THE UNITED STATES AND THE IRAN-IRAQ WAR

STEPHEN R. SHALOM



The war between Iran and Iraq was one of the great human tragedies of recent Middle Eastern history. Perhaps as many as a million people died, many more were wounded, and millions were made refugees. The resources wasted on the war exceeded what the entire Third World spent on public health in a decade.<1>

The war began on September 22, 1980, when Iraqi troops launched a full-scale invasion of Iran. Prior to this date there had been subversion by each country inside the other and also major border clashes. Iraq hoped for a lightning victory against an internationally isolated neighbor in the throes of revolutionary upheaval. But despite Iraq's initial successes, the Iranians rallied and, using their much larger population, were able by mid-1982 to push the invaders out. In June 1982, the Iranians went over to the offensive, but Iraq, with a significant advantage in heavy weaponry, was able to prevent a decisive Iranian breakthrough. The guns finally fell silent on August 20, 1988.

Primary responsibility for the eight long years of bloodletting must rest with the governments of the two countries -- the ruthless military regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the ruthless clerical regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. Khomeini was said by some to have a "martyr complex," though, as U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance wryly observed, people with martyr complexes rarely live to be as old as Khomeini. Whatever his complexes, Khomeini had no qualms about sending his followers, including young boys, off to their deaths for his greater glory. This callous disregard for human life was no less characteristic of Saddam Hussein. And, for that matter, it was also no less characteristic of much of the world community, which not only couldn't be bothered by a few hundred thousand Third World corpses, but tried to profit from the conflict.

France became the major source of Iraq's high-tech weaponry, in no small part to protect its financial stake in that country.<2> The Soviet Union was Iraq's largest weapon's supplier, while jockeying for influence in both capitals. Israel provided arms to Iran, hoping to bleed the combatants by prolonging the war. And at least ten nations sold arms to both of the warring sides.<3>

The list of countries engaging in despicable behavior, however, would be incomplete without the United States. The U.S. objective was not profits from the arms trade, but the much more significant aim of controlling to the greatest extent possible the region's oil resources. Before turning to U.S. policy during the Iran-Iraq war, it will be useful to recall some of the history of the U.S. and oil.



SOME CRUDE HISTORY

Much of the world's proven oil reserves are located in the limited area of the Persian Gulf (called by Arab nations the "Arabian Gulf," and by those who try to keep their gazetteers politically neutral, simply "the Gulf").

Less than four percent of U.S. oil consumption comes from the Gulf, but, according to the official argument, Western Europe and Japan are extremely dependent on Gulf oil and hence if the region fell into the hands of a hostile power, U.S. allies could be brought to their knees, and U.S. security would be fundamentally and irreparably compromised. If one examines the history of U.S. policy in the Gulf, however, protecting the oil interests of Western Europe and Japan never seemed to be one of Washington's foremost goals.

As far back as the 1920s, the State Department sought to force Great Britain to give U.S. companies a share of the lucrative Middle Eastern oil concessions. The U.S. Ambassador in London -- who happened to be Andrew Mellon, the head of the Gulf Oil Corporation (named for the Mexican, not the Persian/Arabian, Gulf) -- was instructed to press the British to give Gulf Oil a stake in the Middle East.<4> At the end of World War II, when the immense petroleum deposits in Saudi Arabia became known, Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal told Secretary of State Byrnes, "I don't care which American company or companies develop the Arabian reserves, but I think most emphatically that it should be _American_."<5> And it wasn't the Russians that Forrestal was worried about. The main competition was between the United States and Britain for control of the area's oil.<6>

In 1928, Standard Oil of New Jersey and Mobil had joined British and French oil interests in signing the "Red Line Agreement," under which each pledged not to develop Middle Eastern oil without the participation of the others. Nevertheless, after World War II these two U.S. firms (together with Texaco and Standard Oil of California) grabbed the Saudi concessions for themselves, freezing out the British and French. When the latter sued on the grounds that the Red Line Agreement had been violated, Mobil and Jersey told the court that the agreement was null and void because it was monopolistic.<7>

In the early 1950s, oil was used as a political weapon for the first time -- _by_ the United States and Britain and _against_ Iran. Iran had nationalized its British-owned oil company which had refused to share its astronomical profits with the host government. In response, Washington and London organized a boycott of Iranian oil which brought Iran's economy to the brink of collapse. The CIA then instigated a coup, entrenching the Shah in power and effectively un-nationalizing the oil company, with U.S. firms getting 40 percent of the formerly 100 percent British-owned company. This was, in the view of the _New York Times_, an "object lesson in the heavy cost that must be paid" when an oil-rich Third World nation "goes berserk with fanatical nationalism."<8>

In 1956 the oil weapon was used again, this time by the United States against Britain and France. After the latter two nations along with Israel invaded Egypt, Washington made clear that U.S. oil would not be sent to Western Europe until Britain and France agreed to a rapid withdrawal schedule.<9> The U.S. was not adverse to overthrowing Nasser -- "Had they done it quickly, we would have accepted it," Eisenhower said later<10> -- but the clumsy Anglo-French military operation threatened U.S. interests in the region.

In October 1969 the Shah of Iran asked the U.S. to purchase more Iranian oil as a way to boost his revenues. But the Shah's request was rejected because, as an assistant to then President Nixon explained, "a substantial portion of the profits from these purchases would go to non-American companies if Iranian oil were sought," while if Saudi oil were purchased, the U.S. share would be larger.<11>

By the end of the sixties the international oil market was far different from what it had been two decades earlier. Oil supplies were tight, the number of oil firms had grown, and the producing countries, joined together in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, were seeking to improve their financial position.

Crucial talks on oil prices began in 1970 between U.S. companies and the government of Libya. Significantly, Washington did not weigh in on the side of the companies, and in fact, the companies themselves did not put up much resistance to the price increases. For the oil companies, higher prices would be beneficial, making profitable their growing investments in the developed nations (for example, in Alaska and the North Sea).<12> Any higher prices could be passed on to consumers -- and, indeed, in 1972-73 the companies raised their prices to a greater extent than crude costs alone warranted.<13>

In 1972, the Nixon administration was advocating higher oil prices.<14> According to a study by V. H. Oppenheim, based on interviews with U.S. officials, "The weight of the evidence suggests that the principal consideration behind the indulgent U.S. government attitude toward higher oil prices was the belief that higher prices would produce economic benefits for the United States vis-a-vis its industrial competitors, Western Europe and Japan, and the key Middle Eastern states, Saudi Arabia and Iran."<15> And Henry Kissinger has confirmed that this was U.S. Government thinking: "The rise in the price of energy would affect primarily Europe and Japan and probably improve America's competitive position."<16>

Amid growing warnings about a possible oil embargo, the industrialized Western countries held meetings to decide their response. Showing its concern for its allies, the United States proposed that resources be shared, but on the basis of each country's sea-borne imports, rather than on the basis of total energy requirements. Since the U.S. was much less dependent on imports than other countries, this formula meant that in the event of an embargo U.S. energy supplies would be cut far less than those of its "allies."<17>

After the October 1973 Middle East war broke out, but before the Arab embargo, U.S. oil company officials wrote to Nixon, warning that the "whole position of the United States in the Middle East is on the way to being seriously impaired, with Japanese, European, and perhaps Russian interests largely supplanting United States presence in the area, to the detriment of both our economy and our security."<18> Note that the Russian threat was considered only a possibility, the allied threat a certainty.

In late 1973 and on into 1974, the Arab oil producers cut their production and imposed an embargo against the United States and the Netherlands for their pro-Israeli position. The public has memories of long lines at the gas pump, rationing, and a crisis atmosphere. In fact, however, in Kissinger's words, "the Arab embargo was a symbolic gesture of limited practical impact."<19> The international oil companies, which totally monopolized petroleum distribution and marketing, pooled their oil, so the shortfall of Saudi supplies to the U.S. was made up from other sources. Overall, the oil companies spread out the production cutbacks so as to minimize suffering, and the country most supportive of Israel -- the U.S. -- suffered among the least. From January 1974 to March, oil consumption in the U.S. was only off by 5 percent, compared to 15 percent in France and West Germany.<20>

Even these figures, however, overstate the hardship, because in fact, "_there was at no time a real shortage of petroleum on the European market._ Consumption simply responded to the increase in prices....Between October, 1973, and April, 1974, the reserves of oil products in the countries of the European Community never descended below the 80-day equivalent of consumption; and in Italy the reserves in fact increased by 23 per cent."<21> In Japan, there were about two million barrels of oil more than the government admitted, as the bureaucracy, the oil industry, and industrial oil users sought to exploit the crisis for their own advantage.<22>

In the aftermath of the embargo, U.S. allies tried to negotiate their own bilateral petroleum purchase deals with the producing nations without going through the major international oil companies. Washington opposed these efforts.<23> In short, the well-being of U.S. allies has never been the key consideration for U.S. policymakers.

Nor for that matter has the crucial concern been the well-being of the average American. One former Defense Department official has estimated that it cost U.S. taxpayers about $47 billion in 1985 alone for military expenditures related to the Gulf;<24> former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman put the annual figure at $40 billion.<25> What could be worth these staggering sums?

These expenditures have _not_ been necessary for the survival of the West. In extremis, according to former CIA analyst Maj. Gen. Edward B. Atkeson, if all Gulf oil were cut off, the elimination of recreational driving (which in the U.S. accounts for 10% of total oil consumption) would reduce Western petroleum needs to a level easily replaceable from non-Gulf sources. Even in wartime, Atkeson concluded, Gulf oil is not essential to Western needs.<26> And in a protracted global conflict, one can be sure that oil fields would not last very long in the face of missile attacks.

The billions of dollars, however, are a good investment for the oil companies, given that they are not the ones who pay the tab. To be sure, the multinationals no longer directly own the vast majority of Gulf crude production. But they have special buy-back deals with the producers, whereby they purchase at bargain prices oil from the fields they formerly owned. For example, according to former Senator Frank Church, U.S. firms "have a 'sweetheart' arrangement with Saudi Arabia, notwithstanding the nominal nationalization of their properties...."<27> Radical regimes want to sell oil as much as conservative ones do, but a change of government in any Gulf state might eliminate the privileged position of the oil companies.

The internal security of regimes like Saudi Arabia depends heavily on outside, particularly U.S., support. Many Saudis believe that in return their country has been overproducing oil to please the United States, to the detriment of their nation's long-term interests. Selling oil beyond the point at which the proceeds can be productively invested is economically irrational, particularly given the fact that oil in the ground appreciates in value.<28> More democratic or nationalistic governments in the Gulf may not be so willing to sacrifice their own interests. And such governments will also be less willing to accommodate a U.S. military presence or to serve as U.S. proxies for maintaining the regional status quo.

And thus for more than forty years, through many changed circumstances, there has been one constant of U.S. policy in the Gulf: support for the most conservative available local forces in order to keep radical and popular movements from coming to power, no matter what the human cost, no matter how great the necessary manipulation or intervention. The U.S. has not been invariably successful in achieving its objective: in 1979, it lost one of its major props with the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, who had policed the Gulf on Washington's behalf. But the basic pattern of U.S. policy has not changed, as is well illustrated by its policy toward the war between Iran and Iraq.
is difficult to belive that a diferrence of ideas, and the desire of the self- power, the bad relation with other country could make a lot of damage and coul destroy good people.

1. Now that the semester has come to an end, look at your goals you set for yourself at the beginning of the semester. Which of the goals did you achieve? Why did you achieve them?
my goal was to now more about the worl in the leanguage that is going to help in my work, and i achieve them with the work i did with the rality of irak and israel for example, and the investigations i did.
2. Which of the goals did you not achieve? What could you have done differently to achieve them?
i think that i need to work in my speaking and pronuciation, and i think is maybe i don't made the effort.
3. Read the competencies list for this level (you can find this in the syllabus on WebCT). Check which of them you could explain without difficulty today? How many did you check? Does this number satisfy your real goal for English?
at fierst was dificult, beacuase tha way that in usa regulary write essays is not teh same way we didi our essays, so with the explanation of the book and of course of erin we learn how to do it. and i can explain how tu do any essays that is in the syllabus.
4. Do you feel you applied yourself to improving your English abilities? Why or why not?
maybe i need to dadicated more time to my english studys, because his semester we rearly see english in other class, so sometimes i am very occupide and i dont't have the time to study more english.
5. Taking into account that at least 60% of our English courses will be content, what activities would you like to see happen with the other 40% of the time?
spend in spaking class
6. Overall, you deserve a ____4.3__________ as your final note in this class because…..i have the responsabilt to do all my homeworks with the efford or researching, reading and i interesting in the class.

my topic

i am going to talk about the palestinians and israel conflict, the actual problems that you found in those countries like all the misery and horros the television in that countri show. how the jews had to imigrate of the arid middle east trying to get fourtune in teh west, how the holocaust affect the jews, how they were rejecting and maltratated.
is importan to discover teh real beginings of the problem to try understand the reactions of the sociacity and make clear importans points.

my favorite carnival, was when 12 of my school friends and i went to the wacherna. at first everything was great, a lot of my boyfriends danced with the balarinas of the dance groups. them we went to la 79, that day was great, every body was jumping, and dacing with the music, everyone was buyng water to weap you, and teh greatest thing was that i was with my boyfriend and every of ourfriends.

the movie was about arab-israel conflict and the show us the horrible situation that harm both countries,teh way is getting worst and how the middle east is asking for help to another countriesand until the goverment, and the sociacity doesn't wanna make solutions.
so many people are going to be force to immigrate of their land cause teh suffering and the sadness that all his children are living, making them think to stop their life. so i can't say a strong solution for all this problems i only think that we have to be realistic others.

1) In which areas of language use have you improved, in your opinion?
i think that in this semester i had the oportunity to discover i new language related to my carrier, for example the video we saw about israel and palestine conflict.
2) Which areas of langauge use are still a problem?
The use of prepositions
3)Which areas of language use do you want to spend the most time on during the rest of the semester?
i want to work in my speaking because i think that i have to improve on that.
4)What type of classwork is most useful, in your opinion?
the one that evaluate you that fluency in the language
5)What can you personally do to increase your rate of progress?
i like to listen music and learn the songs, that helps me to improve my speaking and listening.
6)Do you have any other comments or suggestions about this class?
no i have not.

Improving proofreading skills

Improving proofreading skills

There were also several differences between Washington and Lincoln. Washington came from a wealthy aristocratic background. He had several years of schooling. Lincoln, instead, came from a poor background and had very little schooling. Another difference between the two involved their military roles. Washington was a general, a military leader. Some years later, he became president. On the other hand, Lincoln never served in the military. He was a lawyer who early on became a politician. When he became president, he took on the role of commander in chief, as all U.S. presidents do. Despite his lack of military background or training, Lincoln made several strategic decisions that enabled the U.S. military leaders to win the Civil War. Finally, Washington served for two terms and therefore had eight years to accomplish his policies. Lincoln, on the other hand, was assasinatedWhile in office and was not able to finish some of the things that he wanted for the country.

Serious Relationships.

Relationship is the age for illusion, when you want to gave all your love to preserve the person you want. Is a relationship necessary in young people?, with a relationship you are able to discover the existence of ideas, hope and feelings to share with your couple and even the parents, friends or siblings can’t share or be in those kind of feeling.

First, in a relationship love has to be a really serious thing and don’t play being in love because that damage the soul and the body. The relationship become in something coarse, common is like gave to everyone kisses with no feelings, cheating your self thinking that is just for fun, that situation can be hurtful.

When you are in a good relationship you desire the best thing to your couple, and enjoy with his success, and cry with his sadness, being in his say in the rocky roads of your relationship, to say words of support and gave him your sold without conditions.

Second, we need to realize that after being boyfriends have to be excellent friends, and in a constructive relationship exist the good trait main, respect, and care for each odder that’s were we don’t idealized our couple.

Sometimes when you are crazy in love with a person you don’t’ know well, you look at it, and see your man of your dreams, but all that is create by your mind, you gave him qualities that he doesn’t have, and it’s so far to have it.

Three, You need to know that the relationships either based in just physic attraction that’s when you are with a person just for how he looks, the only thing you do is kissing him and a have a great sex. Then both or one of them get tired, and this happens every time you want to begin a relationship. You have fall down in solitude loneliness this is when you begin and end a lot of relationships, now you don’t know the meaning of a serious relationship.

Finally I want that every young couple know that from three marriages two get divorce. For this you have to make a stop and think deeply in your relationship, a bad marriage is a consequent of a bad relationship.
The beginning of a relationship is the key of happiness and the disgrace of the 80% of our useful life.

A lot of young people think that is very difficulty to have a serious relationship because at this age we are trying new things, for this we sometimes think that is not necessary been with a person a long period of time, “we are young so we have the power to do anything”. That is an egocentric phrase that we often use, with this the only thing we get is make more mistakes and hurt people that cares about us.

In conclusion is not true that in some place is living your true love this thoughts is just poetry, useless romanticism. Love doesn’t create for himself; you have to work very hart to construct it. And the only way to do it is if we learn to respect and don’t fall in the mistakes of the bad relationships when we are younger.

HOW TO LIVE WITH OUR LIFE



I was just a proud soldier defending my country, in 1954 a World War was taking our people down, we did’t know what was exactly reason of this war that was destroying us, but in that age for being a good north American we decided to fight for our rights.

I remember that I was in the jungle just for 8 months, every single day I was so scared; not for the fire and the cadavers you could find in the fields of the jungle, was for the notice of a ambush. We were defenseless and without weapons, I was waiting for dying.

We suddenly were in a mine field we noticed, because I was victim of one of the thousands that hurt us. That war changed my life. Right now I am a quadriplegic an in june of these year I hope to marry a girl who is also paralyzed. At the present time, we both required the help of an attendant, but we have decided to marry.

We need attendant care, only a little while, in the morning, and at night. During the day, after we are in our chairs, we get around fairly well. We realized our life couldn’t be normal, as other knows it but is great for us. I will never forget that horrible episode of my life, but I m trying to be happy. We both received disability benefits, and I m able to earn a little money in additions, so I think that I am able to take our basic needs.

Now that I am grown I realized that we need to have respect to every person that has this condition. It s important to create for everyone consciousness of the importance to have the power of the courage, and the intelligence in over common disabilities.

Sometimes we see a blind or a quadriplegic guy even if is just an old-man that need help, we decided just to ignore him. So I think that we need to teach our students and kids that not everyone have lucky to being normal. So, just for see something that is wired for us not mean that we have to be bad with others.

Everything is for an evil reason




The conflict of Palestine and Israel people is one of the worst and it could be one of the biggest threads to peace and stability of the world. The attack of 9/11, the conflict in Iraq and all the problems with the integration of Islamic new comers in European people are at times all related to the problems in the holy land.

At these days, in Israel it was Jewish passing out to a public audience, hatred, discrimination, and daily humiliating violence. A North-American interesting in knowing Israel said that for traveled to a few others countries in the middle east, it was necessary for him, to come into Israel from bus transported from the Jordan side: “it was impossible to make it from Tel-Aviv with Arab stamps in his passport. The travel was faster just for being American”. (douweosinga.com/blog/o404/2004)


In the time of Christ there were many Jews that converted to Christianity, so their families and their descendents have stayed in Jerusalem. They have lived there for a long time and they are the responsible for all the holy sites being preserved.


Before the Nazi’s horrors, many Jews left the arid Middle East trying to get a fortune in the west, not just Germany. They were blessed and very fortuned in their new lifes, when they left, the people who all ready lived in the Middle East grew, populated and remained in the area. The neighboring areas did infiltrate it, since that region was populated of “Roaming Farmers” called Bedouwings were peaceful people that lived in the land now call Israel.

The whole world was affected by the holocaust. The Europeans and Americans did not want the Jews to immigrate all of the sudden to their continents, so they knew they needed to do something, they tried with a lot of places, including to Africa “Ultimately, in the presence of “Zionist” (which meant something different then, and was relatively new in its formation) pushed for the holy land, calling it, ‘land with no people for a people with no land’ …which was a lie. Following these international decision people needed to know that there were people, and they armed Jews, and trained an Israel army” (douweosinga.com/blog/o404/2004)


The soldiers told the village that they were protecting them and that they had to leave their homes and belongings and run to nearby groves and wait there. The soldiers never came back. When they returned to their homes, they saw that they were occupied, other villages were razed. From here, came confusion, hatred, and millions of refuges. Palestine at first believed the international community would certainly see that was happening their people, but eventually grew clear that it would not happen. These sowed the seed for bitterness toward the west.

hola

hi, this is my new blog....Finally I have one...jejeje....