeks, it became clear that this operation was backed by the state for domestic and political gain. Not only was this a serious violation of International Law, it also demonstrated Iran’s belligerent new attitude toward the United States. Later on in the war, the Iranian enmity with the United States would prove costly.




Causes for conflict

Territorial Claims

Khuzestan Khuzestan, which borders Iraq, is an oil-‐‑rich province with a predominately non-‐‑Persian population (Persians are the largest ethnic group in Iran, and dominate the elite of that country). Khuzestan‟s residents represent a variety of ethnicities, but many are Arabs with cultural ties to the Iraqi neighbors to their west. Iraq claimed a historical right to control the province, which Iran of course rejected. In addition, Iraq also laid claim to a number of small islands in the Persian Gulf that were occupied militarily by Iran.

Khuzestan Shatt al-‐‑Arab River Persia/Iran and Iraq (and, before the creation of Iraq, the Ottoman Empire) had long vied for control of the Shatt al-‐‑Arab. The Iranian cities of Abadan and Khoramshahr and the Iraqi city and major port of Basra are situated along this river. The 1975 Algiers Accord between the two countries supposedly settled the dispute, but when the war began, Iraq revived its claims to complete control of the waterway. Unlike Iran, which has a long coastline with a number of Persian Gulf ports, Iraq only has very limited access to the Gulf, making the Shatt al-‐‑Arab economically and strategically critical to that country. In 1980, Hussein released a statement claiming to abrogate the treaty that he signed, and then he invaded Iran.

Political Issues

Political Chaos in Iran Following the overthrow of the Shah and before Khomeini had taken power the political scenario in Tehran was chaotic, with many different factions vying for power. Also, what was previously the Iranian Military was greatly degraded due to the fact that much of the officer corps fled Iran during the Islamic Revolution. Because of all the above factors, Iraq saw a very good opportunity to strike Iran while it was still down, effectively establishing Hussein as the pre-‐‑eminent leader in the Persian Gulf and perhaps so discrediting the Iranian Government as to bring about its ultimate downfall.

The deaths of Tariq Aziz and Muhammad Baqir al-‐‑Sadr In the spring of 1980, an Iranian sponsored group, Ad Dawah, attempted to assassinate Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi Foreign Minister. In a related incident Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-‐‑Sadr, a very prominent Iraqi Shia cleric was arrested and executed. Sadr had very publicly defended the Islamic Revolution in Iran.




The War itself

Outbreak and early stages

1980 Tensions between Iran and Iraq were already high because of the aforementioned incidents involving Tariq Aziz and Sadr

September 1980 Iraq declared the Shatt al-‐‑Arab waterway to be theirs. 22 September 1980 Iraqi invasion of Iran

The Shatt al-‐‑Arab posed no major obstacle to the Iraqi armies who were well equipped with Soviet river crossing equipment

January 1981 Iran launched a massive counter-‐‑offensive

Failed to drive back Iraqi forces but dented the Iraqi military armor September 1981 Baghdad stopped the siege of Abadan December 1981/ Iran defeats Iraq in the Qasr Al-‐‑Shirin area January 1982 1982 Iran engaged in undertaking suicide missions to pursue ‘human wave attacks’ The Iraqi army correctly assumed that the two crossing sites of Khardeh and Karun were lightly guarded. They pushed Iranian forces back and gained substantial territory, including Khuzestan. However their progress was too slow. During the planning of the campaign, the only uncertainty in Iraqi Army’s plans was the capability of the Iranian Air Force, who was armed with the most sophisticated American-‐‑made aircrafts. Their uncertainty was definitely warranted when Iran launched a massive counter-‐‑offensive in January 1981. Although the attack failed to drive the Iraqi’s back, it definitely dented the armor of the Iraqi military. Despite the ensuing stalemate, neither country was willing to concede, nor negotiate. Tehran was especially unwilling to cooperate as long as the Iraqi army was occupying Iran’s territory. Iran recognized that they would need to harness their population’s religious fanaticisms if they were to gain an upper hand in the war. Iran’s clerical rulers preached that the “true believers” who died defending Iran would be rewarded as martyrs in the afterlife, and by 1982 thousands of Iranians were undertaking what were essentially suicide missions.




Iran used the tactics of “human wave attacks”, in order to overwhelm the Iraqi troops’ military proficiency with pure numbers. These tactics were internationally controversial as they not only showed utter disregard for the lives of the volunteers but also enlisted children, some of whom were less than ten years old. Iran stopped Iraqi forces on the Karun River and, with limited military stocks, unveiled its "ʺhuman wave"ʺ assaults. After Bani Sadr was ousted as president and commander in chief, Iran gained its first major victory, when, as a result of Khomeini'ʹs initiative, the army and the Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guard) cooperated to force Baghdad to lift its long siege of Abadan in September 1981. Iranian forces also defeated Iraq in the Qasr-‐‑e Shirin area in December 1981 and January 1982. The Iraqi armed forces were hampered by their unwillingness to sustain a high casualty rate and therefore refused to initiate a new offensive.

Iraqi Retreats, 1982-‐‑1984 March 1982 Operation Undeniable Victory was launched by Iran Piercing Iraq’s ‘impenetrable’ lines, forcing an Iraqi reatreat – Turning point in the war May 1982 Iraqi armies had retreated to internationally recognized lines

Hussein believed this would end the war, however, Iran did not regard the withdrawal as an end of the conflict and consequently continued their offensives

June 1982 Baghdad stated it willingness to negotiate a settlement of the war and to withdraw her forces,

Iran refused. Late 1982 Iraq launched a new phase of the ground war, with the help of Soviet materiel support 1983 Both sides displayed their ability to both inflict and absorb heavy casualties and losses Early 1984 Change in Iraqi tactics from controlling Iranian territory to denying Tehran substantial gains in

Iraq. Iraq sought superpower involvement in order to end the war February 1984 Iraq attacked Iranian shippings

The War of Attrition, 1984-‐‑1987

As the conflict dragged on, neither side made a decisive military breakthrough of the sort that would force its opponent to concede defeat, and the war settled into a stalemate. However, Iraq was facing far more difficult circumstances than was its enemy—Iran was far more populous, and the war appeared to have strengthened its regime. Thus, it appeared far better able to survive a long war of attrition. With Iraq unable to make a




conventional military breakthrough, it turned to two gambits in an effort to force Iran to agree to end the conflict: the use of chemical weapons and the “war of the cities.” Within a four-‐‑week period between February and March 1984, the Iraqis reportedly killed 40,000 Iranians and lost 9,000 of their own men, but even this was deemed an unacceptable ratio, and in February the Iraqi command ordered the use of chemical weapons. Despite repeated Iraqi denials, between May 1981 and March 1984, Iran charged Iraq with forty uses of chemical weapons. The year 1984 closed with part of the Majnun Islands and a few pockets of Iraqi territory in Iranian hands. Casualties notwithstanding, Tehran had maintained its military posture, while Baghdad was reevaluating its overall strategy. The War of The Cities had no clearly definable beginning. Although there were attacks on cities early on in the war, it is reasonable to say that the War of the Cities began in 1985 when Iraq launched multiple air strikes on Tehran, among other cities. In retaliation, Iran Scud bombed Baghdad. In early 1988, Baghdad launched a major missile attack on Tehran. The citizens of Tehran, afraid of the missiles containing chemical weapons, fled the city. The objective of each country was to terrorize the citizenry of the opposing country into submission. They both used highly inaccurate ballistic missiles and other weapons that were sure to inflict considerable collateral damage.




The War and its military tactics

Introduction Military tactics are the techniques for using weapons and military units in combination for engaging and defeating an enemy in battle. They have been used since the time of Pearl Harbor where prevailing weather was exploited and Blitzkrieg (fastidious utilization of speed resulting in a sudden shock of violence) used in the World War. They may range from small unit tactics like ambush and guerilla to offensive and defensive tactics including frontal assault (direct hostile movement) and trench raiding. The geographical position of Iran and Iraq has been vital in understanding the military tactics used during the war of the 80‟s. Both nations are surrounded by the sea, which was one of the reasons for extensive use of tanker and marine warfare coupled with ground warfare tactics.

1980: Air interdiction (AI) Air interdiction is the use of aircraft to attack tactical ground targets that are not in close proximity to friendly ground forces. The objective of this tactic was to capture the strategic town of Khorramshahr. Iraqi troops launched surprise military air strikes in order to destroy the Iranian air force base. In retaliation the Iranians subjected Baghdad to 7 more attacks by the 1st of October. The estimated number of deaths on both sides was 7,000.On the 7th of December 1980 both sides decided to go on the defensive and the main tactic used during this time was trench raiding.

1981: Human wave attacks On November 29, 1981 Iran began OperationTariq al-‐‑ Qods (Operation Jerusalem Way) which saw the first Iranian “human wave attacks” Human wave attack, also known as human sea attack, is offensive infantry tactic, in which an attacker conducts an unprotected frontal assault with densely concentrated infantry formations against the enemy line, intended to overrun the defenders by engaging in melee combat. The goal of the human wave attack is to maneuver as many men as possible into melee range, hoping that the shock from a large mass of attackers engaged in melee combat would force the enemy to disintegrate or fall back. The human wave attacks were carried out mainly by the Basij soldiers (a paramilitary volunteer militia established in 1979). They gained much honor, love, and respect for their bravery in defending Iran from the Iraqis, as well as their piousness and devotion. The "ʺmartyers"ʺ signed "ʺPassports to Paradise"ʺ as admission forms to the Basij were called. 2,500 Iraqis and 6,000 Iranians had been killed in the fighting.




1982: Encouragement of heroism and martyrdom On the 3rd of July 1982 the Iranian unit advanced towards Basra one of the important cities of Iraq. A tactic used in this advance noted throughout the world was the encouragement of heroism among young Iranian Basij volunteers who launched human wave attacks on Iraqi positions. They were sent to the front with wooden keys around their necks (to open the doors of Heaven when they "ʺmartyred"ʺ themselves). To counter them Hussein had also more than doubled the size of the Iraqi army from 200,000 soldiers (12 divisions and 3 independent brigades) to 500, 000 (23 divisions and nine brigades). Thus a number of Iranian boys were slain during the human wave attacks.

1983-‐‑1984: Chemical weapons During the course of 1983, the Iranians launched five major assaults along the front but there was no substantial result as the wave attacks were without artillery, air or armored support. On February 24, 1984 the Iranians launched Operation Khaiber an offensive to capture Basra. The Iraqi counter attacked using mustard gas (strongly mutagenic and carcinogenic causing severe burns) and Sarin nerve gas (causes chronicle neurological damage). This was the first time chemical weapons had been used in a war since the World Wars. Iraq had been a party in the Geneva protocol and this act resulted in violation of international law. Approximately 5% of all Iranian casualties are directly attributable to the use of these agents. About 100,000 Iranian soldiers were victims of Iraq'ʹs chemical attacks Nerve gas agents killed about 20,000 Iranian soldiers immediately, according to official reports. Of the 80,000 survivors, some 5,000 seek medical treatment regularly and about 1,000 are still hospitalized with severe, chronic conditions.

1984: Tanker tactics The Tanker War started when Iraq attacked Iranian tankers and the oil terminal at Kharg Island in early 1984. Iran struck back by attacking tankers carrying Iraqi oil from Kuwait and then any tanker of the Persian Gulf states supporting Iraq. This was dubbed as the “Tanker War” and was unique to the First Gulf War as both the nations involved were surrounded by water-‐‑bodies. It is estimated that the Tanker War damaged 546 commercial vessels and killed about 430 civilian sailors.

1984: Operation Dawn 5 and 6 The goal of the offensive (Operation Dawn 5) was to split the Iraqi 3rd Army Corps and 4th Army Corps near Basra. It was fought between the Pasdaran, Basij and the Iraqi Army. Operation Dawn 6 was a military operation conducted by the forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran against the armed forces of Saddam Hussein'ʹs Iraq. It lasted from the 22nd to the 24th February 1984 and, along with




Operation Dawn 5, it was part a larger operation to secure part of the Baghdad-‐‑Basra highway, thus cutting two of Iraq'ʹs most important cities from each other.

1985-‐‑1986:Another round of chemical warfare On the 11th march 1985 the Iranians launched an offensive codenamed Operation Badr. Iraq suffered 10 to 12, 000 casualties in Badr while the Iranians took 15, 000 casualties. Saddam responded to this strategic emergency by launching chemical attacks against the Iranian positions along the highway and by initiating the second 'ʹwar of the cities'ʹ with a massive air and missile campaign against twenty Iranian towns, including Tehran.

1987-‐‑1988: Poison gas attack The Halabja poison gas attack also known as Halabja massacre or Bloody Friday, was a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988, when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces in the Kurdish town of Halabja in Iraqi Kurdistan. The attack killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people, and injured around 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them civilians. In July 1988 Iraqi airplanes dropped chemical cyanide bombs on the Iranian Kurdish village of Zardan and the same massacre that had taken place in Halabja was repeated. Attempting to capture Basra, Tehran launched several attacks; some of them well disguised diversion assaults such as Operation Karbala Six and Operation Karbala Seven. These were again strategic operations that used the cover of the night to capture important towns and villages.




Casualties

An overview 1983 Three major, but unsuccessful human wave offensive with huge losses along the frontier,

resulting in 120,000 Iranian and 60,000 Iraqi casualties 06.02.1983 Iran used 200,000 soldiers to capture a 40km stretch near Baghdad, causing 6,000

casualties 1984 300,000 Iranian and 250,000 Iraqi troops killed or wounded Operation Dawn 5 Over 25,000 fatalities Operation Dawn 6 Feb.-‐‑March 1984 40,000 Iranians were killed, 9,000 Iraqis dead 1985 ‘Operation Badr’ killed 20,000 Iranians and 10-‐‑12,000 Iraqis Feb. 1986 Toxic blister agent Tabun killed 16,000 Iranians 1987 Renewed waves of Iranians offensives, killing 20,000 Iraqis and 65,000 Iranians




Total figures Strength of armies

Iran Iraq 600,000 soldiers; 100,000 to 150,000 Pasdaran and Basij

300,000 in 1980, 1,000,000 by 1988

100,000 militia 1,000 tanks 4,000 tanks 4,000 armored vehicles 4,000 armored vehicles 7,000 artillery pieces 7,330 artillery pieces 747 aircraft, 750 helicopters 500+ aircraft, 100+ helicopters Casualties and losses Iran Iraq 500,000 to 1,000,000 dead. Iranian government official figure of 188,015 soldiers, militia, and civilians killed

Estimated 300,000 soldiers, militia, and civilians killed or wounded




International Community reactions

Bloc positions

USA The USA has always had a large interest in the Middle East due to the large oil supplies the USA is heavily depending on. Prior to the Iranian Revolution, thus under the reign of the Shah, and the seizure of embassy staff in the 1979 – 1981 Iranian hostage crisis, the USA had supplied Iran with arms. However, these political events worsened the political relations between the USA and Iran drastically, as the USA was now turned against Iran. The USA was now focusing more on Iraq as a reliable ally in the region of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. In the light of these developments, the USA supplied Iraq with weapons, intelligence, technology, military and counterinsurgency training. Moreover, the USA removed Iraq from a list of State Sponsors of Terrorism in 1982 to facilitate the flow of dual-‐‑use technology into the country. This involvement is however not to be understood as the USA willingly supporting Iraq. In fact, the USA was more focused on finding a reliable ally to secure her oil interests in the region. This stance is underlined by a quote by Henry Kissinger stating that ‘it’s a pity that not both countries can loose’. Regardless of the American support for Iraq, on August 2, 1990 Iraq launched a full-‐‑scale invasion of Kuwait – a close ally of the USA, turning Iraq to one of America’s most bitter enemies.

USSR The USSR’s economic interests in the affected region are comparatively low to the American ones. Overall, the USSR started off by pursuing a very neutral course, named ‘strict neutrality’ during the beginning years of the war. However, seeing that Iraq had always been a close ally of the USSR in the region, the USSR massively supported Iraq in the final years of the war. Considering the ideological and political stakes for the USSR in the region, the USSR was very interest in containing a spread of Islamic revolution from Iran to other parts of Asia, as it was a main sphere of the USSR’s communist sphere of influence. The USSR’s support for Iraq can thus be summarized as a strategy to avoid the spread of an Islamic Revolution to other parts of Asia, that would threaten the USSR’s predominant position in the region.

Italy, United Kingdom and France The three countries named above were the major European countries involved in the Iran-‐‑Iraq War. All three countries supported Iraq militarily, in terms of mines, military equipment, military training, naval and ground forces as well as financially; especially Italy offered massive financial support for Iraq during the war by supporting her with over US$ 5 billion.




Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea (DPRK) North Korea was one of the very few countries to side with Iran during the Iran-‐‑Iraq war, which acted as a middleman between the Communist bloc and Iran. The aid was constituted of military equipment, naval warfare and missile technology. Turkey Turkey was the only country to oppose the US trade embargo imposed on Iran and Iraq, and thus was the only source of international goods into the two countries. As a result, both countries became somewhat independent on Turkey economically Gulf States The majority of Gulf States, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates supported Iraq, mainly financially. Nonetheless, diplomatic relations with Iran were maintained.

Relevant UN Action At the beginning of the war itself, the UN called for a cease-‐‑fire between the belligerents. However, it was completely unheeded. Iraq remained inside Iranian territory at the time. However, Iran was disillusioned from the UN a little later, when they refused to provide Iran with assistance. Iran felt that the UN was biased towards Iraq, which is, in fairness, partially true as the US prevented the UN condemning Iraq. The international community surprisingly overlooked Iraq’s use of chemical weapons as well. The UN released a statement that “chemical weapons were used”. However, they did not directly condemn Iraq, in spite of the fact that Iraq had clearly broken the Geneva Protocol of 1925. UNSC Resolution 582, February 24, 1986

• Condemned the escalation of the conflict (territorial incursions, bombing of civilian areas, violation of int’l law, use of chemical weapons)

• Called upon cease fire and withdrawal of military forces to int’l recognised borders • Both parties refused to implement it

UNSC Resolution 589, July 20, 1987

• Demands that Iran and Iraq observe a ceasefire as a first step towards a negotiated settlement • Request that an observer-‐‑team be sent to the region • Requested that POW be released and repatriated • Question of the responsibility for the conflict




Issues a resolution must address

How can long lasting peace be achieved in the region? How can the respective countries be brought to justice for their various unethical war practices? Should the UN take action regarding the use of chemical weapons?

In context to this war, how can further conflicts in the Middle East, be prevented? Is there a way to ensure communal tensions between the Shi’ite and Sunni Muslims in the respective countries so as to not lead to further conflict?

Due to their global importance, how can the oil resources of these countries be protected from mutual attack as well as from usurpation from foreign countries with vested interests?

Can a suitable water sharing agreement be reached regarding the Shatt al-‐‑Arab waterway so that it does not become a catalyst for conflict once more?

kcl mun study guide - the 1988 iran-iraq war (06/03/2012)

News & Politics