Should the US have supported Iraq in its war against Iran?

once the war turned against Iraq, there wasn't much of a choice. Having Iran overrun Iraq and then be within striking distance of the rest of the Gulf states would have been ghastly for the west in general. When it comes to the Gulf in general, the USA doesn't have a lot of good choices...
 
The U.S lost their "puppet" in Iran and funded Iraq to make them the more dominate power in the region as Iran held that title before (and I'd say still does) in the middle east. In terms of what they should have done it depends on how you look at it. If you look at it purely strategically then yes, as they were trying to keep have a nation friendly to them the dominate power in the region, if you look at it in most other ways then no, just because of the war itself and the aftermath that it caused.
 
The U.S lost their "puppet" in Iran and funded Iraq to make them the more dominate power in the region as Iran held that title before (and I'd say still does) in the middle east. In terms of what they should have done it depends on how you look at it. If you look at it purely strategically then yes, as they were trying to keep have a nation friendly to them the dominate power in the region, if you look at it in most other ways then no, just because of the war itself and the aftermath that it caused.
um...no. The US wasn't trying to make Iraq the dominant power in the region... they just wanted Iran to be stymied at Iraq's border so they couldn't sweep down around the Gulf. The war ended up being just about ideal for the US in that neither side gained anything. It's notable that the US had practically nothing to do with Iraq before the war, and not much to do with them afterwards. The aftermath of the war was handled badly, for certain, mainly in that the US didn't make it clear that we wanted Iraq to stay out of Kuwait. A stronger and clearer message would have saved a lot of grief...
 

hipper

Banned
Should the US (and other nations) have supported Iraq during its war against Iran?

Kuwait bankrolled Iraq, the French sold them weapons, Jordan was a significant backer. Bob Woodward reported in the NYT

"The Central Intelligence Agency has been secretly supplying Iraq with detailed intelligence, including data from sensitive U.S. satellite reconnaissance photography, to assist Iraqi bombing raids on Iran's oil terminals and power plants in the war between the two nations, according to informed sources."

So the answer is that the US and other nations did in fact support Iraq

Considering the relationship between Tehran and Washington its unsurprising. The part that amazed me was Washington Secretly Helping Iran later in the war.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
A stronger and clearer message would have saved a lot of grief...
Ironically, it would have also resulted in Iraq successfully building nuclear weapons a couple of years later.

Should the US (and other nations) have supported Iraq during its war against Iran?
No; after all, it was in U.S. interests to prevent Iran from installing a puppet regime in Iraq.

However, we should have overthrown Saddam Hussein back in 1991. :(
 
No; after all, it was in U.S. interests to prevent Iran from installing a puppet regime in Iraq.

However, we should have overthrown Saddam Hussein back in 1991. :(

But overthrowing Hussein meant a shiite dominated Iraq, which naturally gravitated toward Iran, as we've seen. The present regime in Baghdad may not be "a puppet" of Iran but the latter sure has more influence in Iraq than it did under Saddam.
 

hipper

Banned
the realpolitik part is right, the revenge part isn't; it wasn't the main goal anyway.

this was the main goal.

You,re more confident than me that US policy at the time had a Main goal. unless it was keeping the region in Chaos of course - they armed both sides!
 

CaliGuy

Banned
But overthrowing Hussein meant a shiite dominated Iraq, which naturally gravitated toward Iran, as we've seen. The present regime in Baghdad may not be "a puppet" of Iran but the latter sure has more influence in Iraq than it did under Saddam.
It's still worth it, IMHO. Indeed, I would rather have a more influential Iran in the Middle East than have Saddam Hussein remain in power. Basically, Saddam was too much of a nuisance for us--we had to constantly monitor him for years after the Gulf War.

Basically, I'd prefer to deal with one more powerful adversary than to deal with two adversaries. Plus, even a more powerful Iran is easier to manage than Saddam was.
 
You,re more confident than me that US policy at the time had a Main goal. unless it was keeping the region in Chaos of course - they armed both sides!
not so much 'keeping it in chaos' as in 'hoping both sides lose'. Which is pretty much what happened. Both sides ended up weaker and poorer, and Iran never swept through Iraq down into the rest of the Gulf states. The problem was the aftermath, and the US blew it completely there by not making it clear to Saddam that we didn't want him invading Kuwait...
 
It's still worth it, IMHO. Indeed, I would rather have a more influential Iran in the Middle East than have Saddam Hussein remain in power. Basically, Saddam was too much of a nuisance for us--we had to constantly monitor him for years after the Gulf War.

With the exception of the 1990-91 period, he wasn't much problem; he was even a quasi ally in the '80s. And he was effectively neutralized after '91. Frustrated by his failure, after '91 he spent a lot of time writing fantasy novels.

Basically, I'd prefer to deal with one more powerful adversary than to deal with two adversaries. Plus, even a more powerful Iran is easier to manage than Saddam was.

That's debatable. Iran has pretty big ambitions, and is presently extending its influence farther than Saddam ever did. Saddam may have seemed untrustworthy after 1990, but had the US negotiated after '91 it might've been able to use him as a renewed counter to Iran so that the "two adversaries" canceled each other out in a sense.
 
Well my understanding is Saddam would have tried to restore the Monarchy in some form to try to keep the radical Shi'as down there to prevent them from encouraging Shi'as in Iraq.

I've always wondered whether or not the Iranian theocracy would have survived in the hills etc in the same way that Sunni Islamists did in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Could be really interesting to see what happens if Saddam wins a massive victory somehow, maybe a more "revanchist" US regime wanting to wipe away their sins gives more support to Saddam?
 
Should the US (and other nations) have supported Iraq during its war against Iran?
hmm well to a certain extent it did, and so did other western nations. A bad choice, which would have been made even worse by active military support
 
hmm well to a certain extent it did, and so did other western nations. A bad choice, which would have been made even worse by active military support
I don't think the OP is arguing that we didn't, but whether it was the correct thing to do. As I've noted before, it wasn't a great choice, but it was the best of a bad set of choices...
 
Top