The Iran-Iraq War

by Pierre Razoux, Nicholas Elliott (Translator)

From 1980 to 1988, Iran and Iraq fought the longest conventional war of the twentieth century. The tragedies included the slaughter of child soldiers, the use of chemical weapons, the striking of civilian shipping in the Gulf, and the destruction of cities. The Iran-Iraq War offers an unflinching look at a conflict seared into the region’s collective memory but little understood in the West. Pierre Razoux shows why this war remains central to understanding Middle Eastern geopolitics, from the deep-rooted distrust between Sunni and Shia Muslims, to Iran’s obsession with nuclear power, to the continuing struggles in Iraq. He provides invaluable keys to decipher Iran’s behavior and internal struggle today.Razoux’s account is based on unpublished military archives, oral histories, and interviews, as well as audio recordings seized by the U.S. Army detailing Saddam Hussein’s debates with his generals. Tracing the war’s shifting strategies and political dynamics—military operations, the jockeying of opposition forces within each regime, the impact on oil production so essential to both countries—Razoux also looks at the international picture. From the United States and Soviet Union to Israel, Europe, China, and the Arab powers, many nations meddled in this conflict, supporting one side or the other and sometimes switching allegiances.The Iran-Iraq War answers questions that have puzzled historians. Why did Saddam embark on this expensive, ultimately fruitless conflict? Why did the war last eight years when it could have ended in months? Who, if anyone, was the true winner when so much was lost?

Genres: History, Middle East, Iran, Nonfiction, War, Military History, Politics

679 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 12, 2013

About the author

Pierre Razoux is research director at the Strategic Research Institute of the Military School ( IRSEM ) . A scholar of international relations and a recognized expert on the Middle East, he is the author of several reference books on contemporary conflict and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Reviews

[فؤاد · Rating 4 out of 5]

لینک دانلود ترجمه
دوستانی که لینک براشون باز نمی شه اگه خواستن ایمیل بذارن که پی دی اف رو براشون ارسال کنم.

بخش کوچکی از جنگ در میدان جنگ اتفاق می افتد. هر چند به خاطر تلفات جانی و مالی فراوان، این بخش همیشه در مرکز توجه است. بخش اعظم جنگ، مربوط به اموری است که در میدان جنگ قابل دیدن نیست. «چرا»ها، نقشه ها، بده بستان ها، معادلات سیاسی و نظامی، این ها را در میدان جنگ نمی توان دید، و بسیاری از کسانی که اسلحه به دست می گیرند و گلوله شلیک می کنند، از تمام این ها بی خبرند. هدف برای آن ها تا حدّ ممکن ساده می شود: فتح کربلا، فتح بیت المقدس، یا تکرار پیروزی اعراب در جنگ قادسیه! پیچیدگی برای ذهن یک سرباز باعث سست شدن انگشت روی ماشه می شود. وقتی بداند تنها دلیلش برای کشتن و کشته شدن در این عملیات، این است که دولت بتواند دولت ثالثی را که حتی در جنگ حضور ندارد، تحت فشار قرار دهد که قیمت نفت را پایین نیاورد، دیگر نمی تواند به راحتی خودش را روی مین بیندازد.

این انبوه آشفتۀ «چرا»ها که در پشت پردۀ جنگ اتفاق می افتد، تا سال ها پس از واقعه به تمامی روشن نمی شود. نیاز است که فاصله ای بیفتد، تا بتوان تمام اطلاعات را از دور در کنار هم دید و طرح کلی را تشخیص داد. چه شد که شروع شد؟ چه شد که سرعت یافت؟ چه شد که به این شکل اتفاق افتاد؟ چه شد که سرعتش کاسته شد؟ چه شد که پایان یافت؟ جواب تمام این سؤال ها و سؤال های بسیار دیگر، همچون شبکه ای در هم تنیده از وقایع است که در زمان واقعه، شاید حتی گردانندگان اصلی هم نتوانند تمامش را یک جا ببینند و در میان شاخه های انبوه گم شوند.

این کتاب، همان طرح کلی است. باید بیست سال از جنگ می گذشت، و صدام سقوط می کرد و اسناد محرمانه اش فاش می شد، تا مورخان بالاخره بتوانند این طرح کلی را تکمیل کنند و بفهمند چه اتفاقی افتاد. این کتاب، بر اساس همان اسناد فاش شده، و اسناد دیگر نوشته شده. و چه بسا هنوز برخی بخش هایش ناقص باشد و نیاز باشد که اسناد محرمانۀ طرف ایرانی هم زمانی فاش شود.

کتاب پانصد صفحه است و هنوز ترجمه نشده، و نمی دانم آیا هرگز ترجمه بشود یا نه. متنی که من خواندم، ترجمه ای خلاصه شده از کتاب بود. پانصد صفحه کتاب در چهل صفحه، به صورت تیتر وار و به سرعت. مترجم به درستی بخش های مربوط به جنگ فیزیکی را حذف کرده بود، و بخش اصلی خلاصه را به طرح کلی حوادث، روابط سیاسی و چراهای نظامی اختصاص داده بود.
تمام این خلاصه را می توان دو ساعته خواند، و پیشنهاد مؤکد من این است که آن را بخوانید.
مترجم سلطنت طلب است و اگر از شعارهاى اين گروه خوشتان نمى آيد، مثل من عمل كنيد و پاورقى هاى شعارى گاه به گاهش را ناديده بگيريد (بعضى از پاورقى هايش البته شعارى نيستند). كيفيت ترجمه مهم اين است كه به نظر مى رسد در اين زمينه خوب عمل كرده.
بخش هایی از کتاب را در پایین می آورم.

پیروز نهایی جنگ
جنگ ایران و عراق تبدیل شد به دستگاه چاپ اسکناسی برای دولت آنکارا که در آن زمان در بحران اقتصادی دست و پا می زد. ترکیه با اعلام "بی طرفی فعّال"، که نامی دیپلماتیک برای "دوشیدن دو کشور" بود، هوشمندانه کار خود را پیش برد. نفت ارزان تر از قیمت رسمی از هر دو کشور روانۀ ترکیه شد و در عوض ترک ها چشم خود را به ترانزیت اسلحه به هر دو مملکت می بستند. قراردادهای نان و آب دار از طرف ایران با ترکیه بسته شد و حتی نیروی کار ترک، جای ایرانیانی که در جبهۀ جنگ بودند را پر می کرد. صد پزشک از ترکیه به کمک پزشکان ایرانی برای مداوای مجروحین جنگی آمدند و شبکۀ مخابراتی ایران برای گسترش به این کشور سپرده شد.
در عرض پنج سال صادرات ترکیه به ایران دوازده برابر شد و به بیش از یک میلیارد دلار در سال 1985 رسید. اجناس بی کیفیت و ارزان ترکی بازارهای ایران را فتح کرد و یک چهارم صادرات ترکیه مقصدی به جز ایران نداشت. واردات عراق از ترکیه هم از 135 میلیون، به 960 میلیون دلار رسید.
بدون تردید، ترکیه برندۀ بی سر و صدای جنگ دو همسایه بود.
*
فتح کربلا، فتح قدس
در 20 جون 1982 صدّام اندک مناطق اشغالی در اختیارش را (به جز فکّه تا قصر شیرین، زیرا با تخلیۀ آن راه بغداد باز می شد) تخلیه کرد و به مرزهای خود بازگشت. در 12 جولای 1982 سازمان ملل از دو کشور خواست صلح کنند. ایران امّا شرایطی گذاشت که مطمئن شود ردّ خواهند شد و آن عبارت بود از این که "صدّام باید برود"، صد هزار شیعه عراقی پناهنده به عراق برگردند و عربستان هم به جای پنجاه، صد و پنجاه میلیارد دلار بپردازد. ملک فهد پیشنهاد خود را پس گرفت و در عوض برای بار اوّل جنگ افزارهای آمریکایی خود را در اختیار صدّام گذاشت.
عقب نشینی صدّام به مرزهای خود جنبۀ تاکتیکی هم داشت. حالا در صورت ادامۀ جنگ، مسئولیت بر گردن ایران بود و این کشور از مدافع به مهاجم تبدیل می شد و قدرت های جهانی را پشت سر صدّام می فرستاد و این دقیقاً اتفاقی بود که افتاد. سرباز عراقی که دیگر انگیزۀ جنگیدن نداشت، حالا با روحیه ای که ناشی از دفاع از آب و خاک بود می جنگید.
اهداف ایران در جنگ هم از دفاع از مرز و بوم، به آزاد کردن نجف و کربلا و سپس قدس تبدیل گشت. ماشین جنگی صدّام از این پس به شدّت قوی شد و ایران برای جبران ضعف تسلیحاتی به استفاده از نیروی فراوان و ارزانی که در اختیار داشت روی آورد و آن چیزی نبود به جز استفاده از امواج انسانی.
*
تکخال های پرنده
خلبان های ایرانی زیادی در نبردهای هوایی بیش از 55 هواپیما را سرنگون کردند. بر خلاف سنّت معمول این خلبانان مورد تشویق قرار نگرفته و حتی اجازه نیافتند که نمادهای پیروزی هوایی را روی هواپیماهاشان نقّاشی نمایند. کاپیتان جوادنیا رکورد جهانی پیروزی با موشک "فینکس" را دارد. کاپیتان محمد مسبوق تنها خلبانی است که رکورد نابود کردن سه هواپیما با یک موشک را داراست (سه هواپیما در کنار هم به صورت نزدیک پرواز می کردند و او هواپیمای میانی را نشان گرفت).
تمایل رسمی حکومت ایران، قهرمانسازی از پاسداران بود و به ویژه در مورد نیروی هوایی زیاد سر و صدا نمی کردند، چرا که به این نیرو اطمینان کامل نداشتند. پیروزی ها باید که به پای سپاه پاسداران نوشته می شد، نه "آدم های سابق شاه".
بسیاری از هواپیماهای شکار شده در آسمان در تبلیغات رسمی، به حساب پدافند زمینی سپاه گذاشته شد و محترمانه از خلبانان خواستند که در این باره حرفی نزنند.

[Zahra · Rating 3 out of 5]

کتاب جنگ ایران و عراق از دید یک نویسنده فرانسوی نوشته شده و شامل جزییات زیادی از دوران هشت سال جنگه و میشه گفت اکثر جبهه‌ها و گوشه و کنار و جزییات و عوامل دخیل در شروع و ادامه و پایان رو پوشش داده.
یکی از نکات جالب کتاب برای من این بود که فهمیدم یک جنگ و خصوصا جنگ ایران و عراق، جبهه‌های خیلی زیادی داره. از جبهه‌های نظامی زمینی و هوایی و دریایی که کشیده میشن به شهرها و کشتار غیرنظامی ها گرفته تا جبهه اقتصادی و تلاش برای کنترل یا نابودی پایگاه های نفت. از سیاست و رسوایی‌های بزرگ و زیرآب زدن‌های حزبی و حذف های سیاسی تا گروگانگیری شهروندان کشورهای غربی برای فشار آوردن بهشون و انفجار در قلب پاریس. و بازار بزرگ فروش تسلیحات نظامی از چین گرفته تا بریتانیای کبیر که هرچی بیشتر جنگ طول می‌کشید، جیب این کشورها بیشتر پر پول میشد. و در آخر هم جنگ سرد که اثرات زیادی روی این جنگ و روابط دو طرف متخاصم داشت
نکته دیگه ای که خیلی برام تازگی داشت تغییر تصور من نسبت به نیروهای نظامی عراقی و به خصوص فرماندهانشونه. نمی‌دونم بقیه هم اینجوری بودن یا نه ولی من تحت تاثیر فیلم ها و سریال های مربوط به جنگمون، عراقی ها و نظامیانشون رو یک مشت انسان بی دست و پا که فقط از روی شانس و کمک کشورهای غربی تونستن هشت سال با ما بجنگن تصور میکردم اما بعد از خوندن این کتاب به این مسئله پی بردم که عراق هم فرماندهانی داشت که واقعا نابغه نظامی بودن و اینجوری نبود که فقط به مدد پول و خرید آخرین تسلیحات جنگی پیروز خیلی از عملیات ها میشدن. واقعا از مغزشون و نبوغ نظامیشون استفاده میکردن، نقشه می‌کشیدن، یاد میگرفتن چطوری از آخرین و بروز ترین تسلیحات استفاده کنن، نیروهاشون رو درست آموزش میدادن و پیروز عملیات میشدن.
و در آخر اینکه کتاب خوبیه اگه یه دید کلی میخواید از جنگ ایران و عراق داشته باشید. خیلی وارد جزییات سیاسی و اینجور چیزا نمیشه بیشتر داخل جبهه جنگه و جزییات زیادی (بعضی جاها دقیقه به دقیقه!!!) از عملیات ها داره. لحن نویسنده رو هم دوست داشتم تا حد خوبی بی طرف بود.

[Sleepy Boy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely, positively, the book to read on the Iran-Iraq War. Thorough and scholarly while being easily read. The author does an amazing job of conveying the politics, war front, and home fronts of the various belligerents and "allies".

I learned a ton as well which of course is the main point. I was so impressed and interested in this conflict midway through the book that I also bought the author's wargame he made on the same subject for my wife and I to play.

Written works on this war are slim to none compared to other military history topics but Mr. Razoux has done a great service to those interested in this subject matter. Zero qualms calling this work the Bible of this particular conflict.

[Mazen · Rating 5 out of 5]

توثيق مذهل ليوميات الحرب العراقية-الإيرانية بكل ما حملته من معاناة للشعبين العراقي والإيراني. كانت الحرب العراقية-الإيرانية أكبر مواجهة مسلحة في الشرق الأوسط، وشهدت مقتل ما لا يقل عن نصف مليون إيراني و150 ألف عراقي، وكانت أغلب الخسائر البشرية من العسكريين، فكانت المواجهات العسكرية دموية وغير إنسانية بكل ما تحمله الكلمة من معنى. بدأ صدام حسين الحرب لتغيير اتفاقية الجزائر ومحاولة كسب موطئ قدم في شط العرب، إذ يعاني العراق من مأزق جغرافي يتعلق بحدوده البحرية. ظن صدام أن إيران ستنهار أمام أقوى جيش عربي آنذاك، خاصة بعد الثورة الإسلامية وحالة عدم الاستقرار التي عاشتها إيران.

أظهرت إيران شجاعة مذهلة واحتشد الشعب الإيراني خلف قيادته المتمثلة في آية الله الخميني لصد العدوان العراقي. وعلى الرغم من فشل إيران في إسقاط نظام صدام حسين وصد الغزو العراقي، إلا أنه يمكن القول، نظرًا لحجم الخسائر في الموارد البشرية والعسكرية، إن إيران خرجت خاسرة من تلك الحرب. استراتيجيًا، كان كل من العراق وإيران من الخاسرين، في حين كانت إسرائيل أكبر المستفيدين، إذ ساهمت في إضعاف الجيش العراقي عبر تمويل الجيش الإيراني بالسلاح، ودمرت المفاعل النووي العراقي، واستبدلت أسلحتها القديمة بأخرى متطورة من الولايات المتحدة.

تأتي في المرتبة الثانية تركيا والولايات المتحدة الأمريكية، حيث رسختا وجودهما في الشرق الأوسط، وأثبتتا أنه لا يمكن التصرف في تلك المنطقة دون موافقتهما. وأقنعت الولايات المتحدة دول الخليج العربي بأن أمنهم يعتمد بشكل كامل على الحماية الأمريكية. كما استفادت سوريا من ضعف صدام حسين بفتح خط تجاري مع إيران، والحصول على النفط بأسعار تفضيلية منخفضة، إلى جانب تعزيز وجودها في لبنان بسبب الاجتياح الإسرائيلي لفلسطين لملاحقة منظمة التحرير.

تُعَدُّ منطقة الشرق الأوسط معقدة للأسف، وتكمن معاناتها في النعمة التي أنعم الله بها عليها، وهي النفط. وبالنظر إلى الوضع الذي تعيشه العراق الآن، كان سقوط صدام حسين مسألة وقت بعد غزو الكويت، وقد أكملت الولايات المتحدة المهمة على أكمل وجه. أصبحت إيران اليوم اللاعب الإقليمي الأبرز في مواجهة الولايات المتحدة، وعلى عكس ما يُشاع، فإن إيران دولة براغماتية وعقلانية للغاية، وتمارس السياسة كما تمارسها الدول الأخرى، حتى لو اقتضى ذلك التعاون مع قوى معادية.

تمتلك إيران الآن ميليشيات الحشد الشعبي في العراق، وحزب الله في لبنان، والحرس الثوري في سوريا، وجماعة الحوثي في اليمن، مما يجعلها تطوق دول الخليج بالكامل. وبعد نجاحها في الحفاظ على برنامجها النووي وتطويره، فمن المرجح أن يتعاظم دورها الإقليمي مستقبلًا على حساب السعودية وتركيا.

[امیر لطیفی · Rating 3 out of 5]

تنها چیزی‌ست که در این مورد خواندم. پر از چیزهایی بود که نمی‌دانستم. نمی‌توان از بی‌طرفی کتاب مطمئن بود. همچنین نمی‌توان از این حجم کم خلاصه‌ شده توقع ارائه‌ی تصویر کامل داشت.

بخش زیادی از کتاب مربوط به فعالیت‌های تروریستی‌ای می‌شود که سال‌هاست ایران به آن‌ها متهم است. چیزهایی که مامعمولاً فقط در تیترهای خبری شنیده‌ایم. به تنش‌هایی قبل از شروع جنگ بین ایران و عراق هم اشاره می‌شود. همچنین در مورد جانبداری اسرائیل از ایران در زمان جنگ نیز چیزهایی می‌نویسد. نکته‌ی جالب دیگر که به آن اشاره می‌شود در مورد رابطه‌ی عراق و روسیه پیش و در زمان جنگ است. گرچه در حال حاضر روابط ایران و روسیه بسیار دوستانه به نظر می‌رسد، اما عراق در آن زمان حوزه‌ی نفوذ و مورد حمایت روسیه بوده است.

همچنین اشارات گذرایی به پشتیبانی سوریه از ایران در آن زمان می‌شود. در حقیقت در آن دوران حمایت سوریه از ایران بسیار جدی بوده است. بندهای زیر در مورد پشتیبانی سوریه را از ویکیپدیا نقل می‌کنم. با چنین حمایت تمام‌قدی از ایران، می‌توان دلیل حضورِ این روزهای ایران در سوریه را بیشتر فهمید. منبع این بندها در صفحه‌ی مربوطه در ویکیپدیا آمده است.

ارتباط سوریه (حافظ اسد) با جمهوری اسلامی ایران در زمان جنگ
دولت حافظ اسد در زمان جنگ ایران و عراق، به دلیل اختلاف نظرهای شدیدی که با دولت صدام حسین تکریتی داشت، همواره از حکومت ایران حمایت می‌کرد و ایران نیز در عوض امتیازهای تجاری و اقتصادی قابل توجهی به حکومت بعث سوریه اعطا می‌کرد که از آن جمله می‌توان به صادرات یک میلیارد دلار نفت خام رایگان به سوریه (در مقابل مسدود کردن مسیر صادرات نفت عراق از خاک سوریه) اشاره کرد. سوریه نیز در عوض اجازه استقرار نیروی سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی در خاک خود و نزدیکی مرز لبنان را صادر کرد تا از این طریق حزب‌الله لبنان مستقیماً از جانب ایران اشاره شود.

سوریه، حمایت از جمهوری اسلامی ایران را باعث تقویت بنیه روحی و نظامی خود در برابر اسرائیل و مسائل داخلی لبنان و مبارزه علیه حضور بیگانه در این کشور می‌دانست. مهمترین کمک سوریه در جنگ، حمایت‌های سیاسی آ نها از ایران بود، چرا که موضع‌گیریهای سوریه در کنفرانس کشورهای عربی مانع از شکل‌گیری جبهه متحد کشورهای عرب علیه جمهوری اسلامی ایران شد.

سوریه هیئتی از افسران سوری را به کشورهای بلوک شرق فرستاد تا تسلیحاتی را از این کشورها خریداری کند. این تسلیحات مستقیماً در اختیار ایران قرار گرفت تا تحریم‌های تسلیحاتی ایران دور زده شود. این کشور بخشی از فرودگاه بین‌المللی دمشق را به جمهوری اسلامی ایران اختصاص داد. دمشق حتی به حسن تهرانی مقدم و تیم ۵۰ نفره سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی موشک داد. این موشک‌ها اولین جرقه‌های دانش موشک بومی در ایران بود. از آن جایی که تیم ایرانی به دستور مستقیم حافظ اسد رئیس جمهور وقت سوریه در مهمترین پادگان موشکی این کشور استقرار یافته بود، تیم ایرانی از هر فرصتی برای آموزش بهره می‌برد به نحوی که اعضا بدون اینکه کسی مانع آن‌ها شود، به زاغه‌های مهمات، انبارهای موشکی و . .. سرکشی می‌کردند تا از نحوه نگه‌داری موشک‌ها هم آگاه شوند.

دمشق برای حمایت کامل از ایران، اطلاعات پایگاه‌های نظامیِ نیروهای عراقی و همچنین سلاح‌های روسی که عراق از آن‌ها استفاده می‌کرد را به تهران داد و همین اطلاعات نقش بسیار مهمی در پیروزی‌های ایران در مقابل تهاجم صدام حسین داشت.

[James Murphy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an interesting and useful read. Interesting in that it's the 1st comprehensive narrative of the war--or at least the 1st I know of. Interesting in that I knew almost none of what Razoux writes. Even when the war was going on it was only at the periphery of my awareness because it wasn't widely covered by western media. So even if it'd been in the front of my mind I wouldn't have known much--information wasn't available. Interesting because it was modern industrial warfare between 2 belligerents with large modern militaries. It's a war deserving of study for that alone, for seeing how war's state of the art has progressed because all the arms of Iraq and Iran were involved. Armor, artillery, navies, and air forces were extensively used during the 8 years of the war, singly and in various combinations. The war even saw periods in which enemy cities were bombed and when chemical weapons were used on the battlefield. It was a savage affair. Finally, the book cleared up some murky events of America's Middle Eastern policies from the '80s I'd puzzled over. I remember the huge U. S. Navy presence in the Gulf during those years, engaged as they were in escorting and protecting oil tanker traffic. Razoux describes a fairly active, intense naval war between our Navy and the much smaller, lighter Iranian vessels. I don't even remember that even being hinted at the time.

The book is also a fascinating look at the 2 opposing countries at war, especially how they evolved after the hostilities and affect the Middle East we see today. Two wars with America removed Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq, of course. What's left has been radically altered and enfeebled. But Razoux's portrait of Iran is the most fascinating because they're essentially the same country today, run by the same types of Islam-driven leaders and mindset. And now that Iraq has been weakened, the regional balance of power has swung in their favor. The same leadership has been energized with new opportunities.

Most interestingly, Razoux, near the end of his history, is understanding about Iran's drive toward nuclear weaponry. He says that if atomic weapons had been developed during World War I, all the little countries of Europe--presumably smaller actors like Belgium and Poland and Serbia--in the same position of marginalized power vis a vis the great powers as Iran is today, would've also tried to proliferate their own atomic weapons. This is a valuable book to have around during these anxious times of chaos in the Middle East.

[John Devlin · Rating 4 out of 5]

(4.5)Excellent work…I can’t imagine a better, more comprehensive analysis of the Iran-Iraq war.

So to summarize the Iranians are divided amongst the mullahs and the political class. This quickly creates subdivisions amongst the military: the regular military and the Pasadarans- the religious cadres that will also encapsulate the Basijis- the teens used as battle fodder in the thousands…

Auxiliary groups like the Iranian Air Force will be continually hampered by their origins with the Shah.

Interestingly this jockeying amongst Ali khameni and Rafsanjani will pivot around the democratic impulse, the religious power of The Ayatollah, and the isolationists vs the westernized—the religious and the isolationist would win the day which would have lead to short term success and long term failure…short term the populace was energized by the Holy War but overtime those forces would prove more fodder than fortunate and the powers given to the religious/isolationist would turn Iran into a faltering autarchy unable to access the military materiel that their opponent Iraq garnered.

The Iraqis were far more direct. Saddam starts the war in order to assume the mantle of a Nasser as leader of the Arabian Middle East…after some success his efforts bog down and Iran assumes the initiative that will last through the mid 80s.

At the same time the Kurds in the north are split about four ways amongst themselves while dancing between antagonizing both combatants and Turkey…

Most consequently was the Wests attempts to convince the house of saud to flood the market with oil by ‘86. Iran, far more dependent on oil sales, and lacking the access to credit like the Iraqis gradually sees its economic and military position deteriorate.

Interestingly this devaluing of oil will hurt the Soviets who will see their bankruptcy moving appreciably closer as Russia has to exchange dwindling gold reserves for solvency.

Also, Iran’s faltering battlefield competency leads them to agitate in the Persian gulf, pushing America to ensure the safety of ship moving through the straits of Hormuz. Using ingenious fake platforms to launch attacks and decimate Iranian forces in operations like Praying Mantis, the Americans would make a strong case for an increased presence in Saudi Arabia…with the commencement of the Gulf War the house of saud would readily agree to allowing US operations from its land…this despoiling of the Holy Land would lead an old mujahideen to decide the new Satan was not the failing Soviet Union but America…and thus would beget osama bin Laden and 9/11

Additionally, saddam had learned a great deal in his eight years leading Iraq through the last conventional war of the 20th century…this competency undoubtedly gave him the hubris to believe he could invade Kuwait…and practically…he needed something to occupy his tens of thousands of soldiers…other than planning a coup.

Importantly, and this relates to the ongoing war in Ukraine…every country possible with the exception of Ireland sold ordnance, weapons, missiles to one side and sometimes both…the military industrial complex is quite real…

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Iran-Iraq War, by Pierre Razoux, is a very well written account of the Iran-Iraq War, which began in 1980 with the Iraqi invasion of Iran, and ended in 1989. The war did not result in territorial changes, and killed over 1 million people on both sides of the border. The war was initiated by Saddam Hussein in Iraq - the newly minted dictator and leader of the Ba'athist party in Iraq. On taking power, Saddam had closed down merger talks with the Ba'athist party in Syria, and focused his attention on combating Iran's new revolutionary regime, just taken power in 1979. For its part, Iran had threatened to export the revolution to other states, and Iraq, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait were all largely concerned with this revolutionary rhetoric. Iran's revolution was barely one year old, and internal divisions were ripe. Rivalries between the army and the newly created parallel military force, the Pasdaran or Revolutionary Guard (as they are known in the West) created friction between the military, still largely loyal to the old Shah, and the new guard. Divisions also existed between the radical side of the clergy, and the more moderate secularists in the government. The Air Force was particularly suspect, as they had assisted the Shah in escaping Iran, and many of its pilots and staffers were in prison or exile. Iran had multiple internal insurgencies, from the Arabs in Khuzestan, to the Azeri's, Balochi, and Kurdish partisans in its border regions, and the Tudeh Communist's, which quickly fell out with their revolutionary allies. Iran also suffered issues of supply - it's revolution had a disruptive effect on its military imports from all parties, and many of its more high tech military equipment had been run and constructed by American military personnel. When they left Iran after the revolution, systems began to break down. The Iranians, for example, could not access their spare parts catalogue as it was encrypted by US military codes, adn these codes were not shared by the departing Americans. Many parts for tanks, planes and helicopters were therefore inaccessible to the Iranians until late in the war, when the code could be broken and the inventory analyzed.

The Iraqi's on the other hand, were riding high. Saddam had brutally eliminated all rivals to his power, and his military and political personnel were all at his beck and call. The Iraqi army was well equipped with high tech weaponry supplied both by its Soviet ally, and the French. It's T-series tanks, Mirage fighters and helicopters, and its large stock of weapons and munitions reserves were well supplied to a centralized, if green, army. Iraqi forces had been present during some wars and skirmishes with the Israelis, as well as in suppressing Kurdish unrest in northern Iraq.

Geopolitically, Iraq was strongly backed by France, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia in the Arab world. These nations would supply Iraq with billions in arms sales (France) and directly with soldiers, planes and weapons, as well as technical support, diplomatic cover, and favourable terms on loans and financial aid. The Gulf States of Kuwait, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia were also on side with Iraq, although they feared Iraqi hegemony in the Arab world. This meant that support was their, but these states were more interested in seeing the two powers of Iran and Iraq weakened, as opposed to any one side winning. Generally, the Gulf States were more closely aligned with Iraq, and feared Iranian style revolutionary activity in their own countries. The USSR also tried to support Iraq, although its support was mercurial, and usually consisted of diplomatic cover and some weapons. The USSR had been snubbed by Saddam when they invaded Afghanistan in 1979, and would be a more hesitant supporter of the Iraqi regime. On the flip side, the Iranian revolution had removed a principal threat to the USSR in the region, and the USSR attempted to capitalize on this, with slim results. Iran was closely supported by Libya and Syria in the region. Libya's Gaddafi had been snubbed by Saddam diplomatically, and was also in a pseudo-conflict with France in Chad. Syria hated its Iraqi Ba'athist rival, and did everything it could to disrupt it. The two most surprising allies of Iran in the early war were the US and Israel. The US had massive financial and military ties to Iran, and outstanding contracts for billions of dollars worth of military equipment. The results of the revolution were also unclear at the time - moderates working with the regime were more democratic than the Shah had been, and seemed willing to cooperate with the US in some fields. The US would officially declare neutrality, but shipped weapons and parts to Iran through Israel. Israel is the weirdest supporter here -the Ayatollah had been adamant about destroying Israel. Even so, the Israeli's had a troubled history with Saddam and Iraq, and would do anything to destabilize Saddam's hold on power. The Israeli's put it succinctly - seeing both Iran and Iraq destroy each other in war would be beneficial to Israel, and give them free reign to hit back at Syria in Lebanon. Other states, like many in Western and Eastern Europe, and the Arab world, benefited from this conflict by selling weapons to both belligerents, signing favourable arms and trade deals, building infrastructure, and so on. Turkey was a major beneficiary in the middle east, for example.

The war was initiated by Saddam for a few reasons. First, Iraq had outstanding territorial disputes with Iran. They claimed the entirety of the Shatt al-Arab river - which at the initiation of the war marked the border between the countries. This river was an important shipping centre and snaked its way into Basra, Iraq's vulnerable southern oil centre and its only access to the Gulf. Iraq claimed this river in its entirety, and hoped to press this claim to ensure the river was Iraqi territory, and not divided down the middle. Saddam also coveted more favourable defensive positions in the Kurdish mountains, looking to take over some boundary passes and elevated points of military importance. In the south, the province o Khuzestan was largely Arab and Sunni, and the Iraqi's sought to take this province, or large portions of it, as well as its important oil fields, and the symbolic city of Khorramshahr. The Iraqi's also looked to secure their tenuous grip on Basra by extending the border frontier toward the Zagros Mountains. It started off with a surprise bombing campaign and a surge of troops into Iran. The Iranian regime was largely caught off guard, and a chunk of Iranian territory in the South, up to and including Khorramshahr, were taken by Iraqi forces. This was the extent of Iraq's ability to enter Iran, however.

The Iraqi invasion quickly bogged down do to the resilience and relentlessness of Iranian forces. Thousands of troops were shuttled to the front, and the fanaticism of their defensive maneuvers cost the Iraqi's many casualties. The Iraqi's had slightly more dated fighter jets at the beginning of the war, and many of these were downed by US supplied HAWK air defence missiles, as well as the Iranian's Phantom and F-series fighter planes. The forceful stop of the invasion in the early 1980's, led to a general stalemate in the South. Iraq sought to open new fronts in Kurdistan, taking small strategic passes, and supporting Iranian Kurdish rebels with weapons and military support. These gains would last a few years as well.

Throughout the war, Iran sought to quell internal disputes between differing factions, turn the Revolutionary Guard into a fanatical fighting force, and punish Iraq through the removal of Saddam Hussein. Iran began this by beefing up the Revolutionary Guard. These fanatical soldiers were often poorly armed, but had an edge on their military rivals due to their fanaticism, support from the clergy, and their ability to recruit from the Basji - a youth group of sorts that would eventually use child soldiers to fight on the front. Iran was diplomatically isolated during this conflict. Although they received some weapons at the start of the war from the US, this relationship would quickly sour over both sides maneuvers to disrupt eachothers oil industries. Iraq would eventually use its superior, French supplied weaponry to strike oil tankers and port refineries in the Gulf near the Iranian border. For its part, Iran would try and destroy Iraq's oil industry in Basra, and boarded ships in the Gulf from countries that were not supporting Iran.

Iraq eventually was ground down by the human wave tactics used by Iran, losing many thousands of soldiers, and equipment. The Iranians were able to grind the Iraqi's back to the border, and eventually initiated a relatively stable front, attacking the Iraqi's frequently. Although Iraq was often able to halt Iranian advances, it was often slower at reinforcing army groups due to its lower population. While Iraq had the diplomatic and eventually, the technological edge in the war, Iran's ability to call up thousands and thousands of soldiers to fling at Iraqi defensive positions was enough to hold the Iraqi's at bay, and cause massive casualties, all while slowly pushing the Iraqi's back and eventually taking bridgeheads into the South toward Basra, and in the north in the Kurdish territories.

This is largely how the war would play out until 1989, although some spectacular shifts in geopolitics occured in this time. The US would slowly abandon hope that Iran would come back as a key regional ally, eventually even coming to blows with the Iranians in the Gulf during the Tanker Wars, and when the US shot down a civilian aircraft - Iran Air flight 655, which killed 290 civilians. The US was also domestically implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal, where money gained from weapons sales to the Iranian regime by the US was reinvested in supplying anti-communist guerillas in Nicaragua. This event would have large consequences in the US. Another big shift was that of Egypt - which was largely anti-Iraqi at the beginning of the war, but upon Mubarak's rise to power, through its lot behind Saddam with weapons and troop shipments. The Gulf states - although weary of Iraqi hegemony, would also come out onside Iraq - the GCC and the Americans agreed to cut oil prices drastically toward the end of this war. This had massive economic consequences for Iran, reducing government revenues by almost 2/3's. It also had the effect of drastically affecting the USSR's economy, and some speculate this led to its eventual disintegration in the early 1990's. Israel would use this war to invade southern Lebanon in 1982 to punish the Syrian regime's activities and to fight the Shi'ite militias in the region - ironically allied to and largely a client of Iran, which Israel was otherwise supporting.

The results of the war were as such. Iraq emerged at the end of the war as a powerful force in the middle east, with more military equipment, and a battle hardened fighting force. The Gulf States were shaken by this turn of events, and this would lead to Iraq's eventual diplomatic isolation during its invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Although the US had come out onside of Iraq in the war, they were deeply mistrustful of Saddam, and would willingly and actively support his downfall and the eventual disintegration of Iraq in 2003. Territory in the war was not exchanged, and the territorial disputes - including Iraq's claims on the Shatt al-Arab, Kuwait, and Khuzestan, quietly remain an issue to this day. The war is often claimed, indirectly, as contributing to the downfall of the USSR, who badly mismanaged their diplomatic efforts in this war, leading to their political isolation globally. The low cost of oil here was deeply destabilizing, as was the USSR's war in Afghanistan. This war also forged closer ties between the Gulf States, cementing Saudi hegemony over the UAE and Bahrain, and creating the GCC - a force largely hostile to Iranian intentions in the region. In Iran, the regime came out of the war diplomatically isolated, but more self sufficient. It began to create its own domestic systems to ensure it could survive other invasion attempts (from the Gulf states, or from the US) and began to fast track its uranium enrichment with the potential goal of securing nuclear arms. It's military had been supplanted by the Revolutionary Guard, and its clerics had shifted toward the radical faction, eliminating many moderate and secularists in the government - although this division remains to this day. Iran also improved its capacity to fight proxy wars - the Quds force much in the news today was created to beef up Shiite militias in Lebanon and support Syria, and remain one of its major bargaining chips to this day.

A fascinating war, and a fascinating book. Razoux had written one of the key texts on understanding this war, largely forgotten but critically important to how geopolitics has shaped the middle east in the modern world. This conflict directly led to the US invasion of Iraq in 1990, which in turn led to the rise of radical Sunni Islam in the region, as Iraq was destabilized, and sympathetic Arab's and Muslims bristled at US troops stationed in the region and their forceful diplomacy. Saddam's fall in 2003 would lead to the implosion of the country, with subsequent destabilization in Syria, Turkey and Lebanon. A great book full of political implications, military theory, and blow by blow maneuvers, this is a great read, and highly recommended.

[Mohamedridha Alaskari محمد رضا العسكري · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you’re researcher looking for complete resources from all aspects of the Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988, I hereby recommend you to leave all other resources behind and read this book. It is A to Z completed. After reading this book I have got all what I need to know about this brutal war in the Arabian Gulf. I wish this book could be translated into Arabic and Persian languages to help both Iraqis and Iranian Understand this war.

[Ahmed al-Hijazi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Iran-Iraq war

A book about one of the brutalist and most fierce war in the twentieth century where chemical weapons and city bombing were characteristics of the long war. The political and military sides of the war are equally covered from the beginning up to the last chapter. The author started off with the causes of the war and the motives that drove Saddam to invade Iran chiefly as a result of Khomeini provocations in his denunciations against the Ba’ath regime and the call to the Iraqis to revolt against him as well as border harassment. Then the book proceeded with the first battles inside the Iranian territory, and the the countries that were on the side of each of the belligerents and the neutral ones that equally aided the both opponents. The chaos in the post-revolution Iran weakened its military after the executions and exile of numerous commanders and pilots that Khomeini accused of loyalty to the ousted Shah, but then gradually rebuilt its army after heavy losses. And as for Iraq, it wasn’t prepared at all for such a large scale offensive against a nation that triple the size of its population and territory, but it also improved its military power through many defeats and losses. Both paid a heavy price due to politicizing the army through choosing commanders based on faithfulness to the regime rather than military experience and competence. The Super Powers, the Soviets and the Americans played major role in arms sales, the Gulf countries in their financial aid for Saddam, and the Syrian and Libyan military and political support for Iran. It’s filled with facts and battles narrated in an engaging way. It changed my mind on the concept that I used to have on the term “allies”. Before I read the book, I had the thought that allied countries support each other on mutual ideology and friendship, but after reading the book, I realized that it’s entirely on selfish interests, they can easily switch sides with whoever serve them more. Absolutely worth reading, highly recommended. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

[Younes Mowafak · Rating 5 out of 5]

-الكتاب وثيقة مهمة جداً لكشف التواطؤ العالمي ( كبار الدول المصنعة للاسلحة) في الاستفادة من الاطالة في أمد الحرب، ولكي لا ننسى لمحات الغباء والعنجهية التي اتسم بها قادة البلدين اثناء هذه الكارثة.

-حرب استمرت 7 سنوات و11 شهر، واحدة من نتائجها كانت تضخم تعداد الجيش العراقي واكتسابه خبرات هائلة الى جانب الجيش الايراني خاصةً الاجهزة التابعة لثورة الاسلامية (الباسدران).

-طول مدة الحرب اظهرت كفاءة وذكاء القادة الميدانيين حتى اصبحت مرجعاً في المجال العسكري لما تخللها من تنوع في التكتيكات العسكرية.

-يمكن القول أن "الرابح" للحرب على المدى القريب كان العراق وعلى المدى البعيد كانت ايران ويعود الفضل في ذلك الى عبقرية رفسنجاتي وانشغاله على الداخل الايراني خلال تسعينيات القرن الماضي في حين دخل صدام في حرب غبية لاحتلال الكويت.

[Adrian · Rating 5 out of 5]

Este de departe cea mai buna carte de istorie pe care am citit-o in ultimii 3 ani.
O capodoera a geopoliticii orientului mijlociu.
Baiatul asta a intrat atat de adanc in acest conflict armat de m-a dat pe spate.
Pagini intregi de descrieri ale luptelor in provinciile iraniene , in muntii Iraqului , in Golful Persic , cu descrieri devastatoare ale efectivelor militare , ale tacticilor, ale armelor folosite , provenienta lor.

Se prezinta lupte terestre , bombardamente , batalii navale, contraspionaj , precum si eforturile sustinute in diplomatie cu marile puteri precum URSS , SUA , tarile golfului,Europa , China si Korea de Nord.
Efectiv cartea este una holistica si te trece prin toate , iar proverbul "Dusmanul de azi este prietenul de maine" vine la tanc in acest context.

In ce carte de istorie afli ca Israelul a livrat si sustinut schimburi comerciale militare cu Iranul mult timp dupa radicalizarea sa , odata cu venirea lui Khomeini.

Un alt fact fain: toata tevatura din Liban , cu "lupta" lor de rezistenta impotriva vestului si a Israelului , a fost doar un mod al Iranului de a pune presiune pe tarile europene (cu precadere Franta) in isi opri sustinerea militara a lui Saddam Hussein , folosind astfel cu succes razboiul asimetric (atentate, luare de ostatici).

Franta a fost efectiv cea mai mare tarfa a Europei, ca nu pot sa ii zic altfel , cea care a jucat la ambele capete , care a inchis ochii la atacuri teroriste in propria capitala doar pentru a putea livra mai multe arme.

Un razboi total , unde armele chimice au fost folosite ca bomboanele de catre Irakieni , apoi folosite asupra propriei populatii kurde. In tot acest timp Iranul la randul sau a dus un razboi pe 3 fronturi: intern pe plan politic intre comunisti , fundamentalisti si cei pro vest , regional : minoritatile azere, balochistaneze si kurde facand atentate si bineinteles cel cu Irak-ul lui Saddam Hussein.

Este o carte superba pentru amatorii de istorie si geopolitica , iar faptul ca autorul a stat si a agregat si sintetizat sute de ore de casete audio inregistrate de Saddam Hussein , ar trebui sa fie o dovada clara a calitatii si veridicitatii faptelor prezentate.

Nota 11 !

[Mehdi · Rating 4 out of 5]

In summary, this was a good read (and relatively compact, at around 500 pages)
It's translated from French to English. There are some errors and typos in the books, but they are not a big deal and don't impact the content. Some of the typos are probably caused by the translation, and some of them happened because the author is not familiar with Farsi and Arabic and Islamic terms. Some examples: mis-pronunciation of cities and generals' names, wrong translation of some of Iran's major operations.
I reported the typos and errors to the author and he confirmed them and told me if they print it again, these will be fixed

[Pedy · Rating 5 out of 5]

همه ی آنچه درباره ی جنگ هشت ساله باید میدانستیم و نمیدانستیم در این کتاب است.
نه فقط برای درک اثرات اقدامات مثبت محمدرضا شاه که برای درک وضعیت کنونی ایران نیز باید از جنگ ایران عراق اطلاع کافی داشت.
احتمالا کاملترین و بهترین کتاب موجود در بازار خارجه باشد.

[Robert · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very detailed history of the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988. Covers the military, economic, diplomatic, & political aspects of the war in great detail . A great guide to understanding the international politics of the 1980s, & full of surprises. Explores the ways the war connected to other conflicts & events, such as Lebanese hostage taking, terrorist attacks in France, Iran-Contra, the Iranian Revolution, & 1980s energy prices. Depicts the Iranian leadership as at once trying desperately to pursue every means to defeat Iraq (including terrorist attacks against Iraq's arms suppliers), while simultaneously attempting to prolong the war in a cynical effort to consolidate the Islamic Revolution. The cynicism of all the players (including the economic & military supporters of Iran & Iraq) involved is a major theme. The level that the Iran-Iraq war was completely insustained by outside military & economic support was surprising to me. Iraq's war effort especially was completely propped up by lavish loans from the Gulf Monarchies, which, along with Iraq's oil sales, allowed Iraq to purchase 80 billion 1988 dollars worth of weapons. I was also surprised that the cheap energy of the late 80s was engineered by the oil producing Gulf Monarchies with the encouragement of the USA for the purposes of damaging the economies of Iran & the USSR. The book did not answer explicitly the reasoning behind why the world military and economic powers more or less openly supported Iraq, while attempting to isolate Iran (I think the answer is partly that Iran was seen after a certain point as trying to prolong the war, & also more resistant to outside aid with strings attached). This book also has a lot about the internal politics of Iran & Iraq. I was surprised (again) by the fact that Saddam Hussein kept Nixon White House-style recordings of all of his conversations, & that this trove of audio recordings was captured by the Americans to be later used as a major source for Pierre Razoux's magisterial tome. This book is also a good illustration of the balance any regime must make between maintaining a Military that is powerful enough to defeat external threats or internal opponents of the regime, but not so powerful that it can unseat or control the regime. The Appendices & notes at the end are worthwhile & handy. For instance, when I wondered how many armored vehicles were destroyed during the conflict, I could just look in Appendix I. However, I thought the notes coverage of the text was sometimes a little thin. For instance, the part about the child soldiers is controversial, and many of the details are shocking & gruesome beyond belief (e.g. the order for 1 million plastic keys to heaven), so I expected more sources backing it up (on the other hand, no amount of evidence would convince Iranian regime apologists who would take issue with the account).
The Iran-Iraq War was translated from French, which may explain some of the odd & amusing word choices that crop up throughout this book. e.g.,“cohabitation” for “coalition government”, “authorities” for “government” (or sometimes “military leadership”), & “parallel market” for “black market” (or maybe “gray market”). One of my favorite word usages is “layout”, which is used to mean defenses & deployed forces, or forces deployed for an offensive, for either a front or the entire conflict. Another good one is the use of “precious” used as a modifier describing anything valuable such as “precious oil infrastructure”, “precious military hardware”, & “Precious hard currency reserves”. In some chapters, “precious” appeared on almost every page!

[Rohit · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic, definitive, and in-depth account of the Iran-Iraq War. Not really sure what else to say beyond that, this is just an all-around great work of history. I was especially impressed with the detailed descriptions of the actual battles of the war, with a full analysis of troop movements, tactics, and political context for each offensive or operation, and explanations of the repercussions of the each battle. Also impressive was how this military analysis was seamlessly weaved in with the political analysis, of both the two belligerents as well as various foreign powers.

An absolute must-read for anybody interested in modern Middle Eastern history, or military history.

[Mai Abdelmoniem · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very detailed book about the Iran-Iraq War that starts with the reasons for this war and what happened during it.

The book details are like you watch the war news as recent events that you live with nowadays.

The author has done excellent research; he is not talking only about both sides of the war but also the circumstances surrounding the conflict and the allies, America, Arabs and how they influence the course of events.

[Gamespacenl · Rating 4 out of 5]

Yes, it took me forever to finish the book. In a way reading this book was as tedious as the Iran-Iraq war itself. (Sorry, that's bad). But, as with that stupid, senseless, idiotic war, lessons were learned. If you want to understand the Middle East as it exists today better, this book is helpful. Sure, it's dry, all about dozens and dozens of battles, but deep down in there, there are lessons about these two countries that have shaped (and will be shaping) global politics.

[E · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thorough and illuminating.

[Alexander Kosoris · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Iran-Iraq War is an in-depth exploration of the terrible conflict that wracked the Middle East through most of the ’80s. Razoux starts us off by thrusting us into the heated political climate in the region immediately before the war broke out, moves into the initial, largely ineffectual military campaigns, and then bounces between detailed accounts of specific battles and related issues occurring domestically and internationally that provide better context for an understanding of the reasons things unfolded the way they did. In presenting the book this way, the author showcases a great understanding of how to keep a flow that enhances interest and readability, only slowing things down or backtracking to explain background information when it becomes immediately necessary.

As much as I hate to admit it, I found The Iran-Iraq War at least a bit funny. Yes, I understand the tragic human toll that came out of the conflict, but Razoux presents things almost like a farce, a dark satire, so I don’t think I can be entirely faulted for starting off in this mindset. This can be partially attributed to the facts presented, which can be best summed up as overconfident rulers throwing caution to the wind and ignoring the advice of experienced advisers, systematically destroying any accumulated advantages for entirely political reasons. But, the almost flippant ways the author relates this makes portions of the read sarcastic and hilarious. I assume this has to do with Razoux wanting to demonstrate how senseless these conflicts actually were and that, despite their bluster on the world stage, these leaders were incompetent when it came to military strategy, such as when he describes the long string of ineffective tactical airstrikes in the early stages of combat or the Iraqi artillery bombardment of Abadan that would “last for several weeks and amount to a tremendous waste of ammunition.” His biting remarks largely fall by the wayside as we progress through the book, giving way to an impartial account of things based on the author’s exhaustive research, but, to my enjoyment, they did occasionally resurface. (One of the most memorable cases had to do with the US government getting caught supplying the Iranians with weapons in the middle of the US-imposed embargo on weapon sales to Iran: The head of the CIA was said to have “escaped public disgrace by dying of cancer ... only a few days before his scheduled hearing before Congress.”)

Despite the way I’m presenting things, The Iran-Iraq War is ultimately an account of needless suffering imposed by the selfish and callous people in power the world over. Things were instigated by a despot looking to better establish his importance in the region, and the conflict went on so long both because the tyrants on the other side wanted to tighten their stranglehold on their country and because the international community gained so much, financially and politically, by supplying both belligerents with weapons and support. (Of course, many countries chose to do so clandestinely so as not to ruin relations with the other side and to not overtly align themselves with regimes connected with human rights abuses and war crimes.) It’s a sobering look at how human lives don’t seem to matter so long as the powerful profit, and I think the author makes clear that, while such terrible people deserve our ridicule and our ire, the millions of innocents affected by these political games deserve our understanding of what they went through and all the senseless reasons why.

[Hussein Harbi · Rating 5 out of 5]

ليس كتابًا فحسب؛ فهو موسوعة كبيرة عن أطول حروب القرن العشرين، كانت حرب استنزاف طويلة جدًا، تخللتها معارك دموية، على طول حدود برية ١٤٥٨ كم، وسماء مفتوحة ومياه الخليج العربي (هناك صراع على اسمه بين الجانبين).
كانت إيران في حالة حرب داخلية وخارجية (مع العراق)، أولها أهم من الثانية؛ فالخميني وفريقه يتصارعون مع العلمانيين واليساريين والإسلاميين المثاليين والعسكريين القدامى: كبني صدرا وشابور وبزركان ومنتظري ورجوي...
في العراق، الجبهة الداخلية أقوى، مع تخوّف من تصدير ثورة الخميني إلى العراق ذي التركيبة السكانية المعقدة، وكذلك المعضلة الكردية بالنسبة لحكومات العراق كافة.
بعد مناوشات على الحدود، بدأتها إيران، قرّر صدّام حسين أن يؤدب جيرانه المشتتين داخليًّا، ويجبرهم على التنازل عن ما حصل عليه الشاه في اتفاقية الجزائر.
ما لم يكن في حسابات صدّام، هو تمسّك الإيرانيين بالحرب؛ ليتخلصوا من أعدائهم الداخليين. تفوّق الإيرانيون في القوة البحرية والجوية، رغم أن العراق قد قام بنصف مليون طلعة جوية مقابل مئة ألف فقط، ولا يمكن إهمال مسألة الطيارين الإيرانيين.
دروع العراق، كانت حاسمةً في مراحل كثيرة من الحرب، بالإضافة إلى مركزية القيادة العسكرية العراقية واعتمادها الأساليب العسكرية العلمية. لجأت إيران إلى التحشيد والجهاد؛ للتغطية على خسائرها الفادحة وتقوية جبهتها الداخلية، فكانت الكلمة لحرسها الثوري الذي همّش الجيش النظامي.
في الكتاب، شرح واف لمواقف الدول وتأرجحها من المتحاربين:
الولايات المتحدّة، ساندت إيران أولًا، ضد حليف الاتحاد السوفييتي، من طريق بيع حلفائها لإيران سلاح أمريكي.
الدول الأوربية (ما عدا فرنسا)، إتخذت الحياد كموقف نظري وباعت سلاحها بواسطة تجّار السلاح (إيران حصلت على سلاح أوربي أكثر).
فرنسا، ومنذ بداية السبعينيات، كانت دولة صديقة للعراق ومن أكبر موردي الأسلحة له. تصارعت إيران مع فرنسا طويلًا أثناء الحرب مع العراق. كانت إيران تجيد المناورات والصراعات والتفاوض؛ لذلك أحرجت الفرنسيين كثيرًا في لبنان.
الاتحاد السوفييتي، حليف قلق لبغداد؛ لا يثق بصدام الذي حارب الشيوعيين العراقيين ودخل الحرب دون مشورتهم مما قد يسمح لتواجد أمريكي فعّال في الخليج العربي. علاقة السوفييت مع إيران أكثر تعقيدًا.
الصين، تقف بالضد من السوفييت من حيث المبدأ ولكنها أيضًا تبحث عن الزبون الأغنى.
الدول العربية:
مع العراق: السعودية والأردن والكويت وقطر والمغرب وتونس والبحرين ومصر (مبارك)، اليمن الشمالي.
على الحياد: عُمان، الجزائر، مصر (السادات)، الجزائر.
موقف محيِّر: الإمارات.
مع إيران: سوريا، ليبيا، اليمن الجنوبي.
الحرب هي حرب نفطية؛ فكلا البلدين يملك مصادر نفطية هائلة، كذلك تحولت إلى ضرب مصالح بعضهما لبعض وتشتد المعارك حالما تزيد أسعار النفط العالمية!. وأصبحت حرب ناقلات في أكثر سنواتها.
كانت، تركيا المستفيد الأكبر من الحرب؛ فهي بوابة للبلدين في البضائع وتهريب السلاح.

في نهاية الحرب، خرج العراق كأكبر قوة عسكرية في الشرق الأوسط، بأربع أضعاف جيشه عند بداية الحرب، لكنّه أيضًا مدين بمليارات كثيرة ويعاني من تضخم البطالة. لذلك يعتقد الكاتب، أن العراق قد انتصر في تلك الحرب وهو يحمل بذرة الهزيمة المستقبلية من خلال غزو الكويت وحرب التحالف الدولي ضده ثم غزوه من قبل الولايات المتحدة.
خسر الطرفان ١,٣٪ من شعبيهما؛ خسرت إيران ٥٠٠,٠٠٠ ضحية، أما العراق فقد خسر ١٥٠,٠٠٠، وتكبد اقتصادهما ١,١٠٠ مليار دولار! ٤٠٪ على العراق.
لا يعرف من بدأ الحرب بالضبط، لكن وبسهولة نستطيع -من خلال الأمم المتحدة ومجلس الأمن- مَنْ الذي أطالها. نتج عن هذه الحرب، بروز قوتي تركيا وإسرائيل (كانت أقرب لإيران في الحرب) والاعتراف بالسعودية كقوة مهمة في منطقة الخليج من بعد العراق وإيران، كذلك التواجد الدائم للولايات المتحدة في المنطقة!
الكتاب فيه أكثر من ١٠٠ صفحة، كجداول تفصيلية عن البلدين وقواتيهما وقادتيهما وسلاحيهما والدول المتعاونة معهما...
هذا الكتاب، حرضني على قراءة المزيد عن هذه الحرب.

[Tayba Jamal]

هذا الكتاب موسوعة كاملة لهذه الحرب التي لا نزال نعيش تبعاتها حتى اليوم.
لا يكتفي المؤلف بالحديث عن أسباب هذه الحرب أو تفاصيل المعارك على الجبهات فحسب، بل يمضي إلى سرد شامل لتفاعلات مختلف الأطراف الدولية معها
استطرد الكاتب كثيرًا في حرب الناقلات النفطية والمواجهات الأمريكية- الإيرانية وأفرز لها فصولًا خاصة.
وكذلك فعل مع أزمات الرهائن المتكررة والتي يبدو أنها لعبة تجيدها إيران جيدًا.

بالنسبة للعراق، انتهت الحرب بالعودة إلى حدودنا نفسها، مع قائد متضخم الأنا وجيش تضاعف أربع مرات حجمه السابق!

أنهيت الكتاب وصدى أبيات زهير بن أبي سلمى يتردد في ذهني
وما الحرب إلا ماعلمتم وذقتم
وماهو عنها بالحديث المرجم
متى تبعثوها تبعثوها ذميمة
وتضر اذا ضريتموها فتضرم

[Matthew Warchal · Rating 5 out of 5]

The type of history that every person should read so the idealistic, internationalist mush, and unhistorical provocativism disappears (cough Zinn is trash cough). Historians should be brutally cynical truth-seekers not political activists of the moment. They should avoid ideological positions as contextual evidence builds history and not simple abstractions put into grand theories. And they should be equal opportunity attackers with every party involved regardless of emotions/feelings. Razoux achieves this with a clear picture of a conflict that's not studied enough considering the estimated 680 thousand dead between the two countries. And for once, the last, long total war of the 20th century cannot be blamed on the US despite the usual conspiracies that it was. Brutality wasn't in short supply for Iraq and Iran over 8 years (or for the other Middle East powers) with human waves of Iranian child soldiers or mass gas attacks by Saddam on Iranian soldiers and to punish and ethnically cleanse the Kurds. Without understanding the conflict, one cannot understand the complexity of the situation between the Kurds in Syria, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran today. The most interesting perspective is of the cynical European powers especially France's double dealings and frankly, incoherent policy. The usual bipolar Cold War mentality of the Reagan administration was actually equally concerned with oil, hostages, anti-terror, and Lebanon after the Iranian Revolution. It is depicted as calculating more realistically with Iraq and in Don Rumsfeld's visit than I would have expected. Much was made of this provably minimal connection to Saddam during the run-up to the Iraq War in 2003. Even the Soviet Union floundered around, long supplying Iraq, but seeing opportunity with Iran's complete separation from the US after the Revolution. Gorbachev is accurately depicted here as in other accurate histories as a reformer, but also media-hungry and still a cold warrior until the end. The Soviets occasionally retaliated against assassinations and reprisals from Beirut to Afghanistan, where Iran made the Soviet 10 year invasion very difficult. The complexity of this work makes easy judgements about the region impossible then and should be required reading start for those with supposedly easy solutions to Middle Eastern conflicts today. Great work and one of the best approaches to studying a modern era conflict that I've read!

[Colandus · Rating 3 out of 5]

I decided to radically revise my review of this one because the subtle biases in it were starting to rankle. Whilst it appears to be well-researched, superbly put together as an integrated narrative on the operational and political levels, in my opinion Razoux's analysis of the geostrategy of the Iran-Iraq War suffers from his failure to adequately condemn Saddam's international backers. To condemn may not be a historian's obligation. But in matters of grave moral culpability, such as the supply of manufacturing facilities for chemical weapons, weapons which were ultimately used against Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians, condemnation is due.

Such laxity reflects a larger problem: letting external actors of the hook is only possible by subtly distorting events. Razoux, reproducing tropes common in the West about Iranian fanaticism, apparently aims to construct an equivalence between the Ba'athist and Khomeinist "regimes". Fanatical the Iranians obviously were. So too were many Western nations during the attritional wars of the 20th century. The first day of the Somme is seldom spoken of in terms of "human wave tactics." The amphibious landings on Gallipoli are seldom thought of as a case of a regime pointlessly throwing away the lives of young men brainwashed by religious fervour. But in fact, these narrative frames are applicable. Presuppositions about the political character of the belligerents in the Iran-Iraq War shouldn't obscure the fact that, while extremism was certainly in evidence, with Iraq committing war crimes and Iran using masses of teenage "Basiji" soldiers, one state was the clear aggressor, and the other, the victim.

For example of what I mean by biases, in the conclusion we have the unsupported assertion in passing that "Iran was defeated." The consensus, however, is that the conflict ended in a draw which restored the status quo ante. At the very least, the question of "who won?" is relative to the assessment of each side's true war aims. In Iran's case, those wavered. In Tehran, the faction around Khameini which emphasized the survival of the revolution and favoured autarky -- even if this meant it was only possible to fight a defensive war -- achieved all its aims. The hawkish yet economically liberal Rafsanjani faction failed in its (in my opinion, naive) policy of achieving Iraqi regime change, even if it meant having to compromise aspects of the revolution to appease and obtain the support of Western interests. At the national level, the Islamic Republic arguably won simply because Saddam objectively lost: he failed to achieve his stated aim of revising the Algiers Accords and grabbing the Shatt al-Arab. Furthermore, Rafsanjani's project of overthrowing Saddam is exactly what most of Saddam's erstwhile backers spent the next twenty years doing.

Razoux notes these sort of points, but rather grudgingly. Outside actors are presented as, at worst, practitioners of a mercantile Realpolitik. In particular Razoux either fails or refuses to properly delineate the hypocrisy and the Machiavellianism of the neoconservative-dominated West. Ignoring the fact that one was the original aggressor, the Reagan administration and European governments demonized both sides in order to engineer a pretext to help them gruesomely slaughter one another. Then they blamed Iran for demanding Saddam's ouster, after which America, with its colossal air power, achieved precisely that. Ironically this created (after yet another protracted bloodbath) the very political settlement which Rafsanjani, fundamentally, had been seeking from 1983-1988: namely an Iraq on friendly terms with Iran, and one dominated, quite naturally, by the Shi'a majority who occupy its most oil-rich provinces. The only difference between Iran's preferred status quo and the West? Millions of lives and trillions of dollars wasted -- or as it is euphemistically put, "a weakened Iran."

Cui bono? Well, obviously, arms manufacturers. But these events of course also belong to a broader regional struggle; the 1980-1988 phase of which was, in effect, a world war against revolutionary Iran with Iraqis as cannon fodder. In a manner which eludes Marxist-Leninist categories, it was one in which the USSR, with its neo-imperialist pretensions in the Middle East and actual imperialist policy in Afghanistan, also took part. The prime beneficiaries were the bloc who were then, as they are now, arrayed against Shi'ite populism. Chiefly the Gulf monarchies and Israel, whose furtive role as the sole, surreptitious supplier of high-tech Western kit to Iran -- keeping her on life support just enough to feed the Rafsanjani faction's Pyrrhic war for Iraqi regime change -- is acknowledged, but underexplored. And, as has been noted ad nauseam by the likes of Robert Fisk, if the West's and Israel's real agenda in confronting Iran was to resist Islamic fundamentalism, why has it been working hand in glove with Wahabi-Salafist regimes and their proxies throughout the region? To be fair to Razoux, perhaps the available documentary evidence can only furnish speculation of what the geopolitical reality of the war, in its wider geostrategic context, was really about.

All this, is, I think, reflective of a broader contemporary Western discourse on the Iran-Iraq War in an analogous state to that on WW2 during the early Cold War. Then, the reality of Nazi aggression against the USSR was downplayed due to the latter's odium. Such default "revisionism" -- or simply biased history -- makes for bad understanding, a dishonest assessment of the respective roles of the outside actors in the conflict and in turn, bad decision making; a problem most acute in the chauvinistic and historically ignorant US.

In his conclusion, Razoux does insert caveats to the effect that, given its experiences in the 1980s, it is understandable for Iran to seek a nuclear deterrent. But this is somewhat missing the point. Perhaps Iran would not have nurtured its nuclear capability had trust between it and the "international community" been rebuilt on the basis of candid acknowledgement of the depredations it suffered in the 1980s. Razoux's history, is however, well written (albeit with what appears to poor editing in translation) and excellent in its treatment of the tactical and operations levels. It remains essential as the only recent one available which covers the entire war in a single sweep in political, diplomatic and military aspects.

[Yann Selosse · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tout simplement excellent. Il y a bien peu d'ouvrages en français sur la question et, par chance, il est de qualité. Le style est clair et sans fioritures ni hyperboles inutiles; l'ouvrage très bien chapitré tout, la lecture agréable.
Sur le fond, pas grand chose à redire : c'est minutieux et complet.

Ouvrage de référence!

[Waleed · Rating 5 out of 5]

Like fruit, some books need to ripen on the shelf. I bought this book in February 2020 after the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, but I only started reading it in October 2024 after Iran launched missiles towards Israel.

This is the best single-volume history of any war that I have read. And it is a truly extraordinary war, the last conventional total war of the 20th century, which recapitulated every element of that century's earlier wars. It had the trench warfare, chemical weapons, and human waves attacks of WW1, the mass bombing of cities and manoeuvre warfare of WW2, as well as all the most horrible aspects of Algeria, Vietnam, and the Arab-Israeli wars. It had MiGs, Tomcat F-14s, and Exocet missiles, but it also had - heartbreakingly - child soldiers on foot with plastic keys around their necks walking into minefields. Elements of this war are so harrowing and so apocalyptic that they seem mythic, or straight out of science fiction.

This ~500 page account of the war is a tour de force of military history. Razoux places the war in its historical and geopolitical context and is equally expert at laying out orders of battle and troop allocation as he is in explaining the roles of the USA, USSR, and China in sustaining the bloodbath. While it is conventional wisdom that neither antagonist 'won' the Iran-Iraq War, Razoux unexpectedly (but convincingly) argues that the immediate winner was Turkey, and that the United States handed Iran a belated victory in 2003.

The Iran-Iraq War is the heart of modern Middle Eastern history, and having read this book I feel like I have a much better understanding of the First and Second Gulf Wars, Lebanon in the 1980s, and the current relationship between Iran and its neighbours. I'm glad I waited.

[Andrew Daniels · Rating 5 out of 5]

There is much to like about this book, it avoids telling the war as a series of tactical maneuvers by numbered units, which I find absolutely unintelligible. There are a tiny number of battles shown this way, but only like 3% of the book. The entire book is all about the high level strategy, economics, social and national history of the wars. This is an excellent example of how I think authors should approach war history.

I found his research superior to others on this topic, (this is not my area of expertise tho) and I trusted the author over other sources, who did not read as being as well-researched.

I gave this 5 stars, tho in some ways its not a lively interesting compelling read, but it does its job so effectively I would say this is a must-read, (which I try and say extremely rarely, I mean who has the time?)

Its helpful to have some superficial knowledge about Islam, plus the contours of the Islamic Revoluion. f you don't know about Ba'athism, its not strictly required reading, but this book will not explain at all what a Ba'athist party, society and nation are, you'll have to read more of this.

I hate when authors lack awareness about what their audience will know, this author clearly was an adult during the 1980s, so he expects we all know Top Gun as a major reference. At one point :
'Th e photos have been seen around the world: fi red-up young Ira nian teens
preparing to storm Iraqi lines wearing uniforms several sizes too big and
red headbands with white letters spelling out “Allah is the greatest.”'

No, not all of have seen these photos all around the world! It's been 40 years, you need to show us these photos, because not many of us have never seen the newspapers of the 80s.

[David Carniglia · Rating 5 out of 5]

An outstanding work of military history. He covers every facet at every level: the background, leadership, politics, ideology, and the military situation in general and in particular.

The wealth of detail is incredible; the tables, charts and graphs in the appendices show the relative strengths, losses, and acquisitions both at intervals and cumulatively.

The narrative flows smoothly--an in translation no less. He creates a dramatic atmosphere in describing the relentless pursuit of victory by both sides with their numerous offensives.

A war that has a pointless and reckless origin also proved to have an elusive ending. Although it's clear that Saddam started the war, Iran unnecessarily prolonged it by insisting on unrealistic conditions.

Two aspects stand out: the huge amounts of weaponry supplied to both sides (much more to Iraq, which also received far more foreign funding), and the stories involving the diplomacy of foreign powers, particularly the US and USSR.

Obviously, Iraq's 'victory' went to Saddam's head, emboldening him to undertake the invasion of Kuwait a few years after settling the war with Iran. There's a temptation to compare Saddam and Khomeni with Hitler and Stalin. Both were ruthless and hated each other and all that the other stood for.

This book is certainly the way to learn about a relatively obscure conflict, and comprehend, if not understand, why it happened and how it played out.

Very highly recommended.

[Austin Barselau · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite being the longest war of the 20th century, the eight-year skirmish between Iraq and Iran during the 1980s is one of the least known conflicts in recent history. In The Iran-Iraq War, French historian Pierre Razoux describes each blow of the bloodiest conflict in the history of the modern Middle East. Using a variety of French and American military archival records, as well as previously untapped interviews with Iranian and Iraqi military officials, Razoux describes this grinding war of attrition in encyclopedic tactical detail. Initially launched by Saddam Hussein as a preemptive offensive against an Iranian foe conspiring to bring down his rule, the war spiraled into a deadly internecine conflict that involved guerilla warfare, suicidal infantry waves, child soldiers, and chemical warfare. With a ceasefire established in 1988, the war achieved very little in gain outside of hundreds of thousands of casualties, international condemnation, and minor territorial adjustments. At the war’s end, Iran was largely demoralized and embroiled in a political transition while Saddam’s Iraq was insurgent, flush with military hardware and rejuvenated with national pride. Little known to history, the war between these nations established the conditions for future conflicts in the region – from Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait and the American invasion of Iraq.

[James Yee · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a very enjoyable book. It provided just the right amount of detail on key strategic aspects of the war (military, political, and economic), while also providing good tactical details from the battlefront.

And with hindsight and the passage of time, we can now read about what really happened behind the scenes of such infamous incidents (to US readers anyway) as the Iraqi attack on the USN Stark and the truly accidental downing of an Iranian airliner by the USN Vincennes. The after effects of the war still have repercussions, especially in Iran, and this book helps explain how the Islamic regime operates and why there are still internal battles between various factions plaguing it.

Lots of maps to help keep track of where all the action was happening, but it would have been nice to have more photos of the combatants and their gear. Very nice appendices with orders of battle, economic impact assessments, etc.

I highly recommend this book if you have any interest in the history of this particular war. This is probably the definitive book on the subject matter published in English (translated from French?).

And for those of you that follow my reviews and know how slow I can be to finish a book, seeing as how I finished this thick book in just over a month means it has to be good. ;-)