Talk:United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War

Oil / Aqaba pipeline
Placing this text here for the moment. It will fit better in the Oil security section:

"In March 1983, Reagan signed a NSDM with the originally classified title, "U.S. Policy toward the Iran–Iraq War". This placed the highest priority on keeping the Strait of Hormuz open."

Wanted images

 * Ronald Reagan meeting with Tariq Aziz at the White House.


 * Bell 214ST: 48 of these were sold to Iraq by the United States in 1984.

Recent overhaul
If anyone thinks anything from the old version of the "U.S. reaction" section should be merged into the new version—which corrects and clarifies many of the relevant issues—I am leaving this note so it is possible to compare them side-by-side. (One thing we can clearly see by this comparison is that Brzezinski's memoir hews very closely to the record.) I wrote the fourth and most substantive paragraph in the old version, but I still feel the recent revision covers all of the same material better. (The only thing I debated merging was the Akins footnote—which I decided against, because it is merely a primary source recounting rumors he heard second- and thirdhand.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I came here via the link in CIA activities in Iraq. Good work on both articles! I have maybe one or two minor issues with the material regarding the October 15, 1979 meeting in Tehran between United States Chargé d'affaires to Iran Bruce Laingen and CIA official George Cave with the Iranian Deputy Prime Minister Abbas Amir-Entezam and Foreign Minister Ebrahim Yazdi. Specifically, the sentence that begins "Cave claims he briefed Entezam and Yazdi on Iraqi military preparations..." and "However, 'Cave remains the only source under the impression that an Iraqi attack was likely at any point in 1979.'"
 * You have cited Christian Emery's book and (in the other article) Malcolm Byrne's chapter in Nigel J. Ashton and Bryan Gibson's book. Emery's material about that meeting also appears in Ashton and Gibson's book. In both places, Emery references Mark Gasiorowski's article. The point of Gasiorowski's article is that the U.S. officials warned Iranian moderates about an imminent Iraqi invasion, but in an ironic twist of fate the actions of the revolutionaries removed those from power who were in a position to stop it. Emery does state in Ashton and Green that "Cave remains the only source under the impression that an Iraqi attack was likely at any point in 1979", which is not true. Cave never stated that an invasion was going to happen in 1979, but he and others did think that an invasion was imminent. Gasiorowski discusses this on page 620. In the footnote on that page, he cites this intelligence document and says David D. Newsom, Laingen, and Cave "were persuaded by it" while Wayne White and Gary Sick did not see the reports and "saw no persuasive evidence of Iraqi invasion preparations". While Emery heavily references Gasiorowski, on this point he cites only White and Sick while failing to mention that there were others who believed as Cave did.
 * I would strike "claims he" from "Cave claims he briefed Entezam and Yazdi on Iraqi military preparations..." because Gasiorowski documents on page 623, footnote 25 that the three others in the meeting confirmed what was in his brief. I think we should replace "Cave remains the only source under the impression that an Iraqi attack was likely at any point in 1979" with a sentence or two that some people saw reports that made them think an invasion imminent while other did not. Cheers! -Location (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I will have to look through your sources in more detail when I have the time, but I agree with much of what you say and have no objection to either of your proposals.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The summary you wrote in CIA activities in Iraq (i.e. "The veracity of the underlying intelligence supporting Cave's warning, and its implications with regard to allegations that the U.S. gave Saddam a "green-light" to invade Iran, have been debated.") might work. -Location (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have taken your concerns into consideration and revised the article accordingly. Let me know if you are aware of any other issues that need to be addressed. Thanks,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I understand that there might be some skepticism on what actually Cave said in his brief (although I think that is corroborated by the three others present - good addition there!), but there is no doubt that Cave said that his brief was a warning of Iraqi war preparations. We have Gasiorowski's second hand account of this, but we also have Cave as a primary source on this. For example, last night I found an interview of Cave on AARP's Prime Time Radio (of all places!) in which he briefly discusses the October 15th meeting (from 7:13 to 8:24). I have also listened to the three-part interview of Cave here, but the rough transcript I typed up doesn't indicate that he discussed it. -Location (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Satellite imagery
For the record, I am aware that the information Twetton provided to Iraq to blunt Iran's 1982 offensive—while based on U.S. satellite imagery—was not the raw (and highly classified) satellite imagery itself. I just wasn't able to source that properly, although I am confident that all of the relevant details can be found in Gibson's Covert Relationship. (Note that the U.S. did supply actual satellite imagery to Iraq later in the war, per Foreign Policy.) Despite posting this note, I offer no gurantee that I will address this problem anytime soon, if at all.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Bear Spares
There seems to be a persistency of adding ancedotal evidence to this article. Most noteably Bear Spares program for which there is no sources for except a testimony given by Teicher.

Teicher however himself has withdrawn his statements

Quoting from the Wall Street Journal: 'Assistant U.S. Attorney Frank Tamen, who is handling the Cardoen case, says Mr. Teicher last year retracted the statement on the grounds his memory was hazy. Mr. Teicher referred questions to his attorney who didn't return phone calls.'

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB854328373695999000

-Gates from CIA rejects Teicher's claims -Teledyne pled guilty to the charges brought against them and against Cardoen -Teicher's statement had no proof -Teicher himself retracted his statement -Cardoen is still a wanted man for this guilty crime.

The Bear Spares program once again, is not mentioned by any declassified documents, research papers. The program is only mentioned by Teicher testimony which he withdrew later. Therefore it cannot be maintained that such a program even existed as the current avaliable litterature does not document such a program. InterObjectiveFaith (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Contrary to your claims, Teicher's testimony does in fact appear in scholarly literature, and his testimony is used in piecing together the American role in arming the Iraqi state.
 * Here is one such example:
 * https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Covert_Relationship/IPv7XdBmPDcC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22teicher%22+%22Iraq%22&pg=PA78&printsec=frontcover
 * If scholars such as Bryan R. Gibson (who is probably Wikipedia's most cited scholar regarding 20th century Iraqi history) consider Teicher to be credible, in that they use his testimony to piece together the historical record, then there is no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't either.
 * You're also putting undue weight on the denials of the CIA and government prosecutors. We don't know what Teicher exactly said to government prosecutor Frank Tamen, whose entire job mind you was to discredit the defense and its witnesses (like Teicher), hardly a neutral source. What we do know however, per SFGATE, that Teicher retracted his testimony under threat of an indictment for "violating his national security oath" over the claims he made in his affidavit, which is MUCH different than just merely having a "hazy memory."
 * https://www.sfgate.com/magazine/article/THE-CHILEAN-CONNECTION-Carlos-Cardoen-arms-2667085.php
 * Teledyne's legal issues, Cardoen's fugitive status, and what the declassified documents say (all the pertinent ones are still classified making this point moot), all have nothing to do with the credibility of Teicher. Unless you have an RS stating otherwise, then this is just "original research" and "WP:SYNTH" on your part.
 * Skornezy (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) I am relying on Howard Teicher's own words. He himself he retracted the statement. The court itself found Teicher statements unreasonable hence the verdict for Cardoens guilt. The Article you quoted from SFGATE was quoted selectively. Here is what the same article says:
 * The prosecution investigated his claims. "We sent about four people out to look through the records of the NSC and found not one piece of paper for what he had said," Tamen says. "When confronted with the fact, Teicher signed an affidavit saying he was mistaken and retracted everything he had said."
 * Therefore Teicher himself has retracted the statement.
 * Teicher was threatened with a grand jury indictment BECAUSE the prosecution investigated his claims and found nothing to back it up.
 * To clarify this is the order of events
 * Order of events:
 * 1. Teicher makes affadavit with his claims, under oath
 * 2. Prosecution investigates and finds no evidence
 * 3. He was told he was wrong and having broken the oath and liable for violating it and facing possible criminal charges himself, he retracted his original affidavit in a new one.
 * 2) As for Gibson being the most quoted (I wasn't able to find allot from him on Wikipedia) and him saying this very much shows Gibson is prone to misinformation and errors.
 * Howard Teicher himself has retracted his statement.
 * The incidiance of OR or WP:SYNTH is on your end insisting this be added, with speculation of "still classified documents" and that he was "threatened" to retract. Something American Court has ruled and made a verdict of said does not exist. No studies, books have been able to prove the existance of such a program.
 * WP:Reliability
 * When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.
 * This whole claim is build on a primary source that is uncorrobated by another documents, studies or sources showing or proofing the existance of a program called "Bear Spares". You are intrepreting the sources indepedently and attributing way too much reliablity on something that is uncorrobated. InterObjectiveFaith (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) I am relying on Howard Teicher's own words. He himself he retracted the statement. The court itself found Teicher statements unreasonable hence the verdict for Cardoens guilt. The Article you quoted from SFGATE was quoted selectively. Here is what the same article says:
 * No, it is YOU who is quoting the SFGATE article selectively:
 * The prosecution investigated his claims. "We sent about four people out to look through the records of the NSC and found not one piece of paper for what he had said," Tamen says. "When confronted with the fact, Teicher signed an affidavit saying he was mistaken and retracted everything he had said." He did so under threat of a grand jury indictment for possibly violating his national security oath.
 * Teicher signed the affidavit saying that he was mistaken under threat of being prosecuted HIMSELF for "national security" reasons. Why did you leave that last line out? And you accuse me of selective quoting?
 * Teicher was threatened with a grand jury indictment BECAUSE the prosecution investigated his claims and found nothing to back it up.
 * That is not what the article text says at all, nowhere, that's all coming from you, which is why I suspect you deceptively quoted the SFGATE paragraph the that way you did. All it says is that Teicher signed an affidavit retracting his testimony under threat of being indicted himself. And according to Robert Parry, Teicher, albeit likely privately, still stands by his testimony:
 * The Clinton lawyers claimed Teicher had recanted, though he told me that he hadn’t retracted a thing.
 * https://consortiumnews.com/2006/111406.html
 * 3. He was told he was wrong and having broken the oath and liable for violating it and facing possible criminal charges himself, he retracted his original affidavit in a new one. 2) As for Gibson being the most quoted (I wasn't able to find allot from him on Wikipedia) and him saying this very much shows Gibson is prone to misinformation and errors.
 * Original research, this is purely your interpretation and opinion of the sources.
 * ''The incidiance of OR or WP:SYNTH is on your end insisting this be added, with speculation of "still classified documents"
 * I'm not speculating anything, the pertinent documents are still classified, this is something that is cited in the article itself (attributed to a Washington Post analysis). So, you're wrong here.
 * and that he was "threatened" to retract.
 * Very much what the SFGATE article says, not OR either.
 * Something American Court has ruled and made a verdict of said does not exist. 
 * Provide a source which specifically outlines that.
 * No studies, books have been able to prove the existance of such a program. [...] This whole claim is build on a primary source that is uncorrobated by another documents, studies or sources showing or proofing the existance of a program called "Bear Spares". You are intrepreting the sources indepedently and attributing way too much reliablity on something that is uncorrobated.
 * Teicher's testimony is used by scholars in piecing together the historical record, indicating credibility, therefore you're wrong when you say that I am only relying on primary sources (the affidavit document).
 * Skornezy (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)