[News] From 1980 to 2025: West-backed imposed wars against Iran end same way – in defeat

[Anti-Imperialist News]

   From 1980 to 2025: West-backed imposed wars against Iran end same way
  – in defeat

Monday, 22 September 2025 
-https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2025/09/21/755438/from-1980-2025-imposed-wars-iran-end-same-way-defeat


*By Ivan Kesic*

*Today marks the forty-fifth anniversary of the outbreak of the Imposed 
War, an eight-year war of aggression launched by Saddam Hussein's 
Ba'athist regime against the Islamic Republic of Iran that would become 
one of the longest conventional wars of the twentieth century.*

The invasion, launched on September 21, 1980, represented a profound 
test for the nascent Islamic Republic, which was still consolidating its 
revolutionary gains and faced significant internal challenges.

Despite being caught unprepared and subjected to simultaneous land, air, 
and naval attacks across its western and southern borders, Iran mounted 
a commendably brave and resilient defense that ultimately repelled the 
aggressor and preserved the country's territorial integrity and sovereignty.

The aggression cannot be understood in isolation from its international 
context, as it was actively encouraged and supported by foreign powers, 
particularly the United States, which provided critical political 
backing, intelligence, and weaponry to Baghdad throughout the protracted 
war.

European countries likewise played a significant role in fueling the war 
of aggression through massive arms shipments, including the provision of 
chemical weapons that were deployed against Iranian soldiers and 
civilians in violation of international norms.

The parallels between this aggression and the more recent one, 
particularly the 12-day imposed war by the Israeli regime in June, 
reveal enduring patterns of foreign hostility and interventionism 
against Iran, met consistently with national unity and determined 
resistance.

*Outset of aggression and Iran's response*

The war began with a series of coordinated airstrikes on September 21, 
1980, as Iraqi MiG fighter jets bombed multiple Iranian airports, 
including Mehrabad in Tehran, Ahvaz, Tabriz, Hamadan, and Bushehr, 
targeting both military infrastructure and civilian facilities in a 
clear escalation of hostilities.

These attacks were accompanied by a full-scale ground invasion across 
Iran's western and southern borders, with Iraqi forces advancing into 
the oil-rich province of Khuzestan under the delusion that local 
Arabic-speaking populations would welcome them as liberators rather than 
defend their territory.

This strategic miscalculation reflected the flawed assumptions of Saddam 
Hussein's regime, which believed the political turmoil following Iran's 
Islamic Revolution had created a window of vulnerability that could be 
exploited for quick territorial gains and geopolitical advantage.

The invasion was preceded by Saddam's theatrical tearing of the Algiers 
Agreement before television cameras, claiming absolute Iraqi sovereignty 
over the Arvand River and even Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf, to 
fabricate a pretext for aggression that lacked any legal or historical 
foundation.

Iran's armed forces, still in a period of reorganization following the 
Islamic Revolution and facing various internal challenges, demonstrated 
remarkable composure and resilience in responding to these unprovoked 
attacks, quickly mobilized to defend the country's sovereignty despite 
the element of surprise and the superior weaponry initially fielded by 
the invading forces.

/Bombing of the civilian neighborhood of Ekbatan in Tehran on the first 
day of the aggression/

The immediate response included the shooting down of eleven Iraqi 
aircraft and the sinking of four missile frigates, according to early 
military announcements, showcasing the operational capability and 
determination of Iranian forces even under unexpectedly adverse conditions.

The national response to the invasion was characterized by extraordinary 
unity and resolve, as political leaders across the spectrum and ordinary 
citizens alike rallied to defend the country against external 
aggression, setting aside differences in the face of a common threat.

Imam Khomeini, in a message delivered shortly after the attacks began, 
firmly condemned the aggression while drawing a clear distinction 
between the Iraqi regime and its people, emphasizing that Iran's 
response would target the architects of the invasion rather than the 
Iraqi population, who were themselves victims of Saddam's tyranny.

All senior Iranian government officials at the time urged calm and 
discipline while highlighting the coordinated response of military and 
political institutions, demonstrating a cohesive national leadership 
that effectively managed the crisis despite the challenging circumstances.

Perhaps most significantly, ordinary Iranians from all walks of life 
spontaneously expressed their readiness to join the defense effort, with 
many rushing to offer assistance at bombed sites despite safety concerns 
and others formally volunteering for military service, reflecting a 
profound popular commitment to national defense that would become a 
defining feature of the war years.

The heroic resistance in border cities such as Khorramshahr, where 
lightly armed defenders held off numerically superior Iraqi forces for 
weeks, became emblematic of Iran's determined response to aggression and 
demonstrated that technological superiority alone could not overcome 
national resolve and strategic ingenuity.

The period of Imposed War served to clearly distinguish genuine patriots 
who set aside their differences to unite in defense of the nation from 
those who chose to abandon the country, such as monarchists who sought 
refuge abroad, and members of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO) 
terror cult, who aligned themselves with the invading forces.

*Western support for Ba'athist Iraqi aggression*

The Imposed War cannot be properly understood without examining the 
extensive international support provided to the Saddam regime, 
particularly from Western powers that saw the Iraqi aggression as an 
opportunity to weaken the Islamic Republic and roll back its growing 
influence.

The United States played a particularly instrumental role in 
facilitating Iraqi aggression, having given what amounted to a green 
light for the invasion following the collapse of diplomatic negotiations 
in Bonn just days before the attacks commenced, where Iranian attempts 
to resolve outstanding issues, including frozen assets, had been 
rebuffed by American officials.

This timing was hardly coincidental, coming just two months after the 
failure of the Nojeh coup plot—a joint American-Iraqi attempt to 
overthrow the Iranian government—which demonstrated that military action 
against Iran had been actively contemplated by both regimes before the 
September invasion.

Iran urges Germany to probe wartime supply of chemical weapons to Iraq 
<https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2025/04/29/747098/Iran-urges-German-probe-of-chemical-weapons-supply-to-Iraq> 

Iran urges Germany to probe wartime supply of chemical weapons to Iraq 
<https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2025/04/29/747098/Iran-urges-German-probe-of-chemical-weapons-supply-to-Iraq>
Iran has called for full accountability for the use of chemical weapons 
during the Iran-Iraq War, urging Germany to investigate and reveal the 
truth about its role in arming Iraq with the destructive weapons. 
<https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2025/04/29/747098/Iran-urges-German-probe-of-chemical-weapons-supply-to-Iraq>

Once the war commenced, the US provided extensive material support to 
Iraq, including intelligence sharing, economic assistance amounting to 
billions of dollars, and direct military training, while simultaneously 
engaging in sabotage operations against Iranian infrastructure and 
participating in attacks on Iranian shipping and oil platforms.

American diplomatic efforts further aided the Iraqi war machine by 
systematically deflecting attention from Baghdad's use of chemical 
weapons through false equivalencies that misleadingly suggested both 
sides were employing such prohibited weapons, when in reality only Iraq 
possessed and utilized these horrific instruments of warfare against 
both military targets and civilian populations.

European powers similarly bear significant responsibility for enabling 
and prolonging the aggression through their extensive arms exports to 
Iraq, which transformed Saddam's military into a formidable force 
equipped with the most advanced weaponry available on the international 
market.

France emerged as one of Iraq's primary weapons suppliers, providing 
aircraft, missile systems, and armored vehicles that significantly 
enhanced Baghdad's offensive capabilities, while Germany contributed 
dual-use technology and chemical precursors that facilitated the 
development of Iraq's chemical weapons program despite international 
prohibitions.

The United Kingdom likewise authorized extensive arms sales to Baghdad 
while providing technical assistance and training that improved the 
effectiveness of Iraqi forces, and Italy furnished naval vessels and 
other military hardware that strengthened Iraq's strategic position.

This massive international arms pipeline allowed Iraq to sustain its war 
effort despite significant losses and economic challenges, effectively 
outsourcing its military logistics to foreign suppliers who profited 
handsomely from the prolonged aggression while paying lip service to 
calls for peace and neutrality.

The coordinated nature of this support suggests a deliberate Western 
strategy to use Iraq as a proxy to weaken Iran, reflecting geopolitical 
calculations that prioritized containing the Islamic Revolution over 
regional stability or humanitarian considerations.

*parallels with June 2025 Imposed War*

The patterns of external aggression and Iranian resilience evident 
during the 1980s Imposed War found striking parallels in the 12-day war 
imposed by the Israeli regime in coordination with the US in June this 
year, which similarly combined surprise attacks, foreign backing, and 
ultimately failed to achieve its strategic objectives due to Iran's 
determined response.

Like Saddam's invasion in 1980, the Israeli aggression began with 
targeted assassinations of top-ranking military commanders and 
scientists alongside attacks on civilian areas, reflecting a similar 
calculation that Iran could be weakened through decapitation strikes and 
shock tactics.

The United States again played an enabling role, directly participating 
in bombing campaigns against Iranian nuclear facilities despite the 
absence of any legitimate justification.

European powers, meanwhile, offered political cover for the aggression 
through muted responses and statements that failed to unequivocally 
condemn the violation of Iranian sovereignty, echoing their permissive 
stance during the earlier Imposed War despite the passage of decades and 
purported advances in international law and war prevention mechanisms.

Iran's response to the 2025 aggression demonstrated the same national 
unity and military competence that had characterized its defense during 
the 1980s, with armed forces effectively responding to attacks on 
multiple fronts and delivering measured but decisive counterstrikes 
against targets in occupied territories and American bases in the region.

The leadership similarly maintained a clear strategic direction 
throughout the crisis, with Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah 
Seyed Ali Khamenei emphasizing the nation's resolve and capability while 
accurately identifying the motivations underlying the hostility toward 
Iran's independent path.

Most significantly, both aggressions ultimately concluded without 
achieving the aggressors' primary objectives—whether the territorial 
gains sought by Iraq or the destruction of Iran's nuclear program and 
defensive capabilities attempted by the Israeli regime—demonstrating the 
consistent failure of military coercion against a nation determined to 
defend its sovereignty and principles.

The continuity between these episodes, separated by 45 years, suggests 
enduring structural factors in Iran's international relations, where 
foreign powers repeatedly underestimate national unity and resilience 
while overestimating the effectiveness of military force against a 
people who have consistently demonstrated their willingness to sacrifice 
in defense of their country and revolution.

These parallel experiences have inevitably shaped Iran's strategic 
calculus and defense preparedness, reinforcing the importance of 
military self-sufficiency and the development of deterrent capabilities 
that can discourage future aggression while ensuring an effective 
response if aggression is nevertheless imposed.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20250922/b855ed57/attachment-0001.htm>