I got into a discussion with a friend the other day in which I
asserted that Iraq and Iran had acted as buffers against each other,
ensuring that there was no dominant military power in the Middle East
(other than Israel).  When I made this assertion, my friend asked, if
that were the case, why would the Iranians have allowed Sadaam to park
his airforce on Iranian soil during the 1990/91 Gulf war.

What a great question.  I have found evidence that in fact some 120
Iraqi MIGs were given safe passage into Iran.  Yet, I believe Iraq and
Iran continued to maintain their personal cold war up until the U.S.
invaded Iraq last year.   Am I incorrect?  If not (i.e., Iraq and Iran
continue to hate each other), why would the Iranians accommodate the
Iraqis, expecially after losing 100s of 1,000s during the 80's to the
mad-man of Baghdad?

IBhoneyman, 

A mystery indeed. According to a reliable website, it is unknown
whether or not it has been all planned, due to the fact that Saddam
knew that the coalition forces are patrolling the border with Jordan,
a friendlier neighbour, and that he in fact has no choice. But the
Iranians did not return the planes: "Once the war had ended, Iraq of
course attempted to recover its planes, but Iran was in no mood to
return such advanced war materiel to a nation it had fought a long and
bloody war against just a few short years before. Iran has claimed a
staggering $1 trillion in reparations for damages suffered during that
conflict, and has thus far refused to return the aircraft until its
demands are met. "
(SOURCE: "Iraqi Warplanes Flee to Iran", Aerospace Web,
<http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0071.shtml>).

I am not so sure that Iran and Iraq acted as a buffer against each other
More, that Iraq, with American support, fought what it saw as an alien
(Islamist) regime. Iraq was/is a bit like Yugoslavia, a collection of
disparate 'tribes' held together by a brutal regime.

The Iraqi airforce was doomed, for the Iraqis, they saved some face,
and had nothing to lose. For the Iranians, it was a very nice gift,
and a way of sticking up two fingers at the USA.

I've often wondered what happened to the Iraqi pilots.

Contrary to some large overblown self-promoting filmmakers amongst us,
Saudi Arabia was the direct beneficiary of the Iran/Iraq war as it put
a secular fascist state between itself and a revolutionary Shiite
state.

American policy was to contain the threat from Iran?s revolution (once
it became clear that the Khomeni faction had won the day; not a
foregone conclusion in 1979 /1980 at all) and stop it spreading to
other Shiite states in the region. Saudi policy was to keep Iran busy
with other things so they would not disturb the masses at home. This
bursts the bubble of the corpulent one as the 2003 invasion was
definitely not in the Saudis interest.

American help to Iraq during the 1981-1988 Iran/Iraq war was not
material but intelligence data. The Iraqi army was armed with Soviet
and Communist block armaments (look at the battlefield footage of the
1990/91 war and this one and try spot any US arms used by Iraqi
forces).

The decision to fly the planes to a recent enemy Iran rather then at
the UN forces in combat in the first Gulf war was a strange one
indeed, but when Saddam did it again the second time around (not use
his air force, that is) it became even stranger. The recovery of
planes covered in sand in the deserts gives the impression that they
expected to come back and recover them later. How he expected to
retrieve the planes he sent to Iran just two years after a hastily
arranged armistice in 1988 is a mystery.
The Dulfer report gives us some indication of how Saddam?s system
worked, in that he was the be-all-and end-all of the matter, and the
ministers jumped on command.

Hiding them under the sands of the desert was a better plan but
allowing the enemy ? especially this US military ? the control of the
skies was a disaster and more than anything else made sure the
fighting only lasted 20 days and not more. The US tactics are to gain
control of the skies and then to pound enemy positions long before the
battle groups arrive to mop up what?s left. As the enemy retreats, it
is hammered over and over again until it?s destroyed as an effective
fighting force. If it deploys it?s a sitting target and if it moves it
is picked off bit-by-bit. Any air support that the Iraqis could put up
would have helped although the end result would not have been in
doubt.

Anvil,
Surely, the Saudi brand of fundamentalist is a very different beast
from the Iranian Shiite fundamentalists. The Saudi's fear of
'revolutionaries' was, and still is, of their home grown variety.

I would have thought that Iraq was a much bigger external threat to
Saudi, than Iran. One could say that Saudi benefited because it
diverted the attentions of a secular Baathist (not Fascist) neighbour.
Although one could say that Kuwait benefitted even more.

The Saudis had long been tooling up with US and British military kit,
hence Iraq's armaments would tend to come from the Eastern bloc. I
think that major arms deals come with a 'non compete' clause - ie: you
don't sell to both sides if one side has major purchasing power.

I do remember reading that the family of every Iraqi killed fighting
Iran was entitled to a Packard automabile - it made me sit up at the
time. A curious form of American support.

Hi frde-ga 

Yes, Saudi fundamentalism is very different from the Iranian type, but
remember that in 1979 the Iranian revolution was seen amongst
countries with Shiite populations as a very dynamic time when anything
could happen. The Saudi fundamentalism is of the Wahhabi type, a
puritanical Saudi Islamic sect founded by Muhammad ibn-Abd-al-Wahab
(1703?1792), which regards all other sects as heretical. Wahhabi
fundamentalism has spread to other Islamic countries like Pakistan but
not to Iran.

And things were happening:  ?In Nov. 1979 during the Haj or pilgrimage
to the Great Muslim Mosque at Mecca, it was occupied by some fanatical
Wahhabi Muslims which resulted in the death of 102 rebels and 27 Saudi
security forces over the two weeks of ensuing conflict. In Jan. 1980,
63 of the rebels arrested were publicly beheaded. In Dec. 1980 riots
took place in the towns of the Shiite Muslims after they were inspired
by the Kohmeini's Shiite Revolution in Iran.? ? (Altapedia Online)

American interests in the Middle East are, for the most part, limited
to two aims. The steady supply (not control) of oil to the world
economy and a stable political stage in the region. If that means
support for a thug then so be it; it was the Cold War after all. The
Iranian revolution forced the Americans to alter their politics in the
region, and Saudi Arabia was looking for help at the time. Saddam
wanted to invade Iran but not Saudi at the time (the reasons are
unclear to me. Saddam appears to have wanted to be big man on campus
and saw an opportunity with a weak Iran) and the US and Saudis thanked
their lucky stars for the break. Iran becomes preoccupied with
consolidating its revolution internally and saving it from outside
aggression, the Saudis can stamp out any rumblings from within its
borders (you?re right, Kuwait can too) and America gets a few new
buddies in the region.

Of course we cannot forget the invasion of Afghanistan late in 1979
and the effect that that conflict would have on world politics later.
Also, Iran recovers from the early military setbacks in their war with
Iraq and, once secure at home, goes onto the ?diplomatic? offensive by
supporting Islamic terror groups in Lebanon (Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah
? remember the Marine barracks in Beirut), Syria and elsewhere. They
played the factions in both the Afghanistan and the Lebanese civil
wars (remember the abductions of foreigners in Beirut, it?s déjà vu
all over again!)

As for the Packard reference, I was under the impression that Packard
went out of business in the 1960?s (they merged with Studebaker .in
1962 I think). It must be remembered that America was popular in the
Middle East into the 1970?s and that support soured mostly after the
Yom Kippur war in 1973 when America brazenly supported Israel with
weapons shipments after the initial successes by the Egyptians
(hosepipes at ten paces!). Things looked bleak for a while, and rumour
has it that Israeli Prime minister Golda Meir was about to break out
the nukes when the US arms saved the day for Israel. They allowed
Israel to replace their tank losses and go onto the offensive. (Iraqi
soldiers fought on the Golan Heights in that war, by the way)

The oil crisis of 1973 was a direct attempt by oil producing countries
to punish America for supporting Israel but it also led to the third
world debt crisis and two decades of low to no growth in the third
world. Only now are they growing at 1960?s rates (globalisation, ?ya
know!).

Actually Sadam was tricked and those planes were never returned to
Sadam after 91 war.  Remember, Sadam destroyed many cities,
industries, and killed almost 1M in Iran-Iraq War and this was small
compensation back from Sadam.

You seem to have a fair hindsight of the regional mess.
Your views are not entirely the same as mine, but our viewpoints are
probably different. Perspective plays tricks, as does seeing behind
things from a different angle.

<quote>
Yes, Saudi fundamentalism is very different from the Iranian type, but
remember that in 1979 the Iranian revolution was seen amongst
countries with Shiite populations as a very dynamic time when anything
could happen.
</quote>

I remember it vividly, and was disgusted by the lack of 'moral'
support that America (and the rest) gave the Shah. It was a classic
replay of 1917 in Russia, when the developing middle classes got
hacked off.
The Savak atrocities were nothing to what followed.
Personally I blame Jimmy Carter - with serious support, the mess would
not have happened. As it was, the established regime (very USA
supported) lost their support. Also the Iranian 'Mensheviks' got
shafted.

<quote>
 The Saudi fundamentalism is of the Wahhabi type, a
puritanical Saudi Islamic sect founded by Muhammad ibn-Abd-al-Wahab
(1703?1792), which regards all other sects as heretical. Wahhabi
fundamentalism has spread to other Islamic countries like Pakistan but
not to Iran.

And things were happening:  ?In Nov. 1979 during the Haj or pilgrimage
to the Great Muslim Mosque at Mecca, it was occupied by some fanatical
Wahhabi Muslims which resulted in the death of 102 rebels and 27 Saudi
security forces over the two weeks of ensuing conflict. In Jan. 1980,
63 of the rebels arrested were publicly beheaded. In Dec. 1980 riots
took place in the towns of the Shiite Muslims after they were inspired
by the Kohmeini's Shiite Revolution in Iran.? ? (Altapedia Online)
</quote>

I remember.
However - think back to Afghanistan, the Russians understood the
problem first, or rather before Europe/USA.

<quote>
American interests in the Middle East are, for the most part, limited
to two aims. The steady supply (not control) of oil to the world
economy and a stable political stage in the region. 
</quote>

Just prior to the latest invasion of Iraq, I was privy to some pretty
interesting insights into how an influential part of the way the USA
thinks.
I was appalled - it is not as you describe/believe.

<quote>
If that means support for a thug then so be it; 
</quote>

Thugs are best at controlling volatile countries. Pragmatism.

<quote>
it was the Cold War after all. 
</quote>

Anyone with any sense could see that the Russian Empire was decaying
at the borders, and we were helping that decay.
Now they have drawn back to Chechnya, but provide 'rapid suport' to
surrounding states.
The Cold War had mutated.

<quote>
The Iranian revolution forced the Americans to alter their politics in the
region, 
</quote>

Their Allies had become enemies. I have it on fairly good contemporary
authority that the US envisaged a 'triangle' locking together Iran,
Egypt and Israel - it sounds daft now, but I am sure that it was the
view in 1997(?)

<quote>
and Saudi Arabia was looking for help at the time. 
</quote>

Us Brits, what sorted out Oman, and terrorised insurgents for others,
and had done so for many years, were not looking up to the job ?
Probably true.

<quote>
Saddam wanted to invade Iran but not Saudi at the time (the reasons are
unclear to me. 
</quote>

I never understood it, the Kurds, no problem, but why Iran ?
Oddly fairly recently on the Net, somebody explained that it was a
territorial scrap. I think he just wanted to hang onto Basra.

<quote>
Saddam appears to have wanted to be big man on campus
and saw an opportunity with a weak Iran) and the US and Saudis thanked
their lucky stars for the break. Iran becomes preoccupied with
consolidating its revolution internally and saving it from outside
aggression, the Saudis can stamp out any rumblings from within its
borders (you?re right, Kuwait can too) and America gets a few new
buddies in the region.
</quote>

Seeing a couple of large guys scrapping normally sends people for cover.


<quote>
Of course we cannot forget the invasion of Afghanistan late in 1979
and the effect that that conflict would have on world politics later.
</quote>

At the time I strongly believed that we should have helped the Russians

<quote>
Also, Iran recovers from the early military setbacks in their war with
Iraq and, once secure at home, goes onto the ?diplomatic? offensive by
supporting Islamic terror groups in Lebanon (Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah
? remember the Marine barracks in Beirut), Syria and elsewhere. They
played the factions in both the Afghanistan and the Lebanese civil
wars (remember the abductions of foreigners in Beirut, it?s déjà vu
all over again!)
</quote>

Qadaffi, who is now a fully rehabiliated saviour (and I am not being
sarcastic) did just the same - spooks just like screwing up their
perceived enemies, and often get out of control.
'My enemy's enemy is often a very nasty piece of work' - is not
generally understood

<quote>
As for the Packard reference, I was under the impression that Packard
went out of business in the 1960?s (they merged with Studebaker .in
1962 I think). 
</quote>

An old memory, but one that stuck in my mind.
- you can be sure that the car brand was not Renault.
I'm inclined to trust the outline of the memory, details might vary slightly...

<quote>
It must be remembered that America was popular in the
Middle East into the 1970?s and that support soured mostly after the
Yom Kippur war in 1973 when America brazenly supported Israel with
weapons shipments after the initial successes by the Egyptians
(hosepipes at ten paces!). Things looked bleak for a while, and rumour
has it that Israeli Prime minister Golda Meir was about to break out
the nukes when the US arms saved the day for Israel. They allowed
Israel to replace their tank losses and go onto the offensive. (Iraqi
soldiers fought on the Golan Heights in that war, by the way)
</quote>

Malcontents fight anywhere, sometimes, if they are lucky, they even
get paid for it.

What about 1967 - that must have narked them - and 1948
Curious that Jordan is rather uninterested in the West Bank
- and Egypt really is not interested in the Gaza Strip

<quote>
The oil crisis of 1973 was a direct attempt by oil producing countries
to punish America for supporting Israel but it also led to the third
world debt crisis and two decades of low to no growth in the third
world. Only now are they growing at 1960?s rates (globalisation, ?ya
know!).
</quote>

At the time I felt it was more a financial thing, like the 'oil
squeeze' that is going on now.  I would never be so seditious as to
suggest that oil companies like high oil prices, or that Governments
can see the advantages of diverting funds from direct consumption to
'offshore saving' - and we all know that 'savings' need to be
invested.

It is very interesting seeing a different 'take' on things that I have
observed and always found hard to understand (human stupidity is
unpredictable).

Perhaps, to avoid abuse of GA, someone should suggest an alternative
venue for discussion.

Hi again frde-ga

Quote:"Perhaps, to avoid abuse of GA, someone should suggest an alternative
venue for discussion."

Yes, that would be a good idea. I am fascinated (in a very informal
kind of way) by all this. There are so many factors that play on
history with, as you put it, perspectives that alter values and
provide endorsement of or discount to events.

It appears to as though these fundamentalist types see that their time
has arrived. The word on the Arab political street is that Bin Laden
jumped the gun and, by attacking America directly, has brought the US
into the region. Now the Americans will not leave for decades.

America is the only country that has the ability and the will to fight
an enemy like Islamic fundamentalism of the Bin Laden type. Britain
will do it?s bit because Blair rightly sees Britain in the Western
camp and not the Postmodern Statists that Europe has become. The
Europeans, unarmed and vulnerable to structuralist political thought
and who will be at the swords edge within decades, are too weak to
even stop immigrants let alone armed groups.

Go to the Google groups and search my handle anvil19. My email address is there.