Last battles
By the beginning of 1987, the situation on the Iranian-Iraqi front was similar to previous years. The Iranian command was preparing for a new decisive offensive in the southern sector of the front. The Iraqis relied on defense: they completed the construction of 1, 2 thousand km of the defensive line, in the south its main stronghold was Basra. Basra was reinforced with a water channel 30 km long and up to 1800 meters wide, it was named Fish Lake.
The war of attrition has reached its climax. Iran increased the size of the army to 1 million people, and Iraq to 650 thousand. The Iraqis still had a complete superiority in armament: 4, 5 thousand tanks against 1 thousand Iranian, 500 combat aircraft against 60 enemy, 3 thousand guns and mortars against 750. Despite the material and technical superiority, it was increasingly difficult for Iraq to contain the onslaught of Iran: the country had 16-17 million people against 50 million Iranians. Baghdad spent half of the Gross National Product on the war, while Tehran spent 12%. Iraq is on the brink of economic disaster. The country held on only at the expense of generous financial injections from the Arab monarchies. The war had to be ended soon. In addition, Tehran broke through the diplomatic blockade - supplies of weapons from the United States and China began to Iran, mainly ground-to-ground, ground-to-air and air-to-ground missiles. The Iranians also had the Soviet R-17 (Scud) missiles and their modifications, with which it was possible to fire at Baghdad (the Iraqis also had these missiles).
The Iranian command, having regrouped its forces, began Operation Kerbala-5 on January 8. Iranian troops crossed the Jasim River, which connected Fish Lake with Shatt al-Arab, and by February 27 they were a few kilometers from Basra. The situation of the Iraqi armed forces was so difficult that Jordanian and Saudi F-5 multi-role fighters with crews had to be urgently transferred to the country, they were immediately thrown to the front line. The battle was fierce, but the Iranian troops were unable to take the city, they were drained of blood. In addition, in March, the Tiger began to flood, and a further offensive was impossible. Iran lost up to 65 thousand people and stopped the offensive. Iraq lost 20 thousand people and 45 aircraft (according to other sources, 80 aircraft, 7 helicopters and 700 tanks). The battle showed that the time of complete domination of the Iraqi aviation over the front line was over. Iranian forces used secretly delivered American missiles to undermine Iraqi air superiority. In 1987, Iranian forces launched two more attacks on Basra, but they failed (Operation Kerbala-6 and Kerbala-7).
In May 1987, Iranian troops, along with Kurds, surrounded the Iraqi garrison in the city of Mawat, threatening a breakthrough to Kirkuk and the oil pipeline leading to Turkey. This was the last significant success of the Iranian troops in this war.
In 1987, the pressure of the world community increased sharply. The United States has built up its naval force in the Persian Gulf, and the American Navy has entered into several skirmishes with the Iranians. So, on April 18, 1988, a battle took place in the area of Iranian oil platforms (Operation Praying Mantis). The possibility of a war between the United States and Iran arose - this forced Tehran to moderate its fighting ardor. The UN Security Council, under the influence of Washington and Moscow, adopted a resolution that called on Iran and Iraq to cease fire (Resolution No. 598).
During a pause in hostilities, when the Iranian armed forces did not undertake major offensives, the Iraqi command planned and prepared their operation. The main task of the operation was the expulsion of the Iranians from Iraqi territory. Iraqi forces seized the strategic initiative and conducted four successive operations from April to July 1988.
On April 17, 1988, Iraqi forces were finally able to drive the enemy out of Fao. It should be noted that by this time the Iranian aviation was actually in a non-operational state - there were only 60 combat aircraft in the ranks. This is despite the fact that the Iraqi Armed Forces had five hundred combat vehicles and since July 1987 they began to receive the latest Soviet aircraft - MiG-29 fighters and Su-25 attack aircraft.
After the capture of Fao, Iraqi forces successfully advanced in the Shatt al-Arab area. On June 25, the Majnun Islands were captured. To capture them, they used the landing of scuba divers ("people-frogs"), the landing of soldiers from boats and helicopters. I must say that the Iranians did not resist as fiercely as in the previous years of the war, apparently, the psychological fatigue from the war affected. More than 2 thousand people surrendered, the losses of the Iraqi side were minimal. In offensive operations, the Iraqis actively used the Air Force, armored vehicles and even chemical weapons. In the summer of 1988, Iraqi forces invaded Iran in a number of places, but their advance was minimal.
The fighting of 1988 showed that Baghdad's defensive strategy ultimately succeeded: for seven years, the Iraqi armed forces, using the advantage in weapons, grind Iranian troops. The Iranians were tired of the war and could not hold on to their previously conquered positions. At the same time, Baghdad did not have the strength to inflict a decisive defeat on Iran and victoriously end the war.
The USA, the USSR and China have sharply increased the pressure on Iraq and Iran. On August 20, 1988, Baghdad and Tehran submitted to the UN resolution. The eight-year war, one of the bloodiest conflicts of the 20th century, has come to an end.
US strategy in the war
Several factors determined the US strategy in this conflict. Firstly, it is a strategic resource - oil, playing on prices for "black gold" (and for this it is necessary to control the regimes of oil exporting countries), the interests of American corporations. Control over the producers of black gold allowed the United States to play on lower and higher prices, putting pressure on Europe, Japan and the USSR. Secondly, it was necessary to support the "allies" - the monarchy of the Persian Gulf, since the Islamic revolution would easily crush these regimes. Unable to suppress the revolution in Iran, the United States began to work to create a "counterbalance", it was Iraq, since there was a lot of old contradictions between the countries. True, everything was not easy with Iraq. The United States temporarily supported Saddam Hussein's aspirations. Hussein was a leader with whom they “played” a difficult game, the rules of which he did not know.
In 1980, the United States had no diplomatic relations with either Iraq or Iran. In 1983, the US State Department said: "We do not intend to take any action regarding the Iranian-Iraqi massacre as long as it does not affect the interests of our allies in the region and upset the balance of power." De facto, the United States benefited from a long war - it made it possible to strengthen its position in the region. The need for weapons and political support made Iraq more dependent on the monarchies of the Persian Gulf and Egypt. Iran fought mainly with American and Western weapons, which made it dependent on the supply of new weapons, spare parts and ammunition, and became more accommodating. The protracted war allowed the United States to build up its military presence in the region, conduct various special operations, and pushed the belligerent powers and their neighbors to closer cooperation with the United States. Solid benefits.
After the start of the war, Moscow curtailed military supplies to Baghdad and did not resume them during the first year of the war, since Saddam Hussein was the aggressor - Iraqi troops invaded Iranian territory. In March 1981, Hussein declared the Iraqi Communist Party outlawed by broadcasting calls for peace from the Soviet Union to Iraq. At the same time, Washington began to take steps towards Iraq. US Secretary of State Alexander Haig said in a report to the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee that Iraq is deeply concerned about the actions of Soviet imperialism in the Middle East, so he sees the possibility of a rapprochement between the United States and Baghdad. The United States sells several aircraft to Iraq, in 1982 the country was excluded from the list of countries supporting international terrorism. In November 1984, the United States restored diplomatic relations with Iraq, which were broken off in 1967.
Washington, using the pretext of the "Soviet threat", tried to increase its military presence in the region even before the start of the Iran-Iraq war. Under President James Carter (1977-1981), a doctrine was formulated that allowed the United States to use military force if outside forces intervened in the Gulf region. In addition, the Pentagon said it was ready to protect oil supplies and to intervene in the internal affairs of Arab states in the event of a dangerous coup or revolution in any of them. Plans were being developed to capture individual oil fields. The Rapid Deployment Force (RRF) is being formed to ensure the US military presence and US national interests in the Persian Gulf. In 1979, these plans only got stronger - the Iranian Revolution and the invasion of Soviet troops into Afghanistan took place. In 1980, the US armed forces held a large-scale military game "Gallant Knight", in which the actions of American forces were practiced in the event of an invasion of Iran by Soviet troops. Experts said that in order to contain the Soviet invasion of Iran, the American armed forces need to deploy at least 325,000 people in the region. It is clear that the Rapid Deployment Force could not increase to such a large-scale figure, but the idea of having such a corps was not abandoned. The core of the SBR was the marines.
The next US President Ronald Reagan (he was in power for two consecutive terms - 1981-1989) made an addition to the Carter Doctrine. Saudi Arabia has become a strategic partner of the United States in the region. The CIA conducted its research on the subject of possible Soviet aggression in the region and reported that such a possibility is only possible in the distant future. But this did not prevent Washington from covering up the buildup of its forces in the Persian Gulf with slogans about the "Soviet threat." The main task of the SBR was the fight against left-wing and nationalist movements; the unit had to be ready for action on the territory of any state, regardless of the wishes of its leadership. However, the official position remained the same: RBUs are needed to repel Soviet expansion. For the effectiveness of the RBU, the Pentagon has planned the creation of a network of bases, and not only in the Persian Gulf zone, but throughout the world. Gradually, almost all the monarchies of the Persian Gulf provided their territories for American bases. The United States has dramatically increased its Air Force and Navy presence in the region.
With regard to Iran, the American administration pursued an ambivalent policy. On the one hand, the CIA supported a number of organizations that sought to curtail the power of the Shiite clergy and restore the monarchy. An information war was fought against the Islamic Republic of Iran. On the other hand, the Islamic Republic was the enemy of the Soviet Union, the "leftist threat." Therefore, the CIA began to establish contacts with the Shiite clergy for a joint fight against the "Soviet (left) threat."In 1983, the United States provoked a wave of repression in Iran against the Iranian left movement, using the theme of the "Soviet invasion of Iran" and the "fifth column" of the USSR. In 1985, the Americans began supplying anti-tank weapons to Iran, and then supplying air defense systems and missiles of various classes. They did not interfere with the United States and Iran's contacts with Israel. The United States tried to suppress the possibility of rapprochement between the Islamic Republic and the USSR, which could seriously change the balance of power in the region.
The main instrument of US influence on Iran has become the supply of weapons and intelligence information. It is clear that the United States tried to do this not openly - it was officially a neutral country, but through intermediaries, in particular, through Israel. Interestingly, in 1984, the United States launched the "True Action" program, which was aimed at cutting off the channels of supply of weapons, spare parts, and ammunition to Iran. Therefore, in 1985-1986, the Americans became practically monopolists in the supply of weapons to Iran. When information about the supply of weapons began to leak, the United States said that the money from the sale went to finance the Nicaraguan Contra rebels, and then reported its defensive nature (despite the fact that Iran during this period was conducting mainly offensive operations). The information coming from the CIA to Tehran was partly of a disinformation nature, so that the Iranian troops did not succeed too much at the front (the United States needed a long war, not a decisive victory for one of the parties). For example, the Americans exaggerated the size of the Soviet group on the Iranian border in order to force Tehran to keep significant forces there.
It should be noted that similar assistance was rendered to Iraq. Everything is in line with the "divide and conquer" strategy. Only at the end of 1986 did the United States begin to provide more support to Iraq. Iranian officials informed the international community about the fact of US military supplies, which caused a negative reaction in Baghdad and other Arab capitals. Iranian support had to be curtailed. Sunni monarchies were more important partners. In the United States itself, this scandal was called Iran-Contra (or Irangate).
In general, Washington's policy in this war was aimed not at making every effort (including with the help of the USSR) to end the war, but at strengthening its strategic positions in the region, undermining the influence of Moscow and the left movement. Therefore, the United States dragged out the peace process, encouraging the aggressiveness of either Iraq or Iran.
Some features of the war
- During the war, Iraq has used chemical weapons more than once, although mainly to achieve only tactical goals, in order to suppress the resistance of one or another point of the Iranian defense. There is no exact data on the number of victims - a figure of 5-10 thousand people is called (this is the minimum figure). There is no exact data and the country that supplied these weapons to Iraq. The accusations were made against the United States, the USSR, the Iranians, besides the Soviet Union, accused Great Britain, France and Brazil. In addition, the media mentioned the assistance of scientists from Switzerland and the Federal Republic of Germany, who, back in the 1960s, produced toxic substances for Iraq specifically to fight the Kurdish rebels.
The Iraqis used the nerve agent herd, the choking gas chlorine, mustard gas, tear gas, and other toxic substances. The first message and use of military weapons by Iraqi troops came in November 1980 - the Iranians reported the bombing of the city of Susangerd with chemical bombs. On February 16, 1984, the Iranian Foreign Minister made an official statement at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. The Iranian reported that by this time Tehran had recorded 49 cases of the use of chemical weapons by Iraqi forces. The number of victims reached 109 people, many hundreds were injured. Then Iran made several more similar messages.
UN inspectors confirmed the facts of the use of chemical weapons by Baghdad. In March 1984, the International Red Cross announced that at least 160 people with signs of infection with OS were in hospitals in the Iranian capital.
- The Iranian and Iraqi Armed Forces suffered the main losses in heavy equipment in the first period of the war, when the opposing sides, and especially Iraq, relied on the massive use of mechanized units and combat aviation. At the same time, the Iraqi command did not have the necessary experience in the massive use of heavy weapons.
Most of the losses in personnel fell on the second and especially the third periods of the war, when the Iranian command began to carry out serious offensive operations (especially in the southern sector of the front). Tehran threw into battle against a well-armed Iraqi army and a powerful line of defense, masses of poorly trained but fanatically devoted fighters of the IRGC and Basij.
The intensity of hostilities in the Iran-Iraq war was also uneven. The relatively short intervals of fierce battles (the duration of the largest operations usually did not exceed weeks), were replaced by significantly longer periods of inactive positional warfare. This was largely due to the fact that the Iranian army did not have weapons and supplies for long-term offensive operations. For a considerable time, the Iranian command had to accumulate reserves and weapons in order to launch an attack. The breakthrough depth was also small, no more than 20-30 km. For the implementation of more powerful breakthroughs, the armies of Iraq and Iran did not have the necessary forces and means.
- A characteristic feature of the Iranian-Iranian war was the fact that the hostilities were actually conducted in the same separate directions, mainly along the existing routes, in the absence of a continuous front line in a number of sectors. In the battle formations of the opposing forces, there were often significant gaps. The main efforts were made mainly to solve tactical problems: the capture and retention of settlements, important communication centers, natural boundaries, heights, etc.
- A feature of the strategy of the Iranian command was a stubborn desire to defeat the Iraqi Armed Forces in the southern sector of the front. The Iranians wanted to seize the coast, Basra, Umm Qasr, cutting off Baghdad from the Persian Gulf and the monarchies of the Arabian Peninsula.
- The main technical base of the Iranian armed forces was created during the monarchy with the help of the United States and Great Britain, and the basis of the qualified technical personnel of the repair enterprises was foreign specialists. Therefore, with the start of the war, the Iranian Armed Forces faced huge problems, since cooperation with the Americans and the British had by that time been curtailed. There have been no deliveries of spare parts and ammunition for military equipment for more than a year and a half. Iran could not solve this problem until the end of the war, although a number of measures were taken, but they could not resolve the issue in a fundamental way. So, in order to solve the problems of material and technical support, Tehran in the course of the conflict established the purchase of spare parts for military equipment abroad. There was an expansion of the existing repair base, due to the mobilization of a number of public sector enterprises. Qualified brigades from the center were sent to the army, which carried out maintenance and repair of weapons directly in the area of hostilities. Great importance was attached to the commissioning and maintenance of captured equipment, especially Soviet production. For this, Iran invited specialists from Syria and Lebanon. In addition, the low technical training of the Iranian Armed Forces personnel was noted.
- Iran received weapons through Syria and Libya, weapons were also purchased from North Korea and China. In addition, the United States has provided significant assistance, directly and through Israel. Iraq used mainly Soviet technology. Already during the war, the country got into debt and bought a lot of weapons from France, China, Egypt, Germany. They supported Iraq and the United States so that Baghdad would not lose the war. In recent years, information has appeared that dozens of foreign companies from the USA, France, Great Britain, Germany, China helped Saddam Hussein's regime to create weapons of mass destruction. The monarchies of the Persian Gulf, primarily Saudi Arabia (the amount of aid is $ 30.9 billion), Kuwait ($ 8.2 billion) and the United Arab Emirates ($ 8 billion), provided huge financial assistance to Iraq. The US government also provided hidden financial assistance - the representative office of the largest Italian bank Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL) in Atlanta under credit guarantees from the White House, in 1985-1989 sent more than $ 5 billion to Baghdad.
- During the war, the superiority of Soviet weapons over Western models was revealed. Moreover, the Iraqi military could not, due to low qualifications, show all the qualities of Soviet weapons. For example, both sides - Iraqi and Iranian - noted the undoubted advantages of Soviet tanks. One of the highest Iranian commanders of Afzali said in June 1981: “The T-72 tank has such maneuverability and firepower that the British Chieftain tanks cannot be compared with it. Iran does not have effective means of fighting the T-72”. The tank was also praised by both sides for the results of the Battle of Basra in July 1982. Iranian officers also noted the ease of operation and higher climatic reliability of the T-55 and T-62 tanks captured from the Iraqi forces compared to the tanks of American and British production.
- Iranian militias played a big role in the war. Their selection was carried out mainly in the rural areas of Iran, where the role of the Shiite clergy was especially strong. The basis of the Basij militias was made up of 13-16 year olds. The mullahs conducted a course in psychological programming, fanning religious fanaticism, instilling contempt for death. After selection and preliminary psychological treatment, the volunteers were taken to the Basij military training camps. In them, the militias were armed, introduced to the minimum skills of handling weapons. At the same time, the special representatives of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps carried out intensified processing of the consciousness of the militia, so that they were ready to sacrifice themselves "in the name of Islam."
For a short time before the start of the offensive, the militias were transferred to the concentration areas and formed from them combat groups of 200-300 people. At this time, the mullahs were distributing tokens to the Basijs with the numbers of the places allegedly reserved for them in paradise for each of the martyrs. The militias were driven by sermons to a state of religious ecstasy. Immediately before the offensive, the unit was introduced to the object that they were to destroy or capture. In addition, the mullahs and representatives of the IRGC suppressed any attempts to contact the militia with the personnel of the army or the Guard Corps. Poorly trained and armed militias advanced in the first echelon, clearing the way for the IRGC and regular army units. The militia suffered up to 80% of all losses of the Iranian Armed Forces.
With the transfer of hostilities to Iraqi territory and the failure of a number of offensives (with heavy losses), it became much more difficult for the clergy to recruit volunteers for the Basij.
I must say that despite the negative connotation of this page in the history of the Iran-Iraq war, the use of militias in this way was advisable. Iran was inferior in terms of the material and technical component and the only way to make a turning point in the war was to use fanatically devoted youth, ready to die for the country and their faith. Otherwise, the country was threatened with defeat and the loss of important areas.
Outcomes
- The issue of losses in this war is still not clear. The figures were from 500 thousand to 1.5 million dead on both sides. For Iraq, the figure is called 250-400 thousand, and for Iran - 500-600 thousand deaths. Only military losses are estimated at 100-120 thousand Iraqis and 250-300 thousand Iranians killed, 300 thousand Iraqis and 700 thousand Iraqis wounded, in addition, both sides lost 100 thousand prisoners. Some experts believe that these figures are underestimated.
- In August 1988, a truce was concluded between the countries. After the withdrawal of troops, the border line actually returned to the pre-war situation. Two years later, after the Iraqi aggression against Kuwait, when Baghdad faced a powerful hostile coalition led by the United States, Hussein agreed to normalize relations with Iran so as not to increase the number of his opponents. Baghdad recognized Tehran's rights to all the waters of the Shatt al-Arab, and the border began to run along the Iraqi bank of the river. Iraqi troops have also withdrawn from all disputed border areas. Since 1998, a new stage has begun in improving relations between the two powers. Tehran agreed to release more than 5,000 Iraqi prisoners. The exchange of prisoners of war went on until 2000.
- The economic damage to both countries was $ 350 billion. Khuzestan and the oil infrastructure of the countries were especially hard hit. For Iraq, the war became more difficult financially and economically (half of the GNP had to be spent on it). Baghdad emerged from the conflict as a debtor. The Iranian economy also grew during the war.
