Remembering the day Saddam invaded Iran

On September 22, 1980, months after the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the army of the Iraqi Ba’athist regime led by Saddam Hussein invaded the Iranian border towns in the southwestern province of Khuzestan and launched a massive aerial bombardment on Iran, igniting an eight-year conflict with Iran.

The Iranians fought back to expel the invaders from their occupied soil. The Saddam regime, which received all-out support from the big powers, imposed the war on Iran that lasted until the summer of 1988.

Since the beginning of the war, Iran demanded that Iraq be officially declared as the initiator of the war. However, neither the Iraqi Ba’athist regime nor any of the major powers were willing to officially declare that the Saddam regime initiated the war against Iran.

The UN Security Council which has the primary responsibility for international peace and security failed to take any action to declare the Saddam regime as the aggressor and initiator of the war.

The Ba’athist regime committed crimes against the Iranian nation, using chemical weapons, firing missiles at civilian targets, bombarding cities and villages during the war, and other vicious acts.

Influenced by big powers, who armed the Saddam regime to the teeth, the Security Council refused to adopt an impartial stance in that regard during the eight years of war.

When Saddam tore up the 1975 Algiers Agreement in front of cameras and then started the war, the Security Council refused to say who started the war and which side violated the principle of non-invasion.

The Iraqi Ba’athist regime used to refer to border skirmishes that preceded the invasion as its pretext for starting the war. The regime claimed that it took action after a long history of border disputes.

The reality was that Saddam couldn't wait to tear up the Algiers agreement amid political instability and fast pace of developments in the post-revolution Iran. He might also have been pushed by hostile Western states that were angered by the victory of the Islamic Revolution.

Instead of the UN Security Council, it was UN Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar who declared Iraq as the aggressor and the initiator of the war in his report to the UN body in December 1991.

This action of the UN Secretary General to officially declare Iraq the initiator of war endorsed Iran’s right to self-defense.

The UN report naturally required Iraq to pay compensation to Iran, which was estimated at about one trillion dollars.

This action of the United Nations took place after the continuous political efforts of the Iranian authorities. It is considered a great victory for Iran because it proved Iran's right to self-defense against the aggressor.

This action took place while the propaganda apparatus of the Saddam regime and its backers were trying to manipulate public opinion in the world that Iran was the initiator of the war.

At the start of the war, Saddam was Iraq's undisputed political and military ruler and Iraq's national interests were his personal interests.

There had been border disputes and skirmishes before the start of the invasion which Saddam's regime sought to present as a pretext for attacking Iran. Saddam must have thought that amid instability and nascent revolution, it was the right time to materialize his malicious goal of seizing part of the Iranian territory.

The Iraqi dictator’s likely goal was to annex some parts of the oil-rich Khuzestan, which has a sizeable ethnic Arab population.

Border skirmishes preceded the invasion. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein claimed that Iran's Islamic government was trying to destabilize his country and the whole Middle East. But the then UN chief rejected that argument.

In a letter to the UN Security Council, Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar in December 1991 Iran blamed Iraq for starting the war.

He rejected the Iraqi regime’s argument that border skirmishes pushed Iraq to invade Iran.

"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," Javier Perez de Cuellar said.

Iran has always criticized the double standards of western states in dealing with the Iraqi war on Iran, especially the Security Council and Western powers were quick to take action against the regime after it invaded Kuwait on August 02, 1990.

Courtesy: Tehran Times

What caused downfall of Benjamin Netanyahu?

With the passage of time it is becoming evident that Israel's legendary Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu has lost his charisma. Now, his friend and foes are discussing likely reasons that have contributed to his outset.

My reply is very simple and easy to comprehend. He has met a fate that is rule one of the spy book, “eliminate an agent when he becomes redundant”.  I will go to the extent of saying that he is very lucky because he is still surviving and analysts are talking about his possible return to power.

The history books are full of the stories of the icons who were assassinated after their missions were accomplished. While the list is very long, I will name a few from the recent history: Jamal Khashoggi of Saudi Arabia, Saddam Hussein of Iraq and Anwar Sadat of Egypt. Also I can’t resist referring to blowing up of plane with President of Pakistan, Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, US Ambassador to Pakistan and more than half a dozen of Pakistani Generals, who helped United States in winning war against USSR in Afghanistan.

Netanyahu’s biggest accomplishment was recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel by the United States and shifting of its Embassy there. He was also used to buyout loyalties of a few Arab countries. Finally he was trapped to initiate an assault on Gaza that included demolishing a building that housed international media houses. All these acts accelerated his departure. On top of all, a new and unnatural alliance has been created to nominate his successor.

Some embedded journalists are saying, “Netanyahu’s downfall is not the result of any external shock. Unlike Golda Meir, he had no Yom Kippur War. Unlike Herbert Hoover, he had no Great Crash. And unlike George W. Bush, he had no Hurricane Katrina. Netanyahu’s downfall is not about events or ideas. It’s about character.”

It is also being said that historians will likely mark 2021 as the year his star fell, even if someday his career rebound. After 12 straight years of political mastery, the wiz who habitually built coalitions, floored opponents and toyed with rival and allied parties – has run out of tricks.

Just to malign him, a number of questions are being raised, how could Netanyahu not understand that leaving Gideon Sa’ar out of his last government (of more than 30 members) would make the wounded man hate and fight him? How could he not understand that Bennett would not forgive his attempt to create negative news about Bennett’s wife? How would Gantz forgive Netanyahu’s failure to let him know he was negotiating peace agreements?

It is also being said, he believed that since he is that smart, everyone else is that stupid; Netanyahu assumed that since he is that big, justice is that small.

Indeed, contrasting and balancing Netanyahu’s greatness and smallness will be his biographers’ trickiest task. His downfall is not a mystery. It resulted from the smallness of a big leader who knew so much about history, economics and diplomacy, but so little about people, justice and trust.

Can Saudi Arabia and Iran ever initiate direct military confrontation?

Relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia have been tense ever since the establishment of the Islamic Republic back in 1979. Creation of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and support for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime during its 1980-1988 war with Iran became a big thorn. Ties were further strained in 1987 after the massacre of over 400 Iranian pilgrims by Saudi security forces in the holy city of Mecca.

In 2011, as the Arab Spring spread across the Middle East, the breach of mistrust between Tehran and Riyadh grew wider. The civil wars in Syria and Yemen pushed the two sides into indirect military confrontations. Execution of Shiite cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr by Saudi Arabia further worsened the situation.

Indeed, Saudi Arabia’s decision to cut ties with Iran after its diplomatic facilities were stormed by Iranian protesters, with countries such as Sudan, Somalia, Bahrain and Djibouti soon following suit, brought about a novel state in the Iranian-Saudi relationship. In this atmosphere, analysts sat with crossed fingers, exploring can Tehran and Riyadh ever initiate direct military confrontation? Likely the answer was clear; there can’t be a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, for five main reasons.

First, the administration of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is pursuing a policy of constructive engagement with the world, the reason Iranians elected him in 2013. In Iran’s complicated political system, the executive and legislative branches are elected by popular vote; though the Guardian Council’s vetting of candidates makes the elections process not entirely free. Within this political system, making a decision to engage in war is not an easy task. Therefore, while some Saudi leaders may beat the drums of escalation, the possibility of outright war depends on factors such as whether there is political will for such action and how the two countries choose to handle the crisis in their relations. Engaging in war is not something that can be done by one side alone. Moreover, Iran’s government has no incentive to increase tensions, as evidenced by the condemnation of the attack on the Saudi Embassy in Tehran by the triangle of power in Iranian foreign policy, meaning Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. In a goodwill effort, Iran also announced that it will continue to send pilgrims to Saudi Arabia. Thus, if Saudi Arabia intends to initiate war, the Iranian public — seeing themselves as victims of a violation — will mobilize, and also gain the sympathy of the international community.

Second, the majority of Iran’s current leaders was involved in war with Iraq and is fully aware of its costs. Rouhani held several military positions during the conflict, while Zarif and his deputies also remember the hardships of that era in their capacity as diplomats. Khamenei, who was president at that time, also served as chairman of the Supreme Defense Council, while Rafsanjani served as the de facto commander-in-chief of the Iranian military. Even Iran’s parliament speaker, Ali Larijani, served as a commander with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Larijani’s brothers, including incumbent Judiciary Chief Sadegh Larijani, were also involved in the conflict. Many other influential Iranian figures, including a great number of parliamentarians and Friday prayer leaders, also have bitter memories of war. Although the IRGC at times seems to favor showdowns — such as in the cases of the recent detention of US sailors or its surveillance of the aircraft carrier USS Harry Truman in the Persian Gulf — it is not empowered to take arbitrary actions.

Third, the very nature of the current crisis makes war unlikely. According to Charles Hermann, a renowned analyst of issues related to US foreign policy, crisis management and decision-making, what defines a crisis are the three elements of threat, time and surprise. Whether the situation threatens the vital interests of a state allows only a short time for decision-making, and whether it occurs as a surprise to policymakers must all be considered. When it comes to Iran and Saudi Arabia, the nature of their crisis does not meet these criteria. In fact, Saudi Arabia’s tone against Iran has even softened in recent times. Indeed, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman told The Economist, “Whoever is pushing toward [war with Iran] is somebody who is not in their right mind.”

Fourth, on the international level, Saudi Arabia believes that in the event of a military confrontation with Iran, the United States and the rest of the West may side with the Islamic Republic. Riyadh’s decision to cut ties with Tehran has received virtually no international support aside from some African countries that play no significant role in international power equations. Even the then US Secretary of State John Kerry urged calm following the breakdown in the Saudi-Iranian relationship.

Last but not the least; victory is uncertain in a potential Iranian-Saudi war. Saudi Arabia and Iran may take destructive blows from each other, but both know that neither has the ability to destroy the other side or impose regime change. Saudi Arabia has more warplanes and modern military equipment, while Iran has better missile capabilities and military personnel. Riyadh’s involvement in the Yemen war is another factor that reduces the motivation for war with Tehran. Moreover, the population in Saudi Arabia’s oil-rich Eastern Province is mainly Shiite and has the potential to revolt — an advantage for Tehran that Riyadh cannot easily create for itself in Iran. Lastly, Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz, through which Saudi Arabia conducts much of its trade, is a further preventative factor, since war would necessitate redirecting all that trade to the Red Sea, which in the short run is just not possible.

Why United States is shy in imposing sanctions on Saudi Arabia?

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) “approved an operation … to capture or kill Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi,” according to a scathing new report from Joe Biden administration. Yet the President says the US will not sanction the Saudi government, cognizant of the fact that any direct punishment could risk Saudi Arabia’s cooperation in confronting Iran.

Biden is grapple with the reality that Saudi Arabia is needed to achieve certain US objectives in the Middle East. This is a change from Biden’s criticism of Saudi Arabia on the campaign trail. The Khashoggi affair highlights a persistent oddity in the US foreign policy.

The Trump administration was reluctant to confront Saudi Arabia over the killing of Khashoggi. Beyond revoking the visas of some Saudi officials implicated in Khashoggi’s death, Trump did nothing to punish the kingdom for Khashoggi’s torture, assassination and dismemberment. Trump and other White House officials reminded critics that Saudi Arabia buys billions of dollars weapons from the US.

 Biden has taken a slightly tougher line, approving the release of the intelligence report that blames MBS for Khashoggi’s murder and sanctioning 76 lower-level Saudi officials. Saudi Arabia isn’t the only nation to get a free pass from the US for its terrible misdeeds. The US has for decades maintained close ties with some of the world’s worst human rights abusers.

Ever since the United States emerged from the Cold War as the world’s dominant military and economic power, consecutive American presidents have seen financial and geopolitical benefit in overlooking the bad deeds of brutal regimes. Before the Islamic revolution in 1979, Iran was a close US ally. Shah Reza Pahlavi ruled harshly, using his secret police to torture and murder political dissidents. President Nixon hoped that Iran would be the “Western policeman in the Persian Gulf.”

After the shah’s overthrow, the Reagan administration in the 1980s became friendly with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. The US supported him with intelligence during Iraq’s war with Iran and looked the other way at his use of chemical weapons. And before Syria’s intense bloody civil war – which has killed an estimated 400,000 people and featured grisly chemical weapon attacks by the government – its authoritarian regime enjoyed relatively friendly relations with the US Syria has been on the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1979. But US presidents i.e. Nixon, Carter, Bush and Clinton visited President Bashar al-Assad’s father, who ruled from 1971 until his death in 2000.

Why Saudi Arabia matters

Before the alleged assassination of Khashoggi by Saudi operatives, the 35-year-old crown prince was cultivating a reputation as a moderate reformer. He has made newsworthy changes in the conservative Arab kingdom, allowing women to drive, combating corruption and curtailing some powers of the religious police. Still, Saudi Arabia remains one of the world’s most authoritarian regimes.

Saudi Arabia ranks just above North Korea on political rights, civil liberties and other measures of freedom, according to the democracy watchdog Freedom House. The same report ranks both Iran and China ahead of the Saudis. But its wealth, strategic Middle East location and petroleum exports keep the Saudis as a vital US ally.

President Obama visited Saudi Arabia more than any other American US president – four times in eight years – to discuss everything from Iran to oil production.

American realpolitik

This kind of foreign policy – one based on practical, self-interested principles rather than moral or ideological concerns – is called “realpolitik.” Henry Kissinger, secretary of state under Nixon, was a master of realpolitik, which drove that administration to normalize its relationship with China. Diplomatic relations between the two countries had ended in 1949 when Chinese communist revolutionaries took power. Then, as now, China was incredibly repressive. Only 16 countries – including Saudi Arabia – are less free than China, according to Freedom House. Iran, a country the US wants Saudis to help in keeping in check, ranks ahead of China. But China is also the world’s most populous nation and a nuclear power.

Nixon, a fervent anti-communist, sought to exploit a growing rift between China and the Soviet Union. Today Washington retains the important, if occasionally rocky, relationship Kissinger forged with Beijing, despite its ongoing persecution of Muslim minority groups. American realpolitik applies to Latin America, too. After the Cuban Revolution of 1959, the U.S. regularly backed Central and South American military dictators who tortured and killed citizens to “defend” the Americas from communism.

US not ‘so innocent’

 US presidents tend to underplay their relationships with repressive regimes, lauding lofty “American values” instead. That’s the language former President Barack Obama used in 2018 to criticize Trump’s embrace of Russia’s authoritarian president, Vladimir Putin, citing America’s “commitment to certain values and principles like the rule of law and human rights and democracy.” But Trump defended his relationship with Russia, tacitly invoking American realpolitik. “You think our country’s so innocent?” he asked on Fox News.

The US has maintained close ties to numerous regimes, and still does, who’s values and policies conflict with America’s constitutional guarantees of democracy, freedom of speech, the right to due process and many others.