Musings, perspectives, rants

During the Iran-Iraq war between 1980 and 1988 the US armed one side and then the other to ensure that neither became dominant.  The death toll was over 400,000 thanks to US arming both sides and prolonging the war.

Iran and Iraq's human rights violations were not unique in the region - Israel and Saudi Arabia are just as bad.

In 1989 Iran started making moves towards greater liberalisation and political pluralism, reducing its support for radical Islamic movements.  But the United States increased its hostility toward the Iranian revolution.  In 1995 Clinton prohibited all American trade.  Various sanctions and anti-Iranian measures were stricter during Clinton's term than during the regime's most repressive and extremist period in the 1980s.  Iranian moderates fighting for greater political openness and better relations with the west were punished.  US policy so offended nationalist sentiments that hardliners found more support.  There is no legal basis for sanctions.  Efforts to subvert the Iranian government are contrary to international legal conventions recognising sovereign rights and principles of nonintervention.

The US linked Iran with acts of terrorism, military threats and subversion without showing any evidence.  The US exerted pressure on the Saudi government to implicate Iran in the 1996 bombing in Dharan, but Saudi investigators found no such link.  The US has refused to present evidence in an international forum to prove its allegations.

Iran has been reducing its military spending due to chronic economic problems - it is barely one third of what it was in the 1980s when it received arms from the US.

In 1998 Iran came close to going to war against Afghanistan's Taliban regime in response to the regime's repression against the country's Shiite minority.  Iran accepted nearly 2 million Afghan refugees throughout the period of war in Afghanistan.  Iran has always strongly opposed Al Qaeda.  In 2002 Bush gave a stern warning to Iran not to interfere in Afghanistan's internal affairs - ironically after US interference and heavy bombing.  Bush alleges that Iran allowed Al Qaeda members to seek sanctuary (which is unlikely considering their stand against Al Qaeda) but has refused to show evidence.

The US will continue to demonise Iran in the next step towards an invasion in the 'war against terror'.  The only terrorists are the Americans who fling allegations around as justification for aggression, but without providing evidence.

Information taken from "Tinderbox".

People have short memories, even if they were once aware of some facts behind events.  Take Iraq and Iran, for example, who the US government choose to demonise.  People believe the reasons given for American aggression towards them - use of chemical weapons, aggression towards neighbouring countries, human rights abuses, etc.  But many people choose to ignore, forget or are just not aware of the history of the region.

So, Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Kurds - in 1988.  The US government of the time chose to ignore it.  They weren't particularly concerned about repression of Kurds.  In fact they supported Iraq's acquisition of the materials necessary.  In the 1980s the US government supplied the Iraqi government with much of the raw materials necessary for chemical and biological weapons.  But any use of such weapons was not of any particular concern to the Reagan administration.  Reagan killed the introduction of the Prevention of Genocide Act in 1988.

Iraq's military was significantly stronger in the 1980s than it was before the latest invasion by US forces.  Why, in 1997, was Iraq suddenly an intolerable threat when it had only a tiny percentage of its former military capability?  When Iraq was a potential asset, its potential threat was downplayed.  When Saddam refused to kowtow to the US, its much lesser threat was exaggerated.

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons inspects laboratories, factories and arsenals and oversees the destruction of any chemical weapons.  The director, Jose Bustani, raised the number of signatories in 1997 from 87 to 145.  The US raised objections over Bustani's insistence that the OPCW inspect US chemical weapons facilities and were critical of his efforts to get Iraq to sign the convention.  If Iraq had signed the convention and inspectors failed to locate evidence, it would weaken American claims that Iraq's chemical weapons' development needed a pre-emptive attack to counter the 'threat'.  Needless to say, the US government put pressure on countries to oust Bustani. 

Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was opposed by the Arab league but they wanted to avoid war and keep it as an inter-Arab concern.  They got very close to convincing Iraq to withdraw.  But the States decided to send in large numbers of American troops as a 'deterrent' to Iraq's possible invasion of Saudi Arabia.  Iraq was not interested in invading Saudi Arabia - it had no territorial claims and only increased the number of troops in Kuwait after US forces arrived in the region.  (Interestingly, Bin Laden denounced Saddam Hussein.)  There was no attempt to negotiate on the part of the Americans.  Iraq's 'choice' was to capitulate without negotiation or be crushed.  Sanctions would not be withdrawn even if Iraq withdrew from Kuwait.  So why withdraw if Iraq had nothing to gain?  The US rejected a series of peace overtures by French, Soviets and Yemenis, wanting a massive military response instead. 

Four weeks after bombing began, Iraq accepted a Soviet peace deal in full.  The US rejected it, wanting to continue war.  Even when Iraq withdrew from Kuwait, the US pursued the retreating soldiers.  Tens of thousands of Iraqi troops had withdrawn 36 hours before the first allied forces reached Kuwait.  Retreating Iraqi soldiers and civilians were slaughtered.  The death toll was put at about 100,000.  The Kurds and Shiites meanwhile launched a rebellion against Saddam, but the US did nothing to support them, standing by while thousands were killed.

"The US led military response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait turned Saddam Hussein from aggressor to defender and from bully to hero in the eyes of much of the Arab world."  The Arab world was offended at the war's 'overkill', the heaviest bombing campaign in the history of war, attacking roads, bridges, factories, irrigation systems, power stations, water works, government offices.. going way beyond what was sufficient to rid Iraqi forces from Kuwait.  As a result more Arabs were hostile to the United States.  Can you blame them?  The United States is the warmonger.

Taken from "Tinderbox: US Middle East Policy and the roots of terrorism", an excellent background to the present situation.