This is a bit of an experiment. I have long wanted to do some more historical videos to accompany the more current affairs videos on Fridays. I really liked the idea of creating a series examining the major conflicts since 1945. However, I didn't want to explore the military history (there are other channels for that). Instead, I want to summarise the political factors leading up to the war, how it ended, and the broader long-term consequences. Do let me know what you think. Do you want to see more of these?
Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. I would certainly like to do more. Sadly, it isn’t doing terribly well. But hopefully it will be a useful reference source.
I absolutely love these presentations. Keep up the great work James. And to everyone else, like, subscribe and share. We all are in desperate need of educating in these matters.
2:20 Iran also has a significant Sunni minority (mainly in the Balochistan and Kurdistan regions) 3:14 Shiism only became prominent in Iran later on when the Safavids conquered Iran in 1501, many centuries after the creation of Baghdad. Before the safavids, the center of Shia Islam was actually Iraq. 4:12 An interesting fact related to this is that this dispute actually originated much earlier when the local Arab sheikh known as Khaz'al Ibn Jabir revolted against the Shah of Iran in 1922 and tried to establish an independent state. 6:47 In addition to this, Khomeini decided to release all Iranian airforce pilots he had previosuly imprisoned because they had worked for the Shah. He decided he needed their experience since he had few qualified pilots. 7:40 one of Irans allies in the war was also Pakistan, who provided Iran with anti aircraft missiles that allowed Iran to shoot down saddams planes more effectively.
This is the first video I have seenon your channel. I really enjoyed it, Professor and I wish I found it earlier. Also I am interested in International Relations and want to study it at Masters level.
Was it just a Yes Minister joke that during the war, at a British diplomatic event they seated Ambassadors alphabetically but somehow slotted Ireland in between Iran and Iraq?
In Prime Minister S2E3, when arranging the funeral for the ex PM that Bernard organising it said over the phone ‘no, we can’t have alphabetical seating in the Abbey, you’d have Iran and Iraq sitting next to each other… plus Jordan and Israel will all be sitting in the same pew… we’ll be in danger starting WW3… I know Ireland begins with an I but no…’
Professor, as an Iranian, fantastic video! I know this is an “experimental” video, but for future sakes, please double check editing standards from the team. Little nitpicks such as Khamanei being on the thumbnail instead of Khomeini, and putting George HW Bush instead of Reagan like another user pointed out. Otherwise, great video to inform the broader implications of the conflict to laymen and history buffs alike. I highly recommend Pierre Rezoux’s book “The Iran-Iraq War,” to anybody watching.
They weren't mistakes. He used those images as examples of future consequences of the Iran-Iraq War. George HW Bush is there because of the 1st Gulf War that would happen a couple years later and Netanyahu is there because when the US invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam, Israeli strategic policy shifted from viewing Iraq as their primary adversary to Iran
When the war started, the late Henry Kissinger supposedly quipped "pity should either side win." When I was in Iraq, many locals I encountered told me of their family members who had fought and died in the war against Iran, calling them "jahid."
Both countries paid a massive price for the war. It was one of the most devastating wars of the twentieth century, yet it's largely forgotten internationally. I have vague recollections of news coverage of it when I was growing up, but I remember being much more aware of the Lebanese civil war.
Noticeable footnotes Iran/ contra affair exposed. Kuwaiti theft of Iraqi oil by slant drilling Israeli material support to Iran Oil tanker wars and American naval casaulties. Operation praying mantis.
I think someone is so sad about Harris and Trudeau being penned that he /she (I bet you may even criticize me for using this term) has to vent anger on somebody else.
Hi James, did you say you had my question down for a Q&A video? It was about how Yugoslavia’s absence of recognition for Kosovo to be a Yugoslav republic rendered its Declaration of Independence illegal according to international law, as opposed to the other recognised Yugoslav republics. How does international law interpret the domestic law of a state, in order to establish the international law which the relevant states are then expected (but don’t!) to follow? How does international law recognise and interpret a domestic state’s law on the question of right to secession?
Thanks, Thomas. On this point, I would argue that Kosovo’s secession was in fact illegal. (More to the point, and to be correct, recognising it was illegal. Secession may break domestic law but as the ICJ said, merely declaring independence isn’t contrary to international law unless specifically prohibited.) My position on Kosovo is not a legal argument. It is a political one. Serbia should have recognised its special status as a republic in all but name and voluntarily agreed to let it become independent. It would have made a lot more sense in every way. For example, without the tensions that were created, one could argue that Serbia could have negotiated greater control over the religious sites.
I liked the old style of your thumbnails , it is something like a trademark, I could recognise your channel just by looking at the style of the thumbnail
Thanks. Comment well noted. It’s always a difficult balance. I have been trying to play around with them. You may have seen a version of this thumbnail that is a little more generic. I did another which is more closely aligned to my new style.
Of course what ifs are difficult to assess, but are you saying that had there been no Iran-Iraq war the grounds for invasion in 2003 would have never materialised, despite that 15 year gap in the conflicts?
Alt-history is always filled with too much speculation for me. But you forgot about the Iraq vs. Kuwait/UN war in 1991, which was caused by, among other things, Iraq needing money (oil) to pay for it's war loans. In the 1991 war, the UN coalition imposed no-fly-zones in northern and southern Iraq, which were still in place when USA invaded in 2003. Just to show one example of how the wars are connected.
I’m being nit-picky here but you used the post 2003 Iraqi flag in the thumbnail. During the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqi flag didn’t have any words on it. Saddam was a secularist, religion was seen as a private matter under his regime. However, during the gulf war he began a superficial campaign of lsIamification in order to appeal to conservative and extremists MusIims who were outraged about the “infidels” stationed in the holy land. The “infidels” being the American and British troops amassing in Saudi Arabia. After the gulf war, the desperate conditions created by the 1991 bombing campaign and the subsequent embargo began to foster radicle ideas within the Iraqi population. Knowing his secular dogma would alienate him from the lsIamist, Saddam bent the knee. In 1994 Saddam began a new lsIamification campaign that was more aggressive than the one in 1991. This is when “god is great” first appeared on the Iraqi flag, it was written in Saddam’s hand writing. After the overthrow of the Ba’ath regime, the new Shia lead government reformed the font but kept the rest of the flag the same. That is the flag you have pictured in the thumbnail.
Iranians fought bravely despite the fact that Saddam Hussein's regime was heavily supported by the Soviets, France, England, Germany and Persian Gulf arab nations
After the second oil shock of 1979, it helped prop up Western economies by increasing weapons exports to Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States. Similarly, North Korea (indirectly, China) benefited from arms exports to North Korea. Indebted Iraq later invaded Kuwait, accused of stealing Iraqi oil. The economic factors of war are always worth a mention.
Professor kalancy have you ever planned to visit somaliland? Although you make alot of docmentry, if so as a somaliland citizen I will try to inform ministry of Foreign Affairs, to insist and organise your tour.
Love the content, professor, but dont be lazy with editing. George H. W. Bush wasn't president during the Iran-Iraq war, and neither was Bibi PM of israel. I may be nitpicking here, but little things like this give less of a clear picture of what was going on during that time period. Your students are probably held to a higher standard. Best wishes. Cheers!
Fun fact: Israeli bombardment of Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor (Operation Opera) in 1981 helped Iran face a nuke-free Saddam, otherwise the history of the region might have been quite different. 🙃
This war is why i dont believe americans who say that iraq was the 4th strongest country during the gulf war. They invaded iran and failed to win after 8 years and they're the fourth strongest country? So according to Americans, the five strongest countries at that time are what? usa, soviet union, china, iraq, iran? Iraq and iran also supposedly being more powerful than india, uk, france etc. I think iraq was like north korea today, they had a lot of numbers and not a lot of quality.
3:15 Bro! Do your research! Do westerners actually consult Muslims before pontificating? Iran was always Shafi'i Sunni. In 1502 , LONG after the Abbasids were gone, the Safawids made Iran Shiah through genocide and forced conversions. There werent even enough Shiah to man the judiciary and they had to be imported from Lebanon and Bahrayn. Might seem like a small point to some, but its concerning that someone of your status should so flippantly make an incorrect and anachronistic deduction for a historical situation based on CURRENT demographics. Have you done this before? Its no different from speaking of Protestant Sweden in 1200.
Always like your work Prof, I have always thought the war was about preventing spread of Iranian ideology, control of Shatt-Arab river and annexation of Khuzestan, but now understanding how the USA has been playing the middle east countries against each other am quite convinced the USA had a role in instigating the war because they did the same with Iraq invasion of Kuwait by encouraging Saddam and then turning against him wen it was convenient
This war was the only war; that I can recall, after World War 2 in which both the US, Europe and the Soviet United allied together on one side against another. Cold War enemies funded and armed to the teeth Saddam Hussein against Iran and they failed as Iran expelled Saddam's army and began to move into Iraq. Ayatollah Khomeini was correct in agreeing to end the war because an Iranian occupation of Iraq would've been a nightmare and Saddam's secterianism against Shia clerics would not gain traction until the 90s. Iraq was a secular state with Iraqi Shias playing a major part of the Iraqi military, as members of the Ba'ath Party and Saddam's government and resistance to Iran would be a nationalist cause of liberation. Maybe other Arab states would've joined to expell the Iranian occupation force such as Ba'athist Syria under Hafez al-Assad.
No, the West did not fund Iraq against Iran. Iraq's army was entirely equipped by the former USSR and then Russia, not the West. Iran was never close to occupying Iraq. You have bizarre information and analysis.
@thomassenbart Iraq was using Soviet weapons as well as French Mirage jets and helicopters, the US sold weapons to Iraq, provided satellite imaging of Iranian positions, the UK provided weapons as well throughout the entire war. The US even supplied Iraq with chemical weapons which it used on the Kurds and Iranians. All of this is common knowledge with documentation and of course the infamous video of Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. Don't just look up Wikipedia but do actual searches and research. As for the occupation of Iraq, even in the video the Professor mentions that although many wanted Iran to continue to push into Iraq, Khomeini said no and agreed to end the war. This isn't a conspiracy or some lunacy since in war the primary objective is to defeat your enemy which usually entails capturing the enemy's territory barring a negotiated peace settlement that includes the return of all lands to pre-war borders. This was it
@thomassenbart The weapons were Soviet but the French supplied Mirage jets and helicopters along with maintenance equipment, the UK sold weapons to Iraq, the US sold weapons, provided satellite imaging of Iranian positions as well as chemical weapons of which Saddam used on Kurds and Iranians. They all supplied Saddam with ammunition and maintenance equipment for tanks, helicopters jets and artillery. You even have the infamous video of Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam Hussein in Baghdad to guarantee military support. Do actual research and not just Wikipedia. By the way, the Soviet Union was still around by the time the war ended and didn't dissolve until 1991. As for the Iranian occupation, even the professor said that although the military wanted to keep the war going once Iran began moving into Iraq, Khomeini said no, agreed to end the war with Iranian troops returning to the pre-war borders.
@@jesusaguilar4585 So, you are correct about the French who sold 133 Mirage jets to Saddam over about a decade and the Brits sold land rovers and some helicopters and also some dual-use tech and spare parts which later were actually used by the military. The Germans were the biggest violators as multiple companies sold technology, machinery, and expertise to Iraq for the construction of chemical weapons which actually resulted in the weapons used against both Iran and the Iraqi people. This was done without the knowledge of the German government which largely turned a blind eye to these sales and failed to adequately enforce export controls on Iraq. The USA provided some intel as I said before but nothing particularly important. The Americans also allowed various allies to sell Soviet weapons to Iraq and dual-use machinery, tech etc... It also simultaneously supplied Iran with arms in the infamous Iran Contra deal. So, it is a bit more convoluted than you stated and the overwhelming majority of weapons were from the USSR/Russia but the above demonstrates some Western complicity as well. I stand corrected. Iran, though surviving Iraq's initial invasion, never threatened the Iraqi regime and never penetrated deeply into Iraq. It failed in its offensive to capture Basra and in the North with the Kurds, and though initially capturing the Fao Peninsula, it lost it again to Iraqi counterattacks. So, Iraq was in no real danger from Iran's military. The war was a stalemate.
@thomassenbart A stale mate no doubt. And with Iran-Contra, it shows that when American presidents can betray an ally if it's interests conflict with support for their ally. In this case American hostages in Lebanon which Reagan thought could only be freed by selling missiles to Iran so they can get Hezbollah and Amal to release them. My understanding is that not many hostages were released. But this was clearly a stab in the back to Saddam and it's interesting why Saddam believed the Bush administration when the Bush administration said they had no issue with Iraq invading Kuwait.
Thanks. I know that it is an interruption. But this is the best place to put it. Putting it at the start is horrible. It's still an interruption, but it's asking people to sign up before they have even had a chance to hear anything! Not good. However, putting it at the end is pretty much useless. People just switch off. The middle is by far the most effective place to put them. I put great effort into making the videos. Hopefully, most people will understand that taking 10 seconds to ask for a like or perhaps a subscription isn't too great a price to ask for what is essentially free content. (But if anyone does want to help more, becoming a channel member is a great way!)
@@PatriotOfPersia No one refers to the Near East or Middle East as West Asia, which could also refer to the Eastern side of the Ural Mountains. So, if you want to say Western Asia you may but the former references are far more recognizable and therefore better for communication.
This is a bit of an experiment. I have long wanted to do some more historical videos to accompany the more current affairs videos on Fridays. I really liked the idea of creating a series examining the major conflicts since 1945. However, I didn't want to explore the military history (there are other channels for that). Instead, I want to summarise the political factors leading up to the war, how it ended, and the broader long-term consequences. Do let me know what you think. Do you want to see more of these?
Yes!
Yes, absolutely!
Excellent idea. Provides context to events today.
I like it
This is fantastic, thanks for this JKL!
I'd definitely like to see more historical videos!
I really like the concept of this series, and i can see a change in the style of the thumbnail!
As usual, great work was delivered eloquently. Thanks
Thank you!
Wonderful video professor. Please do more!
Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. I would certainly like to do more. Sadly, it isn’t doing terribly well. But hopefully it will be a useful reference source.
I’ve learned a ton from this, your videos are always on point.
Thank you so much! I really and truly appreciate it. Keep an eye out for the next one in the series. I hope to release it tomorrow. Angola.
Amazing video please do more!
Touch base on unspoken about past conflicts
Thank you so much! I would love to do more of these from time to time.
I absolutely love these presentations. Keep up the great work James. And to everyone else, like, subscribe and share. We all are in desperate need of educating in these matters.
Thank you so much, Paul! I really and truly appreciate it. :-)
2:20 Iran also has a significant Sunni minority (mainly in the Balochistan and Kurdistan regions)
3:14 Shiism only became prominent in Iran later on when the Safavids conquered Iran in 1501, many centuries after the creation of Baghdad. Before the safavids, the center of Shia Islam was actually Iraq.
4:12 An interesting fact related to this is that this dispute actually originated much earlier when the local Arab sheikh known as Khaz'al Ibn Jabir revolted against the Shah of Iran in 1922 and tried to establish an independent state.
6:47 In addition to this, Khomeini decided to release all Iranian airforce pilots he had previosuly imprisoned because they had worked for the Shah. He decided he needed their experience since he had few qualified pilots.
7:40 one of Irans allies in the war was also Pakistan, who provided Iran with anti aircraft missiles that allowed Iran to shoot down saddams planes more effectively.
This is the first video I have seenon your channel. I really enjoyed it, Professor and I wish I found it earlier. Also I am interested in International Relations and want to study it at Masters level.
Was it just a Yes Minister joke that during the war, at a British diplomatic event they seated Ambassadors alphabetically but somehow slotted Ireland in between Iran and Iraq?
Haha! I don't know. But it sounds more than plausible! :-)
In Prime Minister S2E3, when arranging the funeral for the ex PM that Bernard organising it said over the phone ‘no, we can’t have alphabetical seating in the Abbey, you’d have Iran and Iraq sitting next to each other… plus Jordan and Israel will all be sitting in the same pew… we’ll be in danger starting WW3… I know Ireland begins with an I but no…’
@@CharlieMile Yes, that's the one. Theories are it was based on an actual incident.
Professor, as an Iranian, fantastic video! I know this is an “experimental” video, but for future sakes, please double check editing standards from the team. Little nitpicks such as Khamanei being on the thumbnail instead of Khomeini, and putting George HW Bush instead of Reagan like another user pointed out.
Otherwise, great video to inform the broader implications of the conflict to laymen and history buffs alike.
I highly recommend Pierre Rezoux’s book “The Iran-Iraq War,” to anybody watching.
They weren't mistakes. He used those images as examples of future consequences of the Iran-Iraq War. George HW Bush is there because of the 1st Gulf War that would happen a couple years later and Netanyahu is there because when the US invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam, Israeli strategic policy shifted from viewing Iraq as their primary adversary to Iran
When the war started, the late Henry Kissinger supposedly quipped "pity should either side win."
When I was in Iraq, many locals I encountered told me of their family members who had fought and died in the war against Iran, calling them "jahid."
Both countries paid a massive price for the war. It was one of the most devastating wars of the twentieth century, yet it's largely forgotten internationally. I have vague recollections of news coverage of it when I was growing up, but I remember being much more aware of the Lebanese civil war.
Noticeable footnotes
Iran/ contra affair exposed.
Kuwaiti theft of Iraqi oil by slant drilling
Israeli material support to Iran
Oil tanker wars and American naval casaulties.
Operation praying mantis.
it must be depressing living in that region having to deal with so much war .
At the time the US thought she gained an ally in the name of Saddam. Turned out to be a desert mirage.
Don’t assume it’s gender. As
An American I’m appalled you assumed its gender
@@newbeginning1510This is getting old.
@@newbeginning1510bahahaaahaahaa that was mad funny, havent heard that one before 😂🎉
The US did not support Iraq save with a bit of intel., nothing like an ally, merely another tool to bludgeon Iran.
I think someone is so sad about Harris and Trudeau being penned that he /she (I bet you may even criticize me for using this term) has to vent anger on somebody else.
Hi James, did you say you had my question down for a Q&A video? It was about how Yugoslavia’s absence of recognition for Kosovo to be a Yugoslav republic rendered its Declaration of Independence illegal according to international law, as opposed to the other recognised Yugoslav republics. How does international law interpret the domestic law of a state, in order to establish the international law which the relevant states are then expected (but don’t!) to follow? How does international law recognise and interpret a domestic state’s law on the question of right to secession?
Thanks, Thomas. On this point, I would argue that Kosovo’s secession was in fact illegal. (More to the point, and to be correct, recognising it was illegal. Secession may break domestic law but as the ICJ said, merely declaring independence isn’t contrary to international law unless specifically prohibited.) My position on Kosovo is not a legal argument. It is a political one. Serbia should have recognised its special status as a republic in all but name and voluntarily agreed to let it become independent. It would have made a lot more sense in every way. For example, without the tensions that were created, one could argue that Serbia could have negotiated greater control over the religious sites.
If possible, would you please cover the Anglo-Boer war that took place in South Africa.
Where do I find the "more videos" indicated at the end of this and other videos?
They are hopefully coming. This was the first. :-)
I liked the old style of your thumbnails , it is something like a trademark, I could recognise your channel just by looking at the style of the thumbnail
Thanks. Comment well noted. It’s always a difficult balance. I have been trying to play around with them. You may have seen a version of this thumbnail that is a little more generic. I did another which is more closely aligned to my new style.
Lütfen Türkçe altyazılı koyun ♥️
Of course what ifs are difficult to assess, but are you saying that had there been no Iran-Iraq war the grounds for invasion in 2003 would have never materialised, despite that 15 year gap in the conflicts?
Alt-history is always filled with too much speculation for me.
But you forgot about the Iraq vs. Kuwait/UN war in 1991, which was caused by, among other things, Iraq needing money (oil) to pay for it's war loans.
In the 1991 war, the UN coalition imposed no-fly-zones in northern and southern Iraq, which were still in place when USA invaded in 2003. Just to show one example of how the wars are connected.
I’m being nit-picky here but you used the post 2003 Iraqi flag in the thumbnail. During the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqi flag didn’t have any words on it. Saddam was a secularist, religion was seen as a private matter under his regime. However, during the gulf war he began a superficial campaign of lsIamification in order to appeal to conservative and extremists MusIims who were outraged about the “infidels” stationed in the holy land. The “infidels” being the American and British troops amassing in Saudi Arabia. After the gulf war, the desperate conditions created by the 1991 bombing campaign and the subsequent embargo began to foster radicle ideas within the Iraqi population. Knowing his secular dogma would alienate him from the lsIamist, Saddam bent the knee. In 1994 Saddam began a new lsIamification campaign that was more aggressive than the one in 1991. This is when “god is great” first appeared on the Iraqi flag, it was written in Saddam’s hand writing. After the overthrow of the Ba’ath regime, the new Shia lead government reformed the font but kept the rest of the flag the same. That is the flag you have pictured in the thumbnail.
Iranians fought bravely despite the fact that Saddam Hussein's regime was heavily supported by the Soviets, France, England, Germany and Persian Gulf arab nations
After the second oil shock of 1979, it helped prop up Western economies by increasing weapons exports to Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States. Similarly, North Korea (indirectly, China) benefited from arms exports to North Korea. Indebted Iraq later invaded Kuwait, accused of stealing Iraqi oil. The economic factors of war are always worth a mention.
You're the best Prof. Do you think Turkey and HTS will invade Rojava if/when the Americans leave because RFK Jr. pulled them out?
Professor kalancy have you ever planned to visit somaliland? Although you make alot of docmentry, if so as a somaliland citizen I will try to inform ministry of Foreign Affairs, to insist and organise your tour.
Khomeini should've been on the picture and not Khamenei.
Blimey! Well spotted. Apologies. You’re absolutely right. Long day!
Love the content, professor, but dont be lazy with editing. George H. W. Bush wasn't president during the Iran-Iraq war, and neither was Bibi PM of israel. I may be nitpicking here, but little things like this give less of a clear picture of what was going on during that time period. Your students are probably held to a higher standard. Best wishes. Cheers!
Hi,Prof James Ker Lindsay actually Iran was majority sunni until Safavid dynasty in 1501
cool
Fun fact: Israeli bombardment of Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor (Operation Opera) in 1981 helped Iran face a nuke-free Saddam, otherwise the history of the region might have been quite different. 🙃
Saddam was a US backed dictator and former CIA asset, Iranians never forget that .
نظرت راجب روسیه چیه ؟😂روسیه که بزرگترین متحد صدام بود و همیشه حقارت ایران میخواسته؟اونو نمیگی چون رهبرت برده ارباب پوتینه درسته؟؟
This war is why i dont believe americans who say that iraq was the 4th strongest country during the gulf war. They invaded iran and failed to win after 8 years and they're the fourth strongest country? So according to Americans, the five strongest countries at that time are what? usa, soviet union, china, iraq, iran?
Iraq and iran also supposedly being more powerful than india, uk, france etc.
I think iraq was like north korea today, they had a lot of numbers and not a lot of quality.
3:15 Bro! Do your research! Do westerners actually consult Muslims before pontificating? Iran was always Shafi'i Sunni. In 1502 , LONG after the Abbasids were gone, the Safawids made Iran Shiah through genocide and forced conversions. There werent even enough Shiah to man the judiciary and they had to be imported from Lebanon and Bahrayn. Might seem like a small point to some, but its concerning that someone of your status should so flippantly make an incorrect and anachronistic deduction for a historical situation based on CURRENT demographics. Have you done this before? Its no different from speaking of Protestant Sweden in 1200.
Hi Professor, can you make a video about lsræIi terorizm next time?
No such thing tho. At least not in the real world
@bigmedge Nope, it is. We see it live. Bro you are living in a bubble. You are from America right? I'm not surprised honestly lol
Only a naïve person would accept this narration of Iran’s war waged against Iraq.
Unless you provide some indication of what you thought was wrong, it’s very hard to get a sense of what the problem is!?
Always like your work Prof, I have always thought the war was about preventing spread of Iranian ideology, control of Shatt-Arab river and annexation of Khuzestan, but now understanding how the USA has been playing the middle east countries against each other am quite convinced the USA had a role in instigating the war because they did the same with Iraq invasion of Kuwait by encouraging Saddam and then turning against him wen it was convenient
They didn't encouraged Saddam to invade kuwait
Mostly peaceful spread. >.
This war was the only war; that I can recall, after World War 2 in which both the US, Europe and the Soviet United allied together on one side against another. Cold War enemies funded and armed to the teeth Saddam Hussein against Iran and they failed as Iran expelled Saddam's army and began to move into Iraq. Ayatollah Khomeini was correct in agreeing to end the war because an Iranian occupation of Iraq would've been a nightmare and Saddam's secterianism against Shia clerics would not gain traction until the 90s. Iraq was a secular state with Iraqi Shias playing a major part of the Iraqi military, as members of the Ba'ath Party and Saddam's government and resistance to Iran would be a nationalist cause of liberation. Maybe other Arab states would've joined to expell the Iranian occupation force such as Ba'athist Syria under Hafez al-Assad.
No, the West did not fund Iraq against Iran. Iraq's army was entirely equipped by the former USSR and then Russia, not the West. Iran was never close to occupying Iraq. You have bizarre information and analysis.
@thomassenbart Iraq was using Soviet weapons as well as French Mirage jets and helicopters, the US sold weapons to Iraq, provided satellite imaging of Iranian positions, the UK provided weapons as well throughout the entire war. The US even supplied Iraq with chemical weapons which it used on the Kurds and Iranians. All of this is common knowledge with documentation and of course the infamous video of Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. Don't just look up Wikipedia but do actual searches and research. As for the occupation of Iraq, even in the video the Professor mentions that although many wanted Iran to continue to push into Iraq, Khomeini said no and agreed to end the war. This isn't a conspiracy or some lunacy since in war the primary objective is to defeat your enemy which usually entails capturing the enemy's territory barring a negotiated peace settlement that includes the return of all lands to pre-war borders. This was it
@thomassenbart The weapons were Soviet but the French supplied Mirage jets and helicopters along with maintenance equipment, the UK sold weapons to Iraq, the US sold weapons, provided satellite imaging of Iranian positions as well as chemical weapons of which Saddam used on Kurds and Iranians. They all supplied Saddam with ammunition and maintenance equipment for tanks, helicopters jets and artillery. You even have the infamous video of Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam Hussein in Baghdad to guarantee military support. Do actual research and not just Wikipedia. By the way, the Soviet Union was still around by the time the war ended and didn't dissolve until 1991. As for the Iranian occupation, even the professor said that although the military wanted to keep the war going once Iran began moving into Iraq, Khomeini said no, agreed to end the war with Iranian troops returning to the pre-war borders.
@@jesusaguilar4585 So, you are correct about the French who sold 133 Mirage jets to Saddam over about a decade and the Brits sold land rovers and some helicopters and also some dual-use tech and spare parts which later were actually used by the military. The Germans were the biggest violators as multiple companies sold technology, machinery, and expertise to Iraq for the construction of chemical weapons which actually resulted in the weapons used against both Iran and the Iraqi people. This was done without the knowledge of the German government which largely turned a blind eye to these sales and failed to adequately enforce export controls on Iraq.
The USA provided some intel as I said before but nothing particularly important. The Americans also allowed various allies to sell Soviet weapons to Iraq and dual-use machinery, tech etc... It also simultaneously supplied Iran with arms in the infamous Iran Contra deal.
So, it is a bit more convoluted than you stated and the overwhelming majority of weapons were from the USSR/Russia but the above demonstrates some Western complicity as well. I stand corrected.
Iran, though surviving Iraq's initial invasion, never threatened the Iraqi regime and never penetrated deeply into Iraq. It failed in its offensive to capture Basra and in the North with the Kurds, and though initially capturing the Fao Peninsula, it lost it again to Iraqi counterattacks. So, Iraq was in no real danger from Iran's military. The war was a stalemate.
@thomassenbart A stale mate no doubt. And with Iran-Contra, it shows that when American presidents can betray an ally if it's interests conflict with support for their ally. In this case American hostages in Lebanon which Reagan thought could only be freed by selling missiles to Iran so they can get Hezbollah and Amal to release them. My understanding is that not many hostages were released. But this was clearly a stab in the back to Saddam and it's interesting why Saddam believed the Bush administration when the Bush administration said they had no issue with Iraq invading Kuwait.
Put a subscription message at the end or beginning. Don't break the flow.
Thanks. I know that it is an interruption. But this is the best place to put it. Putting it at the start is horrible. It's still an interruption, but it's asking people to sign up before they have even had a chance to hear anything! Not good. However, putting it at the end is pretty much useless. People just switch off. The middle is by far the most effective place to put them. I put great effort into making the videos. Hopefully, most people will understand that taking 10 seconds to ask for a like or perhaps a subscription isn't too great a price to ask for what is essentially free content. (But if anyone does want to help more, becoming a channel member is a great way!)
@@JamesKerLindsay Don't listen to the sole naysayer, it works well.
Persians win
Arabs surrender.
It's west Asia not the middle east
Don't start! :-)
No, Iraq and Iran are squarely in the Middle East.
@@thomassenbartAren't both correct? The Middle East (partially) being in West Asia?
@@thomassenbart
Middle East And West Asia are same
Even Egypt is Transcontinental country and also can be West Asian country
@@PatriotOfPersia No one refers to the Near East or Middle East as West Asia, which could also refer to the Eastern side of the Ural Mountains. So, if you want to say Western Asia you may but the former references are far more recognizable and therefore better for communication.