Talk:Iran–Iraq War/Archive 8

I give up, and surrender
There is so much Anti-Iranian sentiment here, it is no use to edit any thing that even remotely makes Iran innocent and Saddam guilty or United States and west guilty. Despite having citation of text books of military history it will be immediately removed and labeled senseless. I was advised by one here to come here and talk and now I can see where it is going. Up there Walterego is claiming the non-existence of historical facts which has been documented not by CNN but by historians like Dilip Hiro and Robin Wright. Yes USA did instigate Saddam to attack Iran, read some text books and watch less CNN or DW. Saddam was a CIA agent long before Iran-Iraq war, http://www.webcitation.org/5asrxaUsF, I am amazed how some people of very dubious nature, most of them I presume white in color, go to protect their nation's old friend even in death. That is simply shameful. And US Navy was fighting on Saddam's side, there is no doubt about it, US Navy was fighting not only on Saddam's side but also on Saddam's financier Kuwait side. It is documented by historians and again for that you have to read books and obviously it is useless for me now to go to article to add it, since it will be removed due to intense racism prevalent here against Iran. Stark was a friendly fire incident which was announced as such by Saddam and USA took no action against its ally, what so ever. Infact US Navy started to take the revenge on Iran. That is a fact. CIA did have a program to trap Iranian pilots codenamed operation night harvest as has been documented by Tom Cooper and others. Anyways as I said, it is useless to even argue or provide links and cite books. It is already decided in favor of USA. why bother? USA is an innocent angel and Iran is despicable devil which must be made fool of. That appears to be the official position of Wikipedia. No use to argue anymore. With fascists around wearing powerful badges trumping truth and deleting any info not to their liking, there is no reason to stay on wikipedia anymore. It is just another Fox blog as far as these matters are concerned. --Orionpilot (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is important to keep articles neutral. If you have sources and would like to add materials from them, please do so. In this case nothing can be removed. Here facts speak for themselves. Being innocient or not is not what wikipedia tries to say or deny. Just add your materials and please source them. Xashaiar (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I had already provided source for them. You are welcome to go and check. If standard text books can not be source on wikipedia, that I am not aware It was removed because of racism. Period. I am sure most of the senior priests on wikipedia with sweeping powers are white of european ethnicity with their history and culture soaked in fascism. That is what is happening here. --Orionpilot (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Iranian Commanders
Lets Get something straight here; I will tell you who was really a commander on the Iranian Side.


 * Ayatollah Khomeini- The Supreme leader controls the Army and the Pasdaran, so Khomeini is without a doubt a commander.


 * Ayatollah Khamenei- The president maintains some control over the army and while he reports to the Supreme Leader, he still welds significant control over their day to day operations, therefore Khamenei is Also a Commander


 * Mostafa Chamran- he was the Minister of Defense and a General under the Early stages of the war. He was killed in Action late in 1981. So he would have been sincerely a comander.


 * Ali Sayad Shirazi- Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces during the War, no question about his classification as a Commander.


 * Mohsen Rezaee- Commander of the Pasdaran, Heavily involved in the fighting, again, no question.

Now here are people who should not be classified as commander.


 * Abdolhassan Banisadr- President but He was impeached in the first days of the war, so he never commandered anything during the War.


 * Mohammad Ali Rajai- President only for less than three weeks after Banisadr, so he never commandered anything.


 * Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani- Throught his career as a cleric during the War, Rafsanjani never went into affairs regarding the military (exception being the Iran-Contra Affair) and simply worked with business within the country.


 * Mir Hossein Mousavi- The Prime Minister did not wield any power over the military, he simply worked exclusively on affairs within the country.

So please don't change the commanders list, this is all the proof you need. Rezashah4 (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Banisadr was President during the war for nearly a year, but besides, even though Banisadr and Rajai were not president for long, they were both president during the war and thus were commander for a certain amounth of time, they will be included, Rafsanjani will be excluded ofcourse.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Authenticity of Sources
Regarding the discussion going on between some members here, about sources: Some sources cited in this article are very biased and dubious in nature. They are either not an academic work or have a propaganda background. I believe all sources in this article must be checked against the article and problem rectified. Like "Molavi, Afsin (2005). The Soul of Iran." does not provide a single source in his book for claims he has made.--192.30.202.15 (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say most sources are in fact pro-western and some are not. But on the issue of "The Soul of Iran" I have to agree with you. I think this source is not academic, it is "just a book". But please write here your concern, so that we can replace Afshin's book with better sources. Xashaiar (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Role of PMOI
Hi, there's absolutely NO evidence that the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran, Massoud or Maryam Rajavi fought on Iraq's side. Please stop falling for Islamic Republic propaganda, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.103.42 (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The names of the Countries are confused
Iraq invaded Iran and Iran responded not the other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.16.57 (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Assassination Attempt on Tariq Aziz
The article says that Iraq's pretext for the start of the Iran-Iraq War was "an alleged assassination attempt on Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz in southern Iraq," but other sources, including the Wikipedia article on Tariq Aziz, indicate that the attempt occurred in central Baghdad. Was there more than one attack on Tariq Aziz in 1980? 38.96.137.89 (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I read that there was more than one. Saddam Hussein cited repeated assassination attempts on several government ministers, among other things, in his declaration of war. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

France, Germany, Soviet Union, what?
In the section on foreign support, the article currently says:
 * Iraq had a complex relationship with France and the Soviet Union, its major suppliers of actual weapons, to some extent having the two nations compete for its business. Iraq had a complex relationship with Germany and the Soviet Union, its major suppliers of actual weapons, to some extent having the two nations compete for its business.

Er, what? Which is it supposed to be, or is reality something else? 61.69.2.73 (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Belligerents: Iraq supported by Denmark?
Added to the belligerents section regarding Iraq being supported by Denmark during the war. This came as quite a surprise to me. Does anyone have any source that supports this claim? It seems highly unlikely given the so-called footnote-era that was dominant in Danish politics at the time.

--Pontoppidan (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never read that anywhere. If anything, Denmark would have loosely supported Iraq, like the rest of the European states back then. The Scythian 17:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Details on Iraqi military units and tactics
I've copy-edited Soviet support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war to remove excess irrelevant details, but someone might find the details on Iraqi military units and tactics that the previous version included to be useful in writing this article or another article. Fences &amp;  Windows  17:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Nature of the "green light"
The article alleges that in 1980 the Carter administration gave a "green light" for Iraq to invade Iran. But what exactly does that mean? What specifically was communicated to the Iraqis that could interpreted as a "green light"? A committment not to support Iran? I don't think Iraq needed a "green light" to figure out the U.S. would not support Iran in the middle of the hostage crisis. Did Carter and co. promise aid to Iraq? But in 1980 Iraq was a Soviet client state and was designated as a state sponsor of terrorism by the U.S. from 1979 until 1982, no actual aid was given by the Carter administration or Reagan up until 1982-85.

So can this be clarified? 71.65.71.145 (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this all of this is very dubious. The section relies on a documentary that seems to be of the conspiratorial genre. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 13:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Misleading title.
The title of "US shoots down civilian airliner" is a misleading line that gives the impression the US deliberately shot the aircraft down with knowledge it was a civilian aircraft. A more neutral title would be along the lines of "Flight 665 incident" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Belligerents
First, the US and the USSR should be removed, as they neither officially supported Iraq's position nor had troops involved in the warfare. Selling arms to parties of the conflict did not make Ronald Reagan a military commander involved in that war, as the article in its present state suggests. Funny belligerence would it have been, if we recall the Iran-Contra affair. Secondly, some years ago, Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran and Komalah were listed as belligerent of Iraq. Why was that removed? The suggestion had some sources at least. -

Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof!  19:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This nonsense is re-added by a static IP, already having served a 1 month block was disruption last year. Having checked the page history, I see /first and foremost) (September 2009) and an IP whose 'arguments' are confined to the [edit summary What are you? a stupid. Read the changes before reverting you saddam ass kisser. and a now banned user supporting that line, while a number of users have decided to remove it, , , . There's definitiely no consensus to include the US as belligerent in that conflict. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog |  woof!  17:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note also that this issue has been discussed extensively and there was a vote, whether or not to list the US as belligerent. See Talk:Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War/Archive_6. There seemed to be a slight majority for no over the yes vote, but there were a few users asking to scrap this label from the infobox, given the multitude of opinions and controversy. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof!  17:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. Even if we consider American operations part of the war, that doesn't make Reagan a commander on the side of Iraq, third party at best. Just like James Madison is not listed alongside Napoleon I in the infobox of the Napoleonic Wars, Reagan has no place here. Colchicum (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

US was an active participant in the tanker wars, which was phase of the Iran-Iraq war. Kurdo777 (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also as the sources state explicitly that "US was involved in direct military confrontation with Iran and alongside Iraq" the article must state that and list US as Belligerent (the old decision as reflected in the archive of this talk page did). This was not just a support for Iraq as Brasil was among the heavy supporter of Iraq but can not be listed as Belligerants. See also the appropriate section. Xashaiar (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. The US similarly attacked the Iraqi navy when they saw Kuwaiti oil tankers threatened. This did not make them cobelligerents of Iran. And don't prop up with the old and discredited synthesis of “US was involved in direct military confrontation with Iran” --> was cobelligerent with Iraq. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not even non-sense: you better say why you are concerned about USA being listed but the rest on the Iranian side are there without single sourcing and you are not concerned. USA was involved in military conflict with Iran. This is what the sources say. This is the only criterion that wikipedia requires: RS sources and not what you dislike. You need to be civil and read wikipedia rules: do not call what others do by inapplicable terms as you did in your edit summary.

Xashaiar (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. You do no even have single source to back up you claim. The U.S never attacked Iraqi forces in direct response to attacks on Iranian oil tankers. In fact, the U.S did not even "attack" Iraq after the USS Stark incident, which left 37 American sailors dead, and a U.S Navy frigate crippled. The Scythian 09:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. A source claiming that the US was at war with Iran is irrelevant here. What is needed here to support your position is a consensus among reliable sources that the US was a co-belligerent of Iraq, not your own synthesis that they were on the same side. Colchicum (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As of 1988, it was. The Scythian 09:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Being in war with Iran does not mean it was aligned with Iraq AGAINST Iran. Please stop being disruptive. Until consensus is again reached, keep the US out of the list. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Until a consensus has been reached, you have no right to REMOVE information that is sources. You clearly have an agenda, and a revisionist one at that. One that no scholarly source would even begin to back up. The Scythian 22:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Persistently adding Egypt and Jordan as co-belligerents of Iraq, without no sources whatsoever, is no longer just POV-pushing, but simply idiocy. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 20:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a source. . Do you need ten more? Please do not use Wikipedia as a means of pushing an agenda. Egypt sent a battalion sized unit to fight along side Iraqi forces in the war. If you are not aware of this, you either know nothing of the conflict, or a pushing a revisionist agenda. Your clear bias and absurd POV pushing should be be brought to the attention if the Wikiepdia community, as soon as is possible. The Scythian 22:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't need ten sources, a couple of sources that we could all verify would be all right for the assertion that Egyptian units participated in the conflict. Until we have zero (or just your words that a book refers to this), it's patently you who's pushing an agenda, not me. After all those years of edit warring by your gang, absolutely no reliable sources have been presented that would unequivocally treat the US as a co-belligerent of Iraq. It won't. That has no prevented POV-pushers like you to re-introduce this nonsense ad nauseam. Instead of convincing others at talk of your factual basis, you just enter the US and a couple of other countries into infobox, hoping that this unsourced stuff could somehow remain there. The same seemed to be true of your case regarding Egyptian involvement. Hence, reliable sources first at talk, preferably quotations from the books that show you are right. Otherwise many are inclined to believe that you are simply falsifying and presenting WP:SYNTH just like that Xashaiar troll above. Sources, explanation and consensus at talk please! Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * PS I could access a few pages of the book you referred to . The source, entitled Iranian perspectives on the Iran-Iraq war merely mentions that Egyptian volunteers and mercenaries took part in the conflict. So if we can ascertain what kind of units they formed (and if they were notable), we can add the particular unit as combatant. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

the Iran Iraq war- Iranian opinion
the title "the Iran Iraq war- an Iranian opinion" is what i suggest for this article, as is so biased, so biased that it seems silly to me, i read this a long time ago and in the past i remember it differently. but it seems to me some Iranians got there hands on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.98.147.132 (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's okay, because the Arabic version of this article must have been written by Saddam himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.114.189 (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

wow i find that an awkward comment, what has the Arabic version got to do with this one? or the Persian one for that matter.

I totaly agree, we should add "Iranian opinion" to the title. Just before the Iranian lose, they accept UN Secutiry council resolution to cease fire, and then many years later they claim victory online? I know it's sometimes hard to accept the facts, but seriously, you can't change the history. I also like the way they write "The Iranian forces crushed Iraqi forces overnight and took complete control over Baghdad >:ww.iranlovers.c0m " —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxDestinyxX (talk • contribs) 04:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be called "Iranian perspective of the Iran-Iraq war". I'd rather not go into an edit war, with some of the more ludicrous claims in this article, instead I propose that a second article called "Iraqi view of the Iran-Iraq war" be written, and a placeholder article linking to both be put in place of "Iran-Iraq war". This should avoid edit wars as well as showing both perspectives (and I certainly intend the Iraqi article to be less biased and full of misinformation than this one). Hayderaziz (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hayder, you are a known poster at the ACIG forum, but I have to ask, are you at all familiar with Wikipedia's policies on sockpuppetry? The Scythian 23:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you guys need to be more specific about your claim. Which parts you see biased and what are your neutral-sourced-material to contradict them?Farmanesh (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Belligerents (again)
Who claims Saudi-Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait and the UAE were involved? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Simple. They funded, equipped, supported, and in the case of Egypt, even sent troops to fight on the side of Iraq. The Scythian 09:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources? Uirauna (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ...I got about ten more where that came from. If you know nothing of the conflict, why even bother to edit? Unless you are an agenda driven editor. Which in this case, is very obvious. The Scythian 23:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That does not qualify as a reliable source. Not even as a source, since you do not provide the page and passage. Please provide a reliable source. Uirauna (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that a scholarly book, written by a noted and well-known historian on the topic of the Iran-Iraq War, is not a reliable source for an article ON the Iran-Iraq War? I'll have to dig the book up for an exact page number, but you CLEARLY have an agenda here, and one that is not going to stand up to any scrutiny. I'd love to see your "sources," since you proclaim such expertise on the topic. The Scythian 02:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem not to understand how WP works. If you want to add disputed content, you have to provide reliable sources, submit them to the community of editors and when consensus is reached (either directly or through mediation) the content is included. If you believe that I have an agenda, feel free to make a request for mediation. If not, please stop making false accusations. There has been a wide and long standing consensus on this topic, that you seem to prefer to ignore. Either please provide realiable sources (and in this polemic topic, several different sources) or refrain yourself from making disruptive edits. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Try here. This one says Egypt supplied arms to Iraq. This one says "military assistance"........, notably Egypt. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There has not been a long standing consensus on this topic, as actually more Wikipedians disagree with your position, than agree. Look at the thread yourself. As for knowing how Wikipedia works, you might want to read through the policy on what constitutes legitimate sources. You are in no position to pick and choose, simply to back up your own viewpoint. I am going to let more folks chime in, before making a request. Thus for, your behavior has been far from exemplary, and has been noted. The Scythian 03:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Those countries partially funded Iraq for war and diplomatically supported it during the war, number of sources are given here and more are availble. But I am not sure what exactly defines being an official party to the war. Is financial and diplomatic support enough to consider those countries an official party?Farmanesh (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What does "partially funded Iraq" mean? Billion of dollars, sending soldiers, providing and encouraging use of chemical weapons against Iranian people is partial? I wonder what "full" support would mean. Palestinian authorities and the entire arab league should also be included in the list of Iraqi Belligerents. Also "what exactly defines being an official party" is understood as "being involved" like USA navy. Xashaiar (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read Belligerent, then maybe you will understand. And again, if you think me and other users are pushing an POV, please request mediation instead of trying to push your POV. I'll probably do it soon anyway. Uirauna (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that you should read that page. MKO is a Belligerent and USA is not?! By removing USA and leaving others you are clearly violating wp:npov and interestingly you still accuse other editors of pushing pov. Please respect the cons between the good editors above. Xashaiar (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, as I see, you seem to be the only one who disagrees with others (per [history page]). And the stable version of the article has been "USA and Arab league in the list" (per history page). This means you should not "immediately" engage in reverting and reverting and reverting (as [seen]) a version of the article which is at least similar to the stable version. Xashaiar (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Xashaiar, I thought we had finished discussing this 'US involved in direct military aggression against Iran' matter in summer. No way, here you come again with the same 'source' for this WP:SYNTH assumption. If people keep rejecting your sole 'source', then perhaps it's sth wrong with your assumption, not that all others are Zionist-Masonic-pro-US POV-pushers, right?  MIaceK  (woof!) 17:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Source is source even if already used! This means: Try to make a minimum amount of sense (referring to "No way, here you come again.."). The very fact that you link these things to Zionism is itself enough to dismiss whatever you say, no matter what, no matter where, no matter how, no matter why. One should not make such comments (per wp:forum). Xashaiar (talk) 08:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your source was discarded by others, simply because it did not list the US as a co-belligerent of Iraq against Iran. It was merely your own WP:SYNTH that it did. MIaceK (woof!) 13:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What? Then which source mentions other countries/parties (like PUK or Daawa ,...) as such (that is "co-belligerent") and which you have kept? This is not pov and synth? Interesting. Xashaiar (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought
It appears that most Iraqis in the "Commanders and leaders" column are now either executed (Saddam Hussein, Ali Hassan al-Majid, Taha Yassin Ramadan, Adnan Khairallah, Saddam Kamel and Qusay Hussein), waiting to be executed (Tariq Aziz) or on the run (Izzat Ibrahim ad-Douri). 41.237.215.206 (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Belligerents
This is a request for comment, since the previous consensus is being constantly changed (and those changes disputed). The previous consensus (as can be seen in the section "Belligerents" above was to keep the USA out of the list, as well as other countries. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the involvement of most Arab nations and some developed nations like US in support for Iraq is well sourced. However, I am not sure where we draw the line as whom was a Belligerents/participant of the war and whom was not enough involved to be called that. I have my opinion on this but I hope we can have a more concrete way of distinguishing this. Maybe there is already an established procedure in Wikipedia for other wars? Anyone knows?Farmanesh (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If solely military or financial assistance to a party makes the third country effectively a co-belligerent of the country receiving supplies, then Israel must have been a co-belligerent of Iran. See Israeli support for Iran during the Iran–Iraq war. My argument here of course won't convince the Scythian POV zealots, but I hope this helps to explain to uninvolved users like you why it's nonsensical to talk of the US as a co-belligerent of Iraq. Some months ago, the same loony editors would insert the USSR as such, too. It must have been a great alliance then of all those otherwise unfriendly nations having their detachments fight alongside Iraqis! MIaceK (woof!) 14:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * First I have to ask: why PUK and Daawa are listed as Belligerents in Iran's list and PMK as a Belligerent in Iraq's list. The criteria which make these addition OK and acceptable to those not letting USA being mentioned, should apply to USA too. Wikipedia is not supposed to act like that: (per wp:npov and wp:nor). Xashaiar (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think both comments above shows the lack of a clear standard here for deciding who is a Belligerent. I hope that in some other place like an Academic setting or at least in a wikipedia well-discussed previous consensus about wars we can find the answer. Any help or suggestion on this?
 * But if we are the ones to decide (not a good way at all), but I guess one criteria would be that the support should have been "consistent", "broad", and "significant".
 * Consistent: meaning the party involved should has offered the support for the whole duration or at least a considerable duration of the war.
 * Broad: meaning the support should have been more than just in one sense. For example only a diplomatic support (even if consistent and significant) might not be enough to call the involved a Belligerent.
 * Significant: meaning the support offered was of a level which would be worthy to the cause (war in this sense).
 * These were just my immediate ideas on this, feel free to suggest yours and even better find what others have done about this. cheers Farmanesh (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * About PUK, Daawa and PMK, I have no idea why they are listed as belligerents. I propose we reamove all beligerentes except for Iran and Iraq and individually discuss each party that someone would like to add. My arguments for not including the US (and several other countries) are:
 * The US did not take part on the iraqi side of the war as an ally.
 * It did provide economic support (through differente forms) to both Iran AND Iraq
 * It did enter in conflict with BOTH Iran and Iraq.
 * It is a third party, who despide being related to the conflict did not take part on it as an one-sided entity.
 * The article itself cites that one of the reasons that Iran decided to end the conflict was fear of direct confrontation with the US due to escalating hostilities between the two countries.
 * There was no open conflict between the two countries, only limited operations in response to Iran's mining of international waters
 * The same reasons apply to several other countries. The US has been off the list for a long time, from time to time the same users try to add it back, but it is eventually reverted. They keep trying to push their POV. If this issue is unresolved, I am willing to apply for mediation. And I hope Xashaiar and Scythian agree to it. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * RFC comment:Providing material support to one side of a war (or even both sides) doesn't make you a belligerent. USA shouldn't be on there. Sol (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it should. USA did engage in direct military conflict with Iran and only Iran and in support of Iraq during this war. This makes USA support to Iraq different from support from other parties that gave for example chemical weapons to Iraq. Anyway this is just infobox and the relevant materials could otherwise be put back into the lead. Xashaiar (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Iraq even attacked an American ship, oficially claiming it was inside the Iran-Iraq war zone. This makes no sense if the US was aligned with Iraq. Also, the US did not attack Iran to secure Iraq's interests, but to ensure freedom of navigation (as supported by UN Security Council Resolution 598) and as retaliation for Iranian attacks on US ships (Sea Isle City and USS Samuel B. Roberts). It goes even to the point that there was never open war between Iran and the US, only minor engagements, as well as there is no peace traty or anything like it (as there is between Iran and Iraq). Uirauna (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Iraq's attack on a U.S ship was a mistake. They believed they were attacking an Iranian corvette. As for U.S actions not benefiting Iraq, that is utter nonsense. Operation Praying Mantis directly coincided with the most massive Iraq ground attack of the war, directly causing Iran to finally bargain at the peace table. The Scythian 22:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * RFC comment. This is stupid dispute.  What is a belligerent? Obviously a person doing the fighting. Did the USA engage in fighting? NO.  Was USA truly neutral? perhaps not, but that does not make it a belligerent.  The mutually hostile attitude of Iran and USA since the Iranian Revolution has been well known, but that does not make it a belligerent.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The U.S did some "fighting." That fighting directly benefited Iraq. That makes the U.S a belligerent. See Operation Praying Mantis. The Scythian 22:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Despite all the comments agree with keeping the US out of the belligerent list, you still want to dispute. I propose we enter in a formal mediation process to solve this issue and prevent any further edit warring. Do you agree Scythian77? Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note. While in your original RFC you have focused on the USA but at the end you have added "as well as other countries". This is very vague and too generalized. Almost in all discussions here people have focused on USA, as it was also the primary focus of your RFC.
 * Now if you do go ahead with Mediation I think we should keep this specific focus on USA. Generalizing it to an unspecified "other countries" would not serve the mediation. Farmanesh (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * USA was not a belligerent. End of story. OmarKhayyam (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem Farmanesh, I´ll keep it focused. I´m waiting for the reply from Scythian77 to request mediation. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So Scythian77? Do you agree on the mediation? Or should we consider that consensus has been reached? Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Due to no replies from the other party in over a week, I´ll consider consensus reached on keeping the US outside the belligerent list. I have also removed the RfC. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Incorrect assumption. The Scythian 20:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Then please reply to the question I made above. Do you agree to start a formal mediation process? Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Belligerents
There still seems to be a sort of slow-motion edit-war about who are the belligerents. Would it help if you first had a good look at the Hague Convention and agree what definition of belligerent you are using and then not add any belligerents other than Iraq and Iran (and obvious, agreed candidates) without discussing their belligerent status first, here, with sources.Fainites barley scribs 14:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Economic Cost
Would like a functioning, and reliable, source for the 500 billion USD cost. Seems to be greatly exaggerated considering the actual size of the Iraqi and Iranian economies (neither which exceeds 500 billion USD even today, 22 years after the end of the war, despite economic growth and inflation) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.237.223.30 (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "Iran-Iraq war", Microsoft Encarta (2008) is the source. Today, GDP by PPP in Iran is above $800 billion. GDP does not equate "total assets" in a country. For example, GDP in the USA is around $14 trillion today and "total hard assets" is many times that amount. Damage because of the war has also to include damage to the people and also healthcare costs. Still, all this does not account for opportunity costs and inflation, since these numbers were calculated by United Nations experts in the early 1990's. Today, the cost for Iran's economy alone would be above $1 trillion easily. 68.197.144.38 (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

US involvement with Iran during the war
I have gone through the article/sources and have noted that the article misleadingly assumes that US was a strategic supporter of Iran during the war, which is completely wrong. The fact is that US supplied some equipment to Iran and these were done as part of a deal on Iran's hostage taking and terror attacks in Lebanon. This can not be put as a strategic support. There are numerous credible sources which are as such one is this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/21/AR2011012102914_2.html. The article will be changed to reflect this and this is put here to initiate a consensus. --Irooniqermez (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this issue straight to the talk page. What changes do you propose? Uirauna (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. The reason I have put it here is to create improved fact based non-partisan article by consensus which is important for the article specially the consensus of old editors of this article. I propose that United States be removed from supporters of Iran section, since Iran was almost at war with US simultaneously. US navy was engaging Iranians as well being a party of an Iranian proxy war in Lebanon. These facts are enough to exclude US from strategic supporters of Iran. According to searches I have done there is plenty of credible references as well as first hand interviews with both US and Iranian officials which shows that Iran had received some equipments which were not huge, being at most a couple of airplane loads of spare parts and perhaps one or two F-4 fighter jets. All sources agree that these equipment were traded for American hostages in Lebanon some of whom were working for US government. The article should reflect this fact clearly so that readers do not assume US was a strategic supporter of Iran during the war. Also article has the capacity to be nominated for Wikipedia good articles, once improvements are done. There is also a need for a thorough copy editing as well as grammar correction. Thank You.--Irooniqermez (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Which side turned out the better from this war?
It dosen't seem like either side won a clear victory to the war. Even though Saddam was backed by many Western powers and the Iranians had just undergone a major revolution. 204.184.80.26 (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

9 years of fighting
In the beginning it says: making it the longest declared war of the twentieth century. That seems to be very strange. For e.g. the vietnam conflict was going more or less 30 years. And the war in north Corea pinciple is still today not official ended. And the war in Laos, and and and .. --Alias.n.b. (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That´s POV pushing by a group of editors, the source is the title of a book on Amazon. I tried to remove it but did not want to go into an edit war. I say we remove it. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A "group of editors"...As in a cabal? I would refer to your editing of this article as about as biased as they come. You originally removed the the statement of the Iran-Iraq war as the "longest declared war of the twentieth century," simply because your own highly personal POV didn't like it, regardless of the sources and policies of Wikipedia say. The Scythian 20:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct Alias.n.b.. In fact, you hit the nail on the head. The Vietnam "War" was not a declared war. It was a "conflict." It is a legal concept in international law. For instance, technically U.S involvement in Vietnam was not as a warring combatant per say, regardless of what it actually was to an observer who was there on the ground. The Scythian 20:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with my POV. The Korean War has so far not ended, only a ceasefire was signed, making it the longest war of the 20th century. Sorry, but no matter how many amazon book covers you provide, you can´t argue with facts. And if you want a reference, here it goes by Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/10/04/us-korea-idUSSEO15784020071004?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews. If you want to be accurate, it is not the longest declared war. If you want to mean conflict, it is not the longest conflict, there is no pov in this, just numbers. And about pov pushing, I´m not the one who was blocked for disruptive editing and pov pushing. If you believe I´m pov-pushing, please (and I repeat, please) report me to the admins, I´ll be quite happy to deffend my case there as I know that as usual you accusations do not stand. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh boy...The Korean War was not a "declared war," either. It is still an ongoing conflict. U.S involvement was as part of a U.N "policing force." As for books I provide to you listing it as the longest war of 20th century, that fits right into Wikipedia guidelines. You trying to argue otherwise is clear POV pushing, as is your editing history on this article. As for a 24 four hour ban, big deal. You got lucky. Next time around, it'll probably be you. The Scythian 00:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was declared war, you can argue as much as you want. Anyway, it is not something that I care about, I know that in the end enough editors will look at it and your edits will come down, just as they did in the "US as belligerent" issue. There's nothing about luck in that, you tried to push your pov, enter in an edit war, disrespect other user and as per WP guidelines was blocked. And again, if you think I'm pov-pushing or disrespecting you, please post me on the admin board. When I have enough time I'll open a RfC and resolve this issue. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to argue. U.S involvement in the "Korean War" was as a member of a U.N collation in a policing action, sanctioned by UNSCR 84. The U.S never "declared war" on either North Korea or China, and likewise, they never returned the favor. If you disagree, which is something laughable to do about it at best, feel free to take it over to the Korean War discussion page. As for "disrespect," I would call your quick rush to get me blocked for 24hrs due to a 3RR violation absolutely pathetic, and it really shows your true purpose here. I've dealt with POV pushers on both sides of the aisle on this page. Nothing new. I look forward to the RfC, since there are plenty of sources referring to the Iran-Iraq War as such. The Scythian 04:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * While you might think of it as pathetic, the administrators didn´t, and I see you at least have learned the lesson, albeit the hard way. Anyway, this is not the place for such discussion. Goodbye and keep it civil. Uirauna (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

no "tactical Iranian failure"
''Hi my name is Robert

I've been following recent changes made by a few individuals to this article. There are several individuals wishing to remove the phrase "tactical Iranian failure" in the summary results box. However, an individual signing in as Uirauna, seems to insist on inserting that phrase. The below is my explanation as to why that assertion should not be included to describe "the Results" of the war.''

When it comes to this war, one cannot insist on the phrase "tactical failure" when it comes to the Iranian offensives, at least in its traditional sense. This is better understood, if the Iranian objectives are studied and observed for what they actuality were. The Iranian actions throughout the war were mostly constituted as defensive manoeuvres and not intended as a major offensive and or to capture/destroy new targets. To that end Iran was very successful.

My understanding also is that the war needs to be looked at objectively throughout the period which it lasted 1980-1988. The main objective of the Iraqi armed forces, under Saddam Hussein, was to invade and annex the oil rich state of Khuzestan in South West Iran. That objective failed shortly after the invasion and the war was in-fact fought for the rest of the war in Iraq until its end in 1988.

I also note that once the UN resolution of cease fire was accepted by both warring sides, Iran had to pull its troops back and evacuate Iraqi territory. To that end, I am not sure how one can argue a "tactical Iranian failure"? In any event, that assertion should not be placed in the summary results box, but rather, incorporated in the main article with the relevant specifics of the facts.

I will also, edit this section out in the article to reflect the above facts, and invite the active member to follow the above. I will, also send a copy of this correspondence to WP.

Hope this was helpful

Thanks

Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.25.192.146 (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Robert. If the removal of such content is objected (as per WP:BRD), such people should take the issue to the talk page BEFORE making more changes (such as you did). That is edit warring and POV pushing. That content on the page has been a long standing consensus, so it would take a new discussed consensus to remove it, not a bunch of IPs randomly removing it. I welcome your decision to take it to the talk page, but I have reverted your changes as the issue is not yet settled. If we reach a new consensus (or something like it), I´ll gladly remove that content myself. Until then PLEASE STOP REMOVING IT. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi

As it stands, it's your word against the word of several. I have written a detailed explanation based on facts. You provide no facts and point to so called past "consensus". There is no consensus on that issue, since it never occurred.

So, unless you can provide a logical reason as to why it (the fictitious phrase "tactical Iranian failure") should stand, please STOP accusing people of Vandalism. If you resort to this word so liberally, you need to read up on what constitutes 'vandalism' in WP. I have read it several times; it certainly does not describe what has occurred here.

Unless someone else objects to the entry "Tactical Iranian Failure", I think what you are doing is in fact vandalism..!? The assertion that there was a "tactical Iranian failure" is actually wrong. What does it actualy mean? Once you explain it, you will note that it can not apply to a side defending itself from several fronts.

Regards

Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.25.192.146 (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi again

FYI my account.

Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robvanden (talk • contribs) 02:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The war was a disaster for both countries. Although Iran managed to repell the Iraqi invasion of Khuzestan, they did not actually defeat their enemy. The subsequent Iranian invasion of Iraq was a complete disaster, and in the end of the war Iraq pushed into Iran again and stroke a sereve blow against the Iranians, thought with high casualties on their own as well. The war ended in a stalemate, not an Iranian victory. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a victory, since Iran simply defended her territory against an invading army, armed and trained by US and British governments. To that end Iran was victorious in its defence. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by Stalemate, since the objectives of the war were quite different. One failed in its objective to invade and to take lands away and the other succeeded in repelling and defending. Cheers. Rob (RobVanden 02:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC))


 * Stalemate does not mean reaching (or not reaching) objectives, but coming to a standoff where neither party cannot gain an advantage over the other and win the war. Another such example is the Korean War. Do you agree that despite local victories neither Iran nor Iraq were able to obtain a decisive advantage over the other allowing them to win the war? From 1983 on there was no significant gain for wither side, turning into an war of attrition that eventually lead to a cease fire. Also, Iran´s objective in the second phase of the war was to invade and dominate Iraq (as can be seen in the article itself, Iran used the mottos "War, War until Victory" and "The Road to Jerusalem Goes through Karbala" during the invasion). Also(2), I suggest that we remove some content from the results section, it is getting too crowded. Maybe keep just "Stalemate" and " Iraq invasion of Iran repelled" for simplicity. The rest of the information is detailed in the article. Also(3), please try to be civil, something you seem unable to do. Do not make false accusations. If you think I have a puppet, feel free to denounce me to the administrators, or else keep yourself quiet about such useless nonsense, there is no place for such behaviour here. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

First, I was and have been civil towards you. You just got used to getting your own way on everything thus-far. I'm here to tell you, that has come to an end.

Second, you sound exactly the same as your other alias (Mikrobølgeovn). I know you have your own agenda for this article. You won’t be successful; I can assure you of that.

Third, Iran never tried to gain an advantage over Iraq. It never invaded. Iran did however, seek to push back a relentless attack by US/UK armed and trained Iraq. To that end it was victorious. Even if Iran entered Iraqi territory, it was never to capture but rather as a defensive objective. Iraq repeatedly used Chemical and Biological weapons on Iranian soldiers and civilians, everytime Iran made rapid progress. These weapons were supplied to it by the US and UK.

Fourth, Just like the word Vandalism which you threw around so liberally in order to achieve your ends, the word stalemate should not be so liberally used here either. There are articles and published books available that specify why this war did not end in a stalemate. For instance, I'm not sure why you keep getting personal on this issue and failing to understand this simple concept: Here it is again: If Iraq invaded Iran and the war ended with Iran having to spend several weeks evacuating Iraqi territory, how is it that the war ended in a loss or a stalemate..!? Just leave it alone, my friend. (RobVanden 03:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)).

Hello, the result should be a stalemate. Had Iran accepted calls for a ceasefie by Saddam after his failed invasion, then it would have been a successful Iranian defence, hence an Iranian victory. However Ayatollah Khomeini decided to carry on the war with the objective of overthrowing the despicable, thuggish and brutal Saddam Hussein. Since Iran failed in this regard, one can argue that both countries failed their respective war objectives; therefore there was no victor. In the end, both countries had massive losses, with such an indecisive outcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mblur (talk • contribs) 12:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, the result can not be a stalemate since Iran ended in a superior position than at the start of the war. Also, look at the 2003 bilateral agreement between the two countries, regarding causes of the war, the reparation payments by Iraq to Iran and the outcomes. Iraq has agreed to all Iran terms. (RobVanden 23:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)).

Hello, it is actually a stalemate as neither country gained a significant advantage over the other by the end of the war and both ultimately failed in their objectives. True Iran defended itself and this would have been a victory if Khomeini did not decide to continue the war for another 6 years with the intentions of overthrowing the Baathist regime and establishing an Islamic republic. Wars are won by achieving objectives; Saddam's objectives failed within two years and Khomeini's failed by 1988, after a string of Iraqi victories from April-August 1988. Also, as of yet Iraq has not paid reparations to Iran, although you are correct regarding the head of the Iraqi Interim governing council saying that Iraq should pay reparations. Bear in mind that he was the head of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and has close ties with Tehran, having supported them during the war. Anyway,any clear-minded individual can see the war was undeniably a stalemate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mblur (talk • contribs) 16:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, it is actually NOT a stalemate, and stop pushing this POV on the article under IP: 2.121.99.104. It's been recorded. First,The objective of the Iranian army was to defend its territory and it did that. There were some minor setbacks, but by war's end Iran had to evacuate Iraqi territory, not the other way round [Iraq invaded Iran remember?]. This has been said in numerous articles and published texts, a quick search on the internet will show you same.

Second, the agreement between the Iraqi government and Iran was SIGNED in 2003. Iraq agreed to all Iranian terms including but not limited to; the causes and invading party, agreement with UN announcement of Iraq as the invading party; the reparations payments of close to $700 Billion USD; and the exchange of POW's.

It is now clear that Iran was not simply fighting an isolated Iraqi army, but a vast mercenary force at the bequest of Western powers, which armed and trained all of Iraq's armed forces, supplied it with satellite intel, supplied it with chemical and biological weapons and an open ended credit line (courtesy of Persian Gulf Arab States) and the supply of other state of the art conventional weaponry. In the face of huge economic and military sanctions the Iranian army was able to push this huge mercenary Iraqi force deep into Iraqi territory for much of the war. (RobVanden 03:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC))  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robvanden (talk • contribs)

Hello, in contrast to your comment, it actually was a stalemate. Iran's initial objectives in defending its territory were successful by 1982, however as I have repeatedly emphasized to you, Khomeini's objectives for the next six years of the war were not met and by 1988 he himself acknowledged that Iran could not continue. Iran's failure in this regard therefore constitutes a stalemate.

Also, I'd like to add: do not take my editing of this article an attack against your personal opinion or me trying to push my own opinion. I'm only trying to give an unbiased account of what happened throughout the war and not only Iran's defence by 1982. The result that you endorse does not convey Iran's failure in its objectives after 1982 to remove the ba'athist regime and establish an Islamic republic; let us be fair my friend- it was undoubtedly a stalemate. The vast amount of sources on the internet agree with this result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mblur (talk • contribs) 12:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have read the comments also. The war between the two countries did not end in a stalemate. Iranian military objectives were purely defensive in nature. To that end Iran came out on top. Testament to that was the fact that at war's end it took several weeks for Iranian military to leave Iraqi soil - not the other way round. I agree with Rob vanden's points.

Hello, conversely, it indeed did end in a stalemate. However, firstly, I'd like to point out that you have contradicted yourself by saying, "Iranian military objectives were purely defensive" before going on to say, "it took several weeks for Iranian military to leave Iraqi soil". If their objectives were 'defensive in nature', then why did they end up leaving Iraqi soil? The answer, of course, is that Iranian objectives were only defensive for the first two years of the war and the last six years were composed of Iranian offensive objectives by invading Iraq. An invasion is not a defensive response by Iran. Their objectives in toppling Saddam and setting up an Islamic Republic in Iraq failed. In fact if you search up the various battles of the Iran-Iraq war, you will see that after 1982, the bulk of battles consisted of Iranian attacks against the intrenched Iraqis. It was only the last battles from April-August 1988 that Iraq attacked Iran back, which culminated in Khomeini's decision to accept the ceasefire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mblur (talk • contribs) 15:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I do agree that it's a little confusing, but you have to think of it in the way the USSR fought Nazi Germany back in WWII, following the collapse of 'Operation Barbarossa'. The objectives of the USSR were purely defensive in nature. When the war ended the USSR was deep inside German territory. Instead of retreating back to the borders prior to the outbreak of the war, Stalin directed the Communist army of the USSR to remain and chose to stay back and carve up the territory with the United State and her allies (ie Eastern vs West Germany, Eastern vs Western Europe). In the Iran - Iraq war, apparently, by the war's end Iran's three (3) main divisions of Iran's armed forces were stationed deep in Iraqi territory. After the acceptance by both sides of Resolution 598 - effecting Res. 619, Iran withdrew all its droops back to the borders in place prior to the outbreak of the war (per the 1975 Algiers Agreement ). It's as simple as that. Khomeini's main objective after 1982, knowing that Saddam was quite capable of a quick counter attack, was to charge up the spirit of the nation and to boost morale so that the resistance would be fierce, and to resist and bush back the Iraqi army as deep as possible into Iraqi territory. That's why the rest of the war was in deed fought on Iraqi soil. In fact the entire war is termed as the "Sacred Defense" in Iran (today) and is in fact marked by many commemorative national days and holidays (eg Iranian Sacred Defence Week). That's why it is recognized (on the part of Iran) as being a purely defensive war, as opposed to the objectives of Saddam Hussein's Iraq and his western and Arab allies, which was to annex and incorporate into Iraq the state of Khūzestān (South Western Iranian province) containing some 10 t0 15% of the world's known crude oil reserves. I hope this was clearer, thanks for your input. Cheers, (RobVanden 00:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)).

Hello, while I take your point about how Iranian objectives and Soviet objectives were initially defensive, one cannot compare the outcomes of both. The Soviet army eventually captured Berlin and forced the Germans into surrender, hence a Soviet victory; this was not not the case in the Iran-Iraq War, where one side was not able to gain a significant advantage over the other, hence a stalemate. The fact that Iranian troops evacuated Iraqi territory is effectively meaningless if their objectives in launching their own invasion failed. Saddam offered Khomeini a ceasefire in 1982 and offered to pay reparations (practically acknowledged his disastrous miscalculation and defeat). Khomeini refused this, choosing to continue the war for another 6 years in the hope of toppling Saddam's regime and turning Iraq into an Islamic Republic; he failed his objectives as well. Remember that Khomeini had always been a critic of Saddam's regime and rejected it as un-Islamic, hoping one day that it would follow the example of Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mblur (talk • contribs) 08:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, it's not as simple as that. In fact Iraq under Saddam Hussein offered Iran two formal offers of surrender and one informal. They were rejected all three times by Iran, because none had UNSC backing. Meaning that the power-players instigating the war and making billions in the process had yet some ways to go before sitting at the negotiating table (these included Israeli arms dealers etc). The only time Iran took an offer of ceasefire seriously was when the UNSC was formally involved in 1987. Saddam could never be trusted to honor his words, as the world found out with his invasion of Kuwait a couple of years later. Iran did in fact end with the upper hand at the end of the war as discussed repeatedly here, and the subsequent signing of the 2003 agreements in Tehran solidified and formalized all the Iranian claims. No written documents were agreed to following the wars end apart from UNSC Res 598. Saddam was a genocidal maniac, whom committed mass murders and rapes and there was no way the Iranian nation was going to allow any of its political leaders be seen at the same table, particularly an individual perceived as responsible for such heinous crimes against the innocent Iranian people. It's not as black and white as, "oh so if Iran didn't topple the Baathist regime therefore it was a stalemate". No. The Iranian objective was to push Saddam's genocidal army back as deep as possible into Iraqi territory, until a formal agreement could be reached with UNSC. UNSC (many of its members where selling arms and intel to Iraq) did not formalize a ceasefire agreement until they had complete terms of ceasefire from Iraq. The result if the war could not have been a stalemate, but a ceasefire accepted by both sides to end fighting (end of round 12). Kind of like when the fighting in a boxing match ends at the end of round 12 and both fighters are still standing. However, one fighter always has his hands up. That was Iran, after being invaded, it had to spend several weeks just to evacuate Iraqi territory. The 2003 agrrements between the two nations also supplement that fact. So you can't keep saying stalemate, because it doesn't apply to this conflict.(RobVanden 14:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)).

Hello, even when the Resolution was passed, it took Iran a year to sign it because it was attacking Iraq throughout 1987 and Khomeini only accepted it after a string of Iraqi victories in 1988; so I'm not sure about your analogy of a boxer winning on decision representing Iran since Khomeini concluded that Iran could not continue and so the result was clearly a stalemate. In addition, Khomeini definitely wanted to turn Iraq into an Islamic Republic (even before the War he had wanted this) and so this objective, after 6 years of Iranian attacks, failed. Also, i agree 100% with your description of Saddam; he was a genocidal maniac and he ruined Iraq- no question about that. In fact I am an Assyrian and we took up armed resistance against his regime throughout the 1980s in the name of democracy. Anyway, I'd just like to say a final thing, because this argument is getting long and drawn out- if there is a consensus among editors then fair enough, I will stop editing it, however I don't appreciate people accusing me of being someone else or trying to push my own opinion. That is completely arrogant and out of order for people to do that as I'm only trying to improve the accuracy of the article and there are various sources on the internet which confirm that the war was a stalemate. Mblur (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought Iran won the war?! No way they didn't win (Shpoolky (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)).

I'm glad someone has put an end to these petty accusations. I am new to editing and so I do not know much about the procedures- but I do know that as an editor, one must endeavour to convey accurate and un-biased information to the reader. I am suggesting here that the current version of the article, albeit reliable and accurate up to 1982, does not illustrate the entire scope of the result by 1988 and therefore is effectively keeping the whole truth of the result from people who read the article. I have seen a few editors on this talk page agreeing with the general result being a stalemate and this is widely reflected through numerous sources across the internet. Anyway, I will not re-edit the article if that is not the correct procedure to follow, although i wish to pursue this matter.Mblur (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The new version of the article has a more credible section for the result, with the insertion of the phrase: "Tactical Iranian failure"; however the word 'Stalemate' should be added as a general sum-up and I am under the impression that this would not violate the long-standing consensus. I am considering editing the result with the intention of inserting the word, 'Stalemate', although I am still unsure whether this action would constitute any serious breach of Wikepedia rules and regulations. Therefore, if anyone objects, I would be grateful if they could indicate that, thanks.Mblur (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Mblur, and welcome again to wikipedia. No, you would not be breaking any rules by doing that. Actually, that´s what most editors should do, make contributions. The important part is what happens if someone disagrees with you, and revert your change. Then you should talke the issue to the talk page and explain the reasons for your change, trying to reach a consensus with other editors. If you go back and revert the reversion of your edit, you are engagin in and WP:edit war, which is against WP rules as well as counter productive. If an editor tries to push a POV, there are formal tools to deal with it, such as administrator intervention, mediation, request for comment, etc. The user who started this edit war (User talk:Robvanden) was blocked indefinitely, due to WP:sock (using multiple accounts) and personal attacks, so the issue is pretty much over. In short, keep a good attitude (and some humor), read some of WP:rules and you´ll be doing a good job as an editor. Most inportant, read the WP:pillars. Don´t worry about doing something wrong, WP is quite easy on newbies, and do not be offended if you receive a warning for something you did. If you have any questions, feel free to post them on my talk page. Take care and good editing. Uirauna (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Uirauna, thanks for the explanation and advice.Mblur (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No you haven´t, you used plenty of name calling before creating your user account, just look at the page history. I am not "used to getting it my way", and and have no idea what you mean by "that has come to an end". You clearly do not know how to be civil toward others, but no problem, eventualy you will be punished for that. Also, once again please make no baseless accusations. You sound like a whole bunch of fanatical trolls who come here to push POVs, but still I respect you and do not accuse you of anything you didn´t do. You engange in edit wars, direct offenses to other people and still claim to be civil. You are not worth my time. The best thing about wikipedia is that in the long term, all POV-pushing, trolling and vandalism is reverted. I do not have an agenda in this article (once again, you can´t contain yourself on being uncivil and making baseless accusations), I couldn´t care less who got most destroyed in the war, or whose children were sent on stupid suicidal missions to clear minefields. I´m just here on my own time to try to keep the page away from trolls and vandals. I´ll let this issue rest, it means nothing to me. Just like many other issues it will eventually be resurfaced by other editors and then we shall talk again. Uirauna (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You sound like a 5 year old kid who starts sulking if he doesn't get his way. First, stop pushing your agenda on the article with different aliases. Second, don't use words so liberally which you have no idea what they really mean. I noticed that you were told this by other users in the past. Third, you sure are a stubborn person, just let it go man. You don't really know what you are talking about when it comes to this war. (RobVanden 23:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)).

Given the rather intense debate about this, I'll thought I run this by here first about changing anything on the page. I think it best to the Iranian failure was stragetic in the sense that Iranians failed in their goal to export their revolution to Iran. It is true that Iran did successfully defend its land, but since the attempt to achieve regime change in Iraq was an abject failure, what can argue that Iran failed to achieve its war aims after 1982. It is true that Hussein started the war in 1980, but 1982, it was Khomenini who kept the war going by rejecting the ceasefire offers and demanding that an Islamic republic be set up in Iraq. Both governments were successful in their defensive war aims, but were unsuccessful in their offensive war aims. Statement is probably the best term, but I think the phrase tactical Iranian failure ignores the extent that Iran was committed to exporting its revolution in the 1980s.--A.S. Brown (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)--A.S. Brown (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Shia majority vs minority
In the article it names the Shias as a minority, while the very source it uses for that sentence is a BBC article that claims a 55-60 % majority of Shias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.100.78 (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ - removed the sentence as not backed up by the source. --M4gnum0n (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Executing Iraqi POWs by Iranian Troops.jpg Nominated for Deletion
An image used in this article, has been mistakenly subtitled. As a matter of fact, it is a picture of the Islamic Republic militia executing the Kurdish dissenters in the western parts of Iran immediately after the revolution of 1979. Just take a look at the ethnic attire or the plain clothes (as in contrast to military uniform) of those being executed to see my point. As such, this picture is irrelevant to this article. Therefore, I propose to delete it as soon as possible.


 * Timelesstune (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I removed the image, someone should nominate it for deletion on WikiComs. In cases like this, when the integrity of Wikipedia is on the line, you should always take the initiative yourself. Because by allowing the fabricated image to stay there for three weeks, it may have been copied into other sites now. Kurdo777 (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Rumsfeld Given Top Billing?
Hussein initiated the conflict independent of any superpower, Iraq's arsenal was principally Soviet, French and Chinese -- yet the image presumed to represent the conflict features the now-infamous photograph of Donald Rumsfeld shaking the Iraqi dictator's hand. American involvement was limited and relatively late. Thus, the inclusion seems out of place, and potentially a subtle violation of neutral point-of-view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.26.252 (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Leaked Iraqi intelligence documents
Recently leaked Iraqi intellegence documents on the Iran–Iraq War have been publicized :

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/26/world/middleeast/26saddam.html

http://legacy.wilsoncenter.org/va2/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=HOME.browse&sort=Collection&item=Iran-Iraq%20War

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-iran-iraq-war-the-view-baghdad

I think we should create a new section in this article for these documents.

MRC37 (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Shatt al-Arab vs Arvand Rud
I really don't care what name we use for this river personally, but according to the talk page on Shatt al-Arab, the Wikipedia consenus is that we use the name Shatt al-Arab for that river. That was the case on this page until October when an IP (who is presumably from Iran) changed all the references from Shatt al-Arab to Arvand Rud. Unless the rules have been changed on this issue, I think the Shatt is the correct term for this body of water. --A.S. Brown (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Why Iran Section
this section seems to imply Saddam wanted to annex the whole of Iran, but I have never heard any such thing, only that he wanted greater access to the Persian gulf and the benefits of the area such as more oil. I don't even know how Iraq could have managed such a thing, I think it needs reworking — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.7.27 (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is a rather strange claim that I have never seen in any reputable source. You are quite right that such a goal as the conquest of all of Iran was entirely beyond Iraq's capacity, and that is not even considering the huge problems of ruling millions and millions of resentful Persians who outnumbered the Iraq population would had posed. Personally, I believe that claim should be deleted. --A.S. Brown (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

lead montage image cut off.
I'm not sure whether this is a browser problem for me or a matter of erroneous formatting, but part of the lead image is cut off horizontally from from the center down. Clicking on the image shows the full-scale image perfectly fine. Can somebody with better knowledge of the syntax fix or explain this to me? Thanks.--Lennybird (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Number of casualties
Perhaps a macabre question, this. Let's look at what the article says:

"~500,000 dead" (in Stats side-section. lots of references)

"It cost Iran an estimated 1 million casualties" (in 'Aftermath' section)

Meanwhile the article on Rohollah Khomeini states: "The war ended in 1988, with 213,255 human casualties on the Iranian side"

It's no disgrace that we don't know the true numbers, or that official figures are to be distrusted (I should know, I've been responsible for one or two :S). But we may as well say "unknown", or correct one of these articles --92.2.230.244 (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Grammar errors in "Aftermath" section.
"On the other hand" should not be used in two consecutive sentences.

"In case of Iraq, after the war, its scientific and technological productivity collapsed and has not yet recovered.[citation needed] Kuwait's scientific output on the other hand was slowed initially due to the funding it extended to Saddam and later on became stagnant.[citation needed] Iran on the other hand experienced a scientific revival due to the war and has the fastest scientific growth rate in the world today.[206]"


 * ✅ --M4gnum0n (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox collage neutrality
The collage used in the infobox seems to me to be biased in favour of Iran. Two pictures are of Iranian soldiers, and the other two are of foreign support to Iraq. The image of the war I get from this alone would be "look at these brave Iranians who faced off against that foreign puppet Saddam". Now, looking through Commons, it seems that there aren't many images of Iraqi troops during the war, so I suspect that that might be the reason why. Nevertheless, I think that the collage should include Iraqi troops as well, when such an image can be found. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

New Section
I added a section quoting Mearsheimer and Walt, among others, who dispute the conventional view that the war was unprovoked Iraqi aggression. Please discuss potential issues with this section here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Found small typo
In the section labelled 1983-1984: Strategic Stalemate...

"Iranian numerical superiority might have achieved a break-through if they had attacked across all parts of the front at the same time, but they still lacked the organization for such and assault.[citation needed]"

It should be "such an assault". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.10.218 (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for the Iraqi invasion
This section is poorly written and referenced, it makes statement which are as best redundant and worst contradictory of earlier sections and seems out of place under the Geographic considerations subsection — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.173.192 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Israel
I propose that Israel be listed as a co-belligerent on the Iranian side, as Operation Opera (which killed ten Iraqi soldiers) was executed during the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.14.28 (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sign your comments. The Israeli action was largely unrelated to the war.  Israel did offer minor support to Iran during the war, but it is an exceptional and highly dubious claim to list them as a co-belligerent.  Should every nation that gave support to either side be listed?  Surely not.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On other pages, nations are listed simply because they were bombed / launched one air or naval strike. Also, Israel's actions being unrelated to the war is kind of the point of listing it as a co-belligerent rather than a direct belligerent. --68.8.14.28 (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The US also took military action against Iran during the war (Operation Preying Mantis). Should the US be listed?  What "other pages" list co-belligerents according to criteria that apply to Israel in this context?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Gulf War page listed Israel as a co-belligerent, and the Continuation War page listed the UK as a "minor" belligerent. Also, yes, the US should be listed.--68.8.14.28 (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not quite. Gulf war lists Israel as a non-belligerent that was targeted by Iraq anyway.  The UK declared war on Finland and was more directly involved in the Continuation war than Israel was in the Iran-Iraq war.  The British actions against Finland were not incidental to the larger conflict.  There has to be evidence that the US attacked Iran to help Iraq or that Israel attacked Iraq to help Iran.  To my knowledge, no unrelated military actions have been used to list a country as a co-belligerent.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

longest war? how?
this war: 1980-88. vietnam war: 1955-75. but this article's lede says THIS was the longest conventional war in the 20th century. how is that? Cramyourspam (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The key phrase is conventional war. Vietnam was largely guerrilla warfare.Droodkin (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Second Sino-Japanese War was longer than the Iran-Iraq war by three months and it was almost entirely a conventional war. 74.88.252.209 (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article has been changed to reflect this. :) Jeancey (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)