A look at Iran History

Status
Not open for further replies.

Liebling:-)))

Sussi *7.7.86 - 18.6.09*
Premium Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2004
Messages
30,997
Reaction score
10
I wish to post my thread to "History" sub-forum but AD do not have "History" sub-forum so I post my thread here.


Iran and Iraq: a short look at a long history
The relationship is at center of world affairs and America's global interests


Iranian troops advance through obstacles set by Iraqi forces in the Manjnoon Islands, Iraq, on March 10, 1984. Smoke in the background rises from Iraqi armored units set afire by Iranian forces. Archival video

Iraqis react
Sept. 2, 1990: As sanctions take hold a month after Iraq invades neighboring Kuwait, supporters of Saddam Hussein pledge to defend the country.
Nightly News

Nov. 4, 1989: Iranian students overpowered Marines protecting the U.S. embassy in Tehran on Nov. 4, 1979, and captured 52 diplomats.
Nightly News

LONDON - The complex relationship between Iran and Iraq stands at the heart of two of the thorniest issues confronting President Barack Obama during his first few months in office.

While the new administration has signaled its interest in engaging elements of Iran's government, it is dealing with a regime that was emboldened by the United States’ post-invasion setbacks in Iraq and possibly pursuing nuclear weapons. Complicating matters is Tehran's bellicose stance toward Israel and its support of Islamist militant factions elsewhere in the Middle East, including in Iraq, Lebanon and even the Palestinian territories.

For its part, Iraq is still grappling with militants while at the same time trying to form a stable government and balance the competing interests of Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and others. It also faces the possibility of an upsurge in violence as thousands of American troops leave the country in the coming months and years, in line with the 2008 security agreement between the United States and Iraq.

Iran and Iraq also have a unique relationship with each other. The neighbors hold regular security meetings, underlining their ongoing ties. Meanwhile, the Pentagon accuses Iran of supplying militias in Iraq with improvised explosive devices — particularly the especially lethal armor-piercing variety.

Given that Iran is predominantly Shiite and now ruled by a theocratic government, in contrast to Iraq where Sunnis, until the U.S. invasion, long ruled the Shiite majority, the schism between the major branches of Islam has played a major role in relations between the countries. This split dates back to disputes over the succession to the Prophet Mohammed. For the Shiites, Mohammed's son-in-law Ali was the rightful heir to the Prophet, while the Sunnis followed his father-in-law Abu Bakr, who became the first Caliph.

And while ethnically and linguistically distinct — Iran’s population is predominantly Persian and Farsi-speaking, while Iraq’s is dominated by Arabic-speaking Arabs — the two share an intertwining history and a border spanning about 1,000 miles.

Different but next door
The history of Iran, formerly known as Persia, spans many centuries. Its rulers battled the ancient Greeks and its series of empires have stretched as far as western and central Asia and the Caucasus Mountains.

In contrast, Iraq as part of the larger Arab "nation" has been a recognized and distinct country for a much shorter time. Even so, the area known for centuries in Europe as Mesopotamia has in the region been referred to as al-‘Iraq — the shore of a great river and the grazing land around it — since about the eighth century.

Sunni vs. Shiite
It has been Iraq’s fate to be caught in the middle between Persia and subsequent competing powers, according to Middle East expert Dr. Jubin Goodarzi, the author of the "Syria and Iran: Diplomatic Alliance and Power Politics in the Middle East."

“Both during the Romans and the Ottomans, Iraq became a battleground of empires," he says.

An important turning point for both came in 1501 when Shiite Islam became the state religion in Persia (Shiite Islam is distinct from the religion’s other major branch, Sunni Islam). Najaf and Karbala in Iraq, two of Shiite Islam’s most important centers, for which Iran pays for much of the upkeep, are still visited by thousands of Iranian pilgrims and clerics every year, as well as local Iraqi Shiites.

During the 16th and 17th centuries, Iraq became part of the Sunni Ottoman Empire, which stood in contrast to Persia’s Shiite one. Ottoman control over Iraq waxed and waned over the centuries but was finally relinquished in the years following the end of World War I in 1918 and the empire’s subsequent dismantlement. While Iraq was considered a backwater province during Ottoman times, Sunnis were elevated as the local ruling class. The British followed suit.

The victorious European powers carved up Ottoman holdings, with the British occupying the cities of Baghdad, Mosul and Basra in Iraq. In 1920, the League of Nations granted the United Kingdom the mandate for Iraq, and borders were drawn between the countries with little consideration to the communities being split up by them. Subsequent revolts were suppressed and Prince Faisal bin Husain al-Hashemi was placed on the throne within two years.

In 1932, the League of Nations granted Iraq its independence, although Britain left Iraq’s Sunnis very much in charge.

Path to revolution
During World War I, Persia was the scene of intense fighting despite having declared its neutrality, and the decades between the wars were also defined by great political tumult. By 1941, by which time it had changed its name to Iran, the country had sided with the Axis powers, leading to a brief Anglo-Russian occupation of the country at the end of the war.

Its great size, natural resources and, especially, its strategic position on the Caspian Sea ensured that Iran would be a battleground between the Soviet Union and the United States early on in the Cold War.

Iranian army troops and tanks stand in front of Central Police headquarters after the attempted coup against Premier Mohammad Mossadeq in Tehran on

In 1950, nationalist Mohammad Mossadeq became prime minister of Iran, which led to tension with pro-Western Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who fled the country to Iraq in 1953. Later that same year, the intelligence services of Britain and the United States, which feared that Tehran might turn toward Moscow during that crucial stage of the Cold War, helped engineer a coup that deposed Mossadeq and reinstalled the shah.

While there was some tension between Iran and Iraq in the 1940s and 1950s, the countries were mostly governed by conservative, pro-Western regimes.

That changed dramatically in 1958 when a military coup deposed Iraq’s monarchy and established a republic. The secular Sunni government became a center of Arab nationalism, and in the following years struggled to grapple with and suppress its Kurdish minority and largely disenfranchised Shiite majority. Iran maintained ties to both restive groups during this time.

In neighboring Iran, the shah embarked on a modernizing and westernizing campaign in 1963, but in the process became increasingly dependent on the country’s brutal secret police. The shah’s policies alienated the clergy, and later the middle classes and the poor, which led to strikes, riots and mass demonstrations.

It was the shah’s repression of populist democratic movements that led to widespread resentment not only against the regime but also his backers, namely the Americans.

Meanwhile, relations between the two countries soured as Iran lent support to the Kurds in the north of Iraq. Iraq, in turn, aided Iranian Kurds.

During this time the conservative Shiite clergyman Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ruhhollah Musavi Khomeini, a long-time opponent of the shah, was sent into exile for about 14 years. Khomeini spent most of this time in Iraq’s holy city of Najaf, which posed a challenge to Iraq's government given the problems it was having with its own Shiite population. Ultimately, then-Vice President Saddam Hussein forced Khomeini to leave the country in 1978.

The many ties that bind Iran and Iraq - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com

1979: A catalyst
The year 1979 was momentous for both Iraq and Iran. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein consolidated his rule of the Baath Party in a bloody putsch that eliminated possible competitors.

It was also the year that the shah and his family were forced into exile and the Iranian revolution installed a theocratic state led by Khomeini. Following the abduction of 52 American hostages in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, the country found itself largely isolated internationally. (The hostages were released after 444 days.)

The toppling of the shah’s secular, pro-Western regime had a major impact not only on Iran’s standing in the world but also its relations with Iraq.

“The Iranian revolution was a catalyst, and it changed the equation overnight,” says Goodarzi. Saddam benefitted by convincing the West that he was a follower of the foreign policy doctrine that "my enemy’s enemy is my friend" and shored up support for his rule internationally.

From that time on the relationship between the two countries was defined by Iraq's Baathist secular Sunni government versus Iran's theocratic Shiite one, he says, although several events paved the way to hostilities breaking out.

In 1980, an Iran-backed militant Shiite group tried to kill Iraq's foreign minister, Tariq Aziz, and was suspected of trying to kill the minister of culture and information. The response was swift and ruthless: more than 40,000 Shiites of Iranian origin were deported. The government later executed Shiite religious leader Ayatollah Sayyid Mohammad Baqir al-Sadr, and his sister, Bint al-Huda.

During this time, Saddam tried and failed to sever the close ties between the religious hubs of Najaf and Karballah in Iraq and Qom in Iran.

Iran-Iraq war
Tensions soon spilled over into outright war when Saddam invaded Iran in September 1980. The war’s ostensible reason was to settle a border dispute involving the Shatt al-Arab waterway, or Arvand-Round in Farsi, which runs into the Persian Gulf and helps delineate the border between Iraq and Iran.

Saddam saw the Iranian revolution as an existential threat to his ambitions of making Iraq the dominant power in the Persian Gulf, and by the regime’s links with Shiite hierarchy, Kurdish rebels and Islamic organizations within Iraq. Many also see the war as yet another phase in an ancient struggle between the Persians and Arabs.

Saddam had reason to feel confident that the war would be short and Iraq victorious — his intelligence services reported that the Imperial Iranian Army was in shambles after most of its highest ranking officers were executed. It also lacked parts for its American-made weapons and equipment. Rallied against that was Saddam’s huge and well-organized and army.

The West also supported Saddam, knowing that the war would preoccupy the Iranians from exporting their revolution elsewhere in the Middle East, especially in Saudi Arabia. Saddam had something else on its side: In 1975, the U.S. government had helped Iraq get the technology to build a chemical warfare plant. It is widely believed that these were eventually used on Iraqi Kurds and Iranian border towns.

The new Iranian regime saw the war as a test to the government, which helped mobilize society. But here too there were miscalculations. Khomeini counted on Shiites, who constituted the bulk of Iraqi conscripts, to defect. He was disappointed when it became clear that most Iraqi Shiites saw themselves as Iraqis and Arabs first.

So instead of a swift victory for Iraq, the war dragged on for eight years, shattered both countries’ economies and left hundreds of thousand, if not more than 1 million, dead. The two countries agreed a truce in 1988.

Iraq and Kuwait
Saddam was not done with war, however, and in 1990 invaded and annexed Kuwait.

A destroyed Iraqi tank rests near a series of oil-well fires on March 9, 1991, during the Gulf War in northern Kuwait.

This effort came to an end when U.S.-led forces liberated the small Gulf state and invaded Iraq. While American troops did not occupy the country, Shiites saw an opportunity and rose up against Saddam at the end of the war. The revolt was crushed by the government, which had stayed in power. What followed was over a decade of international sanctions and isolation, with the Kurdish north of the country given increasing autonomy.

Iran and Iraq also resumed diplomatic ties in 1990, although both remained in relative international isolation during the following decade given their alleged pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.

What now?
While Iran may have been alarmed at the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 — it already had the United States close in Afghanistan, which borders Iran to the east, after the Taliban was toppled by U.S.-led troops — it is generally agreed that the government feels it has gained from the new status quo.

“For Iran, Iraq has always been an important neighbor, and now it has a government that is friendly, that is important to them — they could not have asked for anything better,” Goodarzi says.

March 10, 2003: As the United States topples Saddam’s regime in Iraq, Iranians talk about their interests in their neighbor and the possibility of talks with America.

Iran has several reasons to be pleased with the government of Iraq: The government is dominated by a Shiite bloc, with a prime minister who is a member of the al-Dawa party, which has long been supported by Iran; the countries have conducted high-level security meetings, culminating in March of 2008 with an unprecedented visit by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Iraq. During his visit, he called on foreign troops to leave and said his country wanted to help rebuild Iraq.

“But at the same time, because of animosity between Iran and Washington, Iran is basically sticking its hands in the Iraqi pie as a way to say to Washington 'We can cause trouble if you don't stop causing trouble in other areas,'" Goodarzi says.

“Causing trouble” could mean the assumed support for Shiite militias that have allegedly received Iranian weapons, which have been used to kill not only Iraqis but Americans. Iran is also assumed to be supporting Muqtada al-Sadr, a firebrand cleric who comes from a prominent line of religious leaders but whose militias have long battled the foreign forces. Tehran denies that it is training and arming militias in Iraq.

Goodarzi says that by its actions in Iraq, Iran is telling the United States: "If you continue this way we can cause mischief here or there.”

“It is a very complex game,” he says.

The many ties that bind Iran and Iraq - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com

You can see pictures and video in the link.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Admin. & Mod.(s),

Could you please change the title of thread from Iran and Iraq..... to Iran History?

I would like to have the title "Iran history" then we can share the history about Iran, etc.


:ty:
 
The US-Iranian Relationship

Dawn of US-Iran Relations:

Iran was once a powerful ally of the United States. During the Cold War, the United States supported, in some cases "propped up," friendly governments as bulwarks against the Soviet Union. And in some of those cases the United States found itself supporting very unpopular, repressive regimes. The Shah of Iran falls into this category.

His government was toppled in 1979 and was eventually replaced by another repressive regime... but this time the leadership was deeply anti-American.

The Ayatollah Khomeini became the ruler of Iran. And he gave many Americans their first glimpse of radical Islam.

Hostage Crisis:

When Iranian revolutionaries took over the American Embassy in the Iran, many observers thought it would just be a a short protest... a symbolic act lasting for a few hours or a few days at most. By the time the American hostages were freed 444 days later, President Jimmy Carter had been forced from office, Ronald Reagan had begun his eight year term at the White House, and U.S.-Iranian relations had entered a deep freeze from which there still appears to be no hope of recovery.

USS Vincennes:

In 1988 the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian commercial flight over the Persian Gulf. 290 Iranians were killed, and the fates of the United States and Iran as mortal enemies seemed to be further sealed.
Iran's Nuclear Dreams:

Today, Iran is openly developing nuclear power capability. They claim this is for peaceful energy purposes, but many are skeptical. And they have been purposefully provocative on whether or not they might use their nuclear capabilities to create weapons.

In a fall 2005 speech to students, Iran's president called for Israel to be wiped off the map. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, abandoning the less-provocative tactics of former president Mohammad Khatami, set himself on collision course with leaders around the world.

A 2007 U.S. government report said Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

Outpost of Tyranny AND Axis of Evil:

When Condoleezza Rice appeared at her Senate confirmation hearings to become Secretary of State she said, "To be sure, in our world there remain outposts of tyranny -- and America stands with oppressed people on every continent -- in Cuba, and Burma, and North Korea, and Iran, and Belarus, and Zimbabwe."

Iran, along with North Korea, is one of only two countries to be named both an "Axis of Evil" (in President George Bush's 2002 State of the Union address) AND an "Outpost of Tyranny."

US Iran Relations - History of US Iranian Relationship
 
The Iranian Hostage Crisis, 1979-1981: Origins and Background

A 444-Day Crisis that Demolished the Carter Presidency


In 1977, neither President Carter nor the CIA saw the brutally repressive regime of Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, the shah of Iran and a staunch ally of the United States, as in any way endangered. Thousands of Iranians protested the shah’s visit to Washington that year. The shah, and Carter, ignored them. Within a year, Iran was engulfed in revolutionary fervor, and the shah’s regime teetering.

Zbignew Brzezinski vs. Cyrus Vance

Carter’s national security adviser, Zbignew Brzezinski — a cold war hardliner whose realism was more coherent in essays than in reality — had pushed Carter to take a hawkish stance against Iran’s revolutionary Islamist students. (The same Brzezinski would soon be enthusiastically endorsing American support of militant Islamists in their fight against Soviet occupiers in Afghanistan.) As protests against the shah grew and became violent, Brzezinski wanted Carter to support a military crackdown by the shah, including the imposition of martial law and the use of force, if necessary. Carter resisted getting personally involved. His commitment to human rights overrode Brzezinski’s concerns that the shah could be toppled.

Cyrus Vance, Carter’s secretary of state, had urged the president to stop backing the shah and open a line of communication with Khomeini when the ayatollah was still in Paris. Carter, not wanting to look like the president who “lost Iran,” refused to pull back official support of the shah.


The Shah loses Power

But by November 1978, the shah’s hold on power was academic. It was a matter of time before he’d be driven out. When, on Nov. 6, 1978, the Shah imposed martial law, his speech to the nation sounded like a surrender: “I commit myself to make up for past mistakes, to fight corruption and injustices and to form a national government to carry out free elections.”


Two months later—on Jan. 16, 1979—the shah fled Iran. And on Feb. 1, Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini flew on an Air France jumbo jet from Paris to Tehran. Carter sent a squadron of F-16s to Saudi Arabia as a show of American force and will. But word leaked that the F-16s were unarmed. It was a humiliation for Carter that sent a message to American foes: the United States was not committed to defend its interests forcefully.

Two weeks after the Ayatollah’s de-facto reign began, Iranian revolutionary guerillas took over the American embassy in Tehran—but only for two hours. Revolutionary Guards intervened against the attackers, and Khomeini, by way of another ayatollah, apologized for the attack.


Fatal Mistake: Admitting the Shah Into the United States

The ayatollah’s tune changed in October 1979 when Carter caved to David Rockefeller’s and Henry Kissinger’s insistence that the shah be allowed into the United States for medical treatment. The shah was suffering from cancer. Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank had loaned hundreds of millions of dollars to the shah while he was in power, and Kissinger’s interests shadowed Rockefeller’s. Rockefeller was looking to get his money back. Nursing the shah while forcing Carter’s hand were cynically minded business decisions.

Carter knew the risk of letting the shah into the country. His outgoing ambassador in Iran, William Sullivan, had made it clear: “If they let him in, they will bring us out in boxes,” Sullivan told State Department official Henry Precht over the phone. The concerns were relayed to Carter, who was resisting letting the shah in until Vance defected from his side and joined the chorus urging Carter to let in the shah. “What are you guys going to advise me to do if they overrun our embassy and take our people hostage?” Carter asked his aides during a foreign policy breakfast on Oct. 19, 1979. No one answered. “On that day,” Carter went on, “we will all sit here with long drawn white faces and realize we’ve been had.”

(The quote is from Hamilton Jordan’s Crisis: The Last Year of the Carter Presidency (Putnam, 1982), page 32. Jordan was Carter’s chief of staff.)

On October 22, 1979, the shah entered the United States. On Nov. 4, militants took over the American embassy in Tehran. (The shah died on July 27, 1980, in Cairo.)


How Rockefeller and Chase Bank Profited From the Crisis
“The benefit of the embassy takeover was significant for Chase” and Rockefeller, writes Patrick Tyler in World of Trouble: The White House and the Middle East from the cold war to the war on terror (Farrar Straus Giroux, 2009). “Carter froze Iranian assets in the United States, including the hundreds of millions of dollars in Chase accounts. The freeze enabled Chase to declare Iran in default on its loans since the Iranian central bank was no longer able to move money between accounts to make interest payments. Chase then seized Iran’s cash reserves in the amount of the outstanding loans and walked away clean from the disaster.”

Carter—and the United States—would be neither so lucky nor so unscathed. And for the hostages in Iran a 444-day ordeal was just beginning.

The Iranian Hostage Crisis, 1979-1981 – Origins and Background of the Iranian Hostage Crisis
 
What Was the Arms-for-Hostages Iran-Contra Affair?

Question:

What Was the Arms-for-Hostages Iran-Contra Affair?

Answer:

The Iran-Contra affair was a constitutional crisis that embroiled the Reagan administration in its last two years (1986-88), raised the prospect of Ronald Reagan’s impeachment, clouded the presidency or George H.W. Bush and contributed to keeping it from extending to a second term.

The scandal entailed illegal funding and arming of Nicaragua’s right-wing contras fighting the leftist Sandinista regime as well as illegally trading arms with Iran in exchange for the release of seven American hostages held by Iranian-sponsored militants in Lebanon. Profits from arms sales to Iran were to be used to buy weapons for the contras.

How the Reagan Administration Systematically Broke the Law
Congress had forbidden the Reagan administration from supporting the Nicaraguan Contras, and the administration’s public stance was never to negotiate with hostage-takers, terrorists or Iran. In every case, the administration secretly broke policy and countered congressional directives by launching what was essentially a privatized foreign policy operation. The operation’s point men were the National Security Council’s Robert McFarlane (1983–85) and John Poindexter (1985–86) and NSC staffer Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North.

The scandal eventually implicated numerous and senior members of the Reagan administration, including President Reagan himself, Vice President George Bush, Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger, Director of Central Intelligence William J. Casey, and national security advisers McFarlane and Poindexter. While Weinberger and Shultz dissented from the policy decision, Weinberger eventually gave in by ordering the Department of Defense to provide the necessary arms to Iran and the Contras.


What a Life Was Worth

“The market price was set: One American citizen is worth 300 TOW antitank missiles, or 50 Hawks and 200 TOWs,” wrote Terry Anderson in Den of Lions, the account of his seven-year captivity in Lebanon. (Hawks are surface-to-air missiles). Anderson was referring to a Dec. 5, 1985 memo by North outlining the package of weaponry to be shipped to Iran by way of Israel. On Feb. 17, 1986, 500 TOW missiles were shipped from Israel to Bandar Abbas in Southwest Iran, according to Anderson (who had been the Associated Press’ bureau chief in Beirut before his captivity). A second shipment of 500 TOWs followed the same route on Feb. 27.

“No hostages were released,” Anderson wrote. “However, North got something else out of the deal. The Americans had heavily overcharged Iran for the missiles they had sent,” so even after all involved took their cut, “millions of dollars were left over, and ‘off the books’—that is, with no need to account for it, since officially it didn’t exist. That money, it occurred to North very quickly, could be used for another project dear to both his and Reagan’s hearts: the Nicaraguan Contras.”


The Scandal Breaks

Hints of an illegal operation first appeared on Oct. 5, 1986, when Nicaraguan government soldiers shot down a CIA cargo plane carrying weapons to the Contras, including 50,000 rounds of ammunition for Soviet-built AK-47 automatic rifles, rifles, grenades and boots. The Reagan administration immediately denied involvement, claiming the plane had been operated privately. But the one surviving crewmember, Eugene Hasenfus, five days later publicly implicated the CIA.

The scandal broke in earnest on Nov. 3, 1986, when the Lebanese weekly, Al-Shiraa, published an account of McFarlane’s visit to Tehran (the magazine got some details wrong: McFarlane was in Tehran in May 1986, not in September) and revealed the secret dealings between Reagan administration officials and the Iran over weapons, hostages and Iran’s promise to stop supporting “liberation movements in the world.”


A Mostly Successful Cover-Up


“When these operations ended,” Independent Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh concluded in his report in August 1993, “the exposure of the Iran/contra affair generated a new round of illegality. Beginning with the testimony of Elliott Abrams and others in October 1986 and continuing through the public testimony of Caspar W. Weinberger on the last day of the congressional hearings in the summer of 1987, senior Reagan Administration officials engaged in a concerted effort to deceive Congress and the public about their knowledge of and support for the operations. Independent Counsel has concluded that the President's most senior advisers and the Cabinet members on the National Security Council participated in the strategy to make National Security staff members McFarlane, Poindexter and North the scapegoats whose sacrifice would protect the Reagan Administration in its final two years. In an important sense, this strategy succeeded. Independent Counsel discovered much of the best evidence of the cover-up in the final year of active investigation, too late for most prosecutions.”

See a list of prosecutions, convictions and pardons following the Iran-Contra scandal.


The Arms-for-Hostages Iran-Contra Scandal - What Was the Reagan Administration's Iran-Contra Scandal
 
Admin. & Mod.(s),

Could you please change the title of thread from Iran and Iraq..... to Iran History?

I would like to have the title "Iran history" then we can share the history about Iran, etc.


:ty:

Done... let me know if this looks ok :thumb:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top