The Iran-Iraq borders have been marked by hostility for a long time. The harsh memories are still carried to this day, and the environment is not peaceful between the two. Iraq was founded after the division of the great Ottoman Empire into certain states. Since then, Iraq has been known as a corner of the Ottoman Empire. Thus, the demarcation of borders gave them the label of independent states like Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. This division between the states was the decision of the winning partners of WWI and the correspondence from the League of Nations. Due to the acceptance of this dominance, all these states became members of the Western community.
The oil resources of Iraq and Iran had been untouched since then and had not been used for any purpose; thus, they turned out to be attractive to Western countries seeking to establish their units there and explore the oil resources for greater international profitability. This curiosity led to war between the two nations, which caused millions of deaths and enormous damage that cannot be recovered from to this day. The war continued for eight long years.
The aim of this essay is to analyze the conflict between Iran and Iraq, which led to the disastrous war, through the study of conflict resolution. It has always been difficult for scholars to discuss the repercussions and the reasons behind this war. However, as this war changed the structure of the area, it is necessary to study the factors that made this battle last for eight long years (Donovan, Topple, Naidoo, & Milner, 2015).
Fig: Crude Oil Production
Causes of War
Historical Background of the 1980’s War
It has been analyzed that conflicts between the two countries have been occurring for three centuries. The rivalry was developed by the divisions between the Safavids and Ottomans; thus, the groups became each other’s former enemies. However, the conflict of the 17th century was due to political and religious issues. Once the concept of colonialism was established, the fight for power and oil resources began. Both countries were blessed with an abundance of natural oil resources, and the greater the oil assets designated to a country, the greater its strength in that region.
Due to this factor, the stronger economy was fighting the weaker one to control its oil reserves too and to become the most powerful in the region. Before the independent authority of Iran and Iraq was established, Britain was the superpower. When Britain left the area after the Persian Gulf War, there was a void of power or authority to rule the countries. This void led to violence imposed upon the weakest countries by the strongest countries so that they could maintain their power and supremacy within the region.
Fig: British Rule before the Gulf War
The border issues were getting more intense, and due to this, a treaty was signed in Algiers stating that both countries were independent and would not interfere in each other’s border parameters. Even then, the border issues were not solved, and Iran and Iraq were entering a cold war. Thus, this added fuel to the fire when the Shah of Iran increased the level of conflict with Iraq by promoting and supporting the Kurds fighting in the area. This allegedly created a dangerous situation for Saddam, the Iraqi leader, as the insurgencies in Iraq were said to be the result of Iran’s intervention in disturbing the peace in Iraq.
Thus, it led or forced Saddam to take action against this movement while targeting the country of origin that had begun this war. Iran was supporting the uprisings of the ‘Shia’ movements in Iraq, which had disturbed the internal peace and the economy of the country. Thus, after deploying efforts to regain control over the region, Iraq became famous for its efforts. The first-ever attempt to confront Iran was by liberalizing the trade connections (Segal, 1988).
The war with the Shah meant resentment from the Shia community inside the country. Saddam was ready for this, and he planned this war against the Shia community to stop them from spreading their influence in Iraq. The Islamic revolution in Iran led to the establishment of a theocratic regime. Iraq was following a secular regime; this was the reason that both countries were unable to consider their stances and respond accordingly, thus violating the Algiers treaty.
One of the leading causes of this war was the differences in the ideologies and the vision of the leaders, which increased the differences between the two countries. The Shah of Iran was a conservative who wanted to implement his law within the state by proving his authority in the region. However, Saddam Hussein was a nationally elected leader and was liked by the majority of the Iraqi population. When Saddam declared war upon Iran, the entire nation stood up with him and supported him in this cause despite knowing that it was a war due to personal differences or ideological differences in the countries. However, Saddam also had this desire to prove his authority. Due to this, he had tried to take over the government through several attempts, but he always failed to do so. At this time, he strategically planned that this policy would not help; he placed his cousin Bakar in the government and slowly took over the authority of the entire government. However, when Saddam wanted to wage the Iran-Iraq war, his cousin was unable to give him definite answers on whether he should wage war on Iran or not.
After this, his cousin stepped back due to his health issues. Thus, Saddam became an all-powerful man; it was at his discretion how he wanted to carry out the country’s affairs. The authority made Saddam ruthless and brutal, and he used to execute hundreds of people a day for conspiring against him. Like the Shah of Iran, Saddam’s interest was to maintain his control only. He was also working for the growth of his personal power.
The situation became worse when the former Shah was overthrown by Ayatollah Khomeini, who was a leading conservative and the national leader of Iran, supported by the majority of Iran’s population. Thus, Khomeini was known as the most precarious threat to Hussein’s rule.
Role of International Community
A conflict becomes an issue defined internationally and dealt with through international standards when local parties are unable to resolve the matter through peace talks. Thus, it was analyzed that the Western community was responsible for initiating the Iraq-Iran war. Every European country was only seeking its personal interest and was trying to anticipate how the war would benefit it and increase its business profitability. During the initial stages, when the war had not been imposed, the USA was supporting Iraq to play an aggressive role in the region and to prove its authority over Iraq through war. However, Russia, being a superpower, was playing a neutral role and was emphasizing peace talks.
It doesn’t mean that the US government didn’t have differences with Iraq; it was also not an ally of Iraq but had more differences with Iran. Therefore, instead of forcing a direct war on Iran, it was better to side with the enemy because it was fulfilling the wishes of both the United States and Iraq. The US-Iran issues were based on political authority within the region. The populations of both countries used to consider each other a terrorist state, and the leaders of the two nations were raising more hatred for each other, which was observed in their execution of orders.
Fig: Disputed Properties
Due to this, Iraq was encouraged to wage war on Iran (“The Iran-Iraq War: a military and strategic history,” 2015); the US authority had significant disputed conflicts with Reza Shah, so scenarios were created to overthrow him from his government. The rule of Reza Shah was also the result of US support, which encouraged Reza Shah to take over the Shah’s domain in the Iran region. Thus, the US authority has been observed to support violence by directly supplying weapons to Iraq and supporting Iraq’s opinions on different platforms regarding the wrongdoings of Iran’s leader.
Apparently, Iraq was supported by the Western community, more importantly, the US. Iraq, during this time, was considered the first line of defense against Iran. If Iran was expected to conduct any insurgency, then it was Iraq that was supposed to protect the sovereignty of the Gulf region. Thus, Iraq at this time was given the role of savior by the West, and it was due to the efforts of Iraq and the US that Iran was isolated from the Western community.
Russia was a silent observer of the issue; although it was not participating, it was silently observing the entire situation. As Russia had no personal differences of opinion with Iran, it was supporting peace talks between the two countries. Moreover, Russia was siding with Iran and preventing it from being isolated from the Western community. According to the Russian government, Iran had every right to exercise its sovereignty, and no one should be suppressed due to conflicts with two states that come together against one state for the purpose of destruction and establishing their rules.
Ethical Conflicts
The conflicts could be observed in physical form, but ethical conflicts are the type of conflicts that are difficult to see and evaluate. Moreover, these conflicts are complicated to explain and communicate because every country has its code of ethics, and it prefers to practice its ethical values accordingly. One of the examples showing how difficult it is to solve ethical conflicts is the ex-Yugoslavian conflict, which is still not resolved after so many years of dispute.
The ethical conflicts in modern society are known to be the feudalization of societal matters. There are more chances of intra-state conflicts occurring when it is observed that minorities are not given their rights. Rather, they are deprived of their fundamental rights. However, ethnicities do not follow the same lines within a single border when an interstate conflict is observed. The common factor in both states was the Kurds, but the Kurds were in the minority.
The strategy adopted to continue the war between the two states was due to increasing interstate conflicts. Minorities may seek help from across international borders to support them on local grounds, but this depends entirely upon whether the foreign authority wants to side with any country on foreign land. Iran was supported by the Kurds because of their shared interests. In response, the leader of Iran was supporting the Kurds’ existence in Iraq.
Thus, the diversity of ethnic values increased the differences between the two countries. Due to this, violence increased between the two countries, which was not for the nation as a whole but due to ideological differences. However, when other reasons behind the conflicts were evaluated, the ethnic aspect was given little importance.
Territorial Conflict
As mentioned before, the borders were demarcated after the shattering of the great Ottoman Empire into small states. Apart from the division, only the Kurds were the common factor that existed in both countries despite the division. The border regions were facing tension; war was about to be waged due to ideological differences, and the minorities were trying to protect themselves from being overrun by the government, thus creating an intense situation.
Iran and Iraq both claimed to be the superpowers and were trying to establish their authority within the region. After the revolution of Iran, the Shia were given sovereignty to practice their rights and to remain sovereign in implementing their religious views. Despite the differences, Iran was trying to support unity in the region and to establish one rule that was subject to Iran’s sovereignty.
Religious Conflicts
Thus, Islam is the religion of peace and has always promoted peace for resolving any issues. The agendas and strategies of Iraq and Iran were not according to Islamic values. Rather, they depended on the discrete judgment of the ethnic groups known as Shia and Sunni in the region. These conflicts formed the basis of other conflicts, and the issues moved beyond the bounds of the two biggest sects of Islam to the courts of foreign nations for decisions about the fate of this region.
The Objectives of War
• On 22 September 1980, Iraq launched a preemptive strike against Iran. The war goals stated by the central government of Iraq were:
§ Iraq has a legitimate right to control the land and water inside and outside its region, in particular, the Shatt Al-Arab.
§ Iran shall follow the international principles of good neighbors and shall adhere to the laws.
§ Iraq wishes to be the dominant state in the Gulf region, and Iran shall accept this dominance. The acceptance shall be at national, political and economic levels.
§ While Iran was weakened after the revolution and cut off from US aid, Iraq was planning to destroy the Iranian military assets and army.
However, Iran expressed its concern toward Iraq through an international forum in 1980 and demanded:
• To end peaceful aggression and to move out of the bounds of Iranian borders.
• To pay reparations and to accept the guilt.
• To implement the rule of the Shiite Government in Iraq and completely remove the Baathist Government.
The Offences from Iraq
• The war began on 22 September 1980; the Iraqi force was able to push 50 miles within the Iranian boundaries.
• Iraq also struck through the air force, but this attack was repelled by an Iranian air force counterattack.
• Within the first week of the war, 30,000 soldiers moved inside the Iranian boundaries, especially in the Khuzestan Province.
• By this time, the Iraqi army was able to succeed in a strip 800 km long and 20-60 km in depth from north to south.
17 November 1980 – 26 September 1981
The war between Iran and Iraq slowed down because the resources used by both sides for the war were exhausted. They needed to replenish them because both had their military assets but were relying on a third country’s military resources; therefore, it took time for them to recoup the funds in a short period.
During this time, Iran strengthened its resources and prepared its army to fight against Iraq. Iran used its volunteer guard to strengthen the military and its defenses against international enforcement.
27 September 1981 – October 1983
Iran, after gaining strength, began attacking the southern sector of Iraq. During this offensive attack, Iran used human suicide bombers, which caused major havoc in Iraq. Iran, apart from using force directly, adopted strategies that gave it a major hold over the Iraqi army. Thus, Iraq named its successful operations after Islamic names like “Fateh Bit-Al-Makes,” “Fatma-Al-Zahraa,” and Operation “Jerusalem.”
Conclusion
Iraq and Iran fought the war for eight long years, resulting in the loss of many lives and assets, which are unrecoverable to this date. Even though this war had harmful effects, it did not produce a decisive result because both countries maintained their sovereign status and followed their religious and political interests. However, if there is no other way than war, it depends upon the intellect of the people to determine how they carry out the war and how they end it. It shall be ensured that major public assets are secured because the war will end one day, but the people suffering through it will experience the repercussions their entire lives.
References
Donovan, J., Topple, C., Naidoo, V., & Milner, T. (2015). Strategic Interaction and the Iran-Iraq War: Lessons to Learn for Future Engagement?. Digest Of Middle East Studies, 24(2), 327-346. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dome.12070
Segal, D. (1988). The Iran-Iraq War: A Military Analysis. Foreign Affairs, 66(5), 946. https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20043572
The Iran-Iraq War: a military and strategic history. (2015). Choice Reviews Online, 52(10), 52-5503-52-5503. https://dx.doi.org/10.5860/choice.189937
Academic Master Education Team is a group of academic editors and subject specialists responsible for producing structured, research-backed essays across multiple disciplines. Each article is developed following Academic Master’s Editorial Policy and supported by credible academic references. The team ensures clarity, citation accuracy, and adherence to ethical academic writing standards
Content reviewed under Academic Master Editorial Policy.
