“Animosity to Peace’’

This is a translation of the book in Arabic namely “Animosity to Peace’’ which was circulated in Shahrivar 1365 (Aug. 1986) by the War Information Headquarters commemorating the 7th Anniversary of the Imposed Iraq-Iran War.
First printed in English: 1987 by Kayhan Press on the occasion of war week, 22-28 September, 1987, in the eighth year of war.
"The sacred month of the sacred month and all sacred things are (under the law of) retaliation; whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you and be careful (of your duty) to Allah and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil). The Holy Qur'an, Sura Baqarah, Ayah 194
Following the principles of Islam, we are always against waging war and would like that peace and tranquility prevail over the world. But if they force us to fight, our entire nation will be ready to encounter them, and we will respond with all our might, even if all the superpowers support it. Since we recognize martyrdom as a sublime duty and our nation accepts martyrdom heartily and willingly, we won't have any fear of war and are good fighters, but we don't like war to take place.
IMAM KHOMEINI
*Excerpt from the speech of Habib Shatti, ex-secretary general to the Islamic conference (28.7.59 corresponding to 1980) Ref. Collection namely â€کIn search of the Way’, Speeches of Imam -Second Vol. (War & Jihad) p.l30

INTRODUCTION
Since the institution of the Islamic Republic in Iran by Ayatollah Khomeini, the international arrogant powers have missed no opportunity to deride and plot against it. The fresh hope which the new dawn of shining Islam, after centuries of following this or that big power, has brought to the peoples, made the powers, who wish the oppressed peoples to remain oppressed so that they can be milked readily as cows for the benefit of others but themselves perish from hunger, has made the powers to ponder over the matter. But, the perpetuation of the Islamic revolution and its daily increasing victories attracted peoples around it more and more. The feelings of nations, which see how these new conditions differ from their own, have all made the arrogant powers to hatch fresh plots against the Islamic Revolution.
The general popularity and acceptance of the Islamic Republic, and the independent position it has assumed against the interests of world colonial powers, has placed it in the front line of countries fighting colonial powers.
The severance of diplomatic and economic relations with the Zionist regime, and making available this regime's embassy in Tehran to the Palestinian nation, defending Palestine and the interest of the Islamic Republic in liberating this part of the Islamic world, severing of diplomatic relations with the South African apartheid regime and other positions assumed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, all prove the validity and justness of the policies that the Islamic Republic has set for itself.
With each passing day, the arrogant powers feel more threatened by the Islamic Republic of Iran and consider it a new danger against their interests. Dreadful nightmares haunt the leaders of the arrogant powers making them feel miserable. Therefore, they struggle to stand up against the devastating torrent that has threatened their bastions of power. Instigating with and through their puppet regimes is their first step and they have used all sorts of weapons against this Islamic movement.
Were it not for the aid and planning of the colonial regimes, the aggression by the Ba'athist regime ruling in Baghdad against Iran would not have taken place. The evidence of this fact is great. The colonial powers, while instructing their allies, asked not to withhold any moral and material support to the Baghdad regime -aid that has not yet been curtailed, rather it continues by sending pilots and fighting men under the pretense of aiding "Saddam's Qadessiah" war.
The first and the last objective of this aggression has been and is to destroy the new Islamic Republic order in Iran which the present book clearly establishes. This is also the wish of many of the dictatorial regimes of the region. This is because these regimes in their contact with Iran and in the successful experience of this country have become acquainted with a system that has aroused millions of Muslims to think and act to establish Islamic rules in their own countries. The confrontation of underprivileged nations against corrupt ruling regimes in their own countries has brought on a more savage and expansive aggression against the Islamic movement.
The barbaric approach of the criminal Ba'ath Party of Iraq provides the best examples of this party's savagery in its fight with Islam, having destroyed some strongholds of the arrogant powers. The Baghdad "gestapos" have killed many Iraqis including older residents of Baghdad, many of whom died under torture and many more who are being kept in dungeons. They also closed down many Islamic schools and institutions. They prevented promotion of religious books. They particularly prevented the printing and publication of the works of Islam's great martyred scholar, Sayid Muhammad Baqir Sadr (qs) and covered up the facts behind his murder and that of his sister Bint al Huda. These actions are not only in the nature of the lowliest people but also indicate the vice and meanness of the colonial powers.
The ulema (learned Muslim scholars) and philosophical thinkers have experienced unimaginable injustice and oppression at the hands of the Ba'ath Party agents. Many were sent to the gallows and many others were killed. Consequently Islam experienced an irreparable loss. The Islamic Republic believes in the necessity of prosecuting the aggressor who has become manifest in the form of the hireling regime of the Ba'ath Party of Iraq. The Islamic regime also wishes to receive compensation for the losses it has suffered as the result of this aggression. This is our natural right.
Finally we must point to the damages and the destruction that this hireling regime has caused to our scientific and economic organizations about which, he has lately found the nerve to boast. One of the objectives of this aggression against our Islamic Republic is to destroy the scientific and economic centers by means of which it can fulfill the desires of its faithful and believing people and present them with tangible outcomes. The destruction of these economic objectives result in a stoppage of our development plans and it in turn only delays the timely realization and fulfillment of the rights to which people, who believe in the Islamic Revolution, are entitled. However, this objective of the colonialists did not materialize and our peoples' firm faith in their revolution neutralized it.
The people tried with all their means and possibilities to continue the successes of the revolution in all areas. In spite of economic difficulties including sanctions and boycotts, they went on fighting and the battlefields are the best proof of the power of faith and belief in miracles which, until recently, were considered impossible by world military experts and observers.
It is necessary to point out that in spite of clear-cut proof pointing to Iraq as the perpetrator of this war against the Islamic Revolution of Iran, the world media, with all their means, tried, during the war years, to misguide world public opinion and keep it from attending to the war, whereas the world media should have clearly identified Iraq as the aggressor from the outset of the war.
-Why doesn't the Islamic Republic of Iran agree to sign a peace treaty with Iraq?
-Why does the Islamic Republic of Iran insist on establishing Saddam as the perpetrator of the war and why does it seek his punishment?
Some of the mass media even dare say: "Well, a war has broken out and there is no way to prove who started it. We don't want to know. What matters is to stop it and sit at a roundtable for negotiations.
Each media or news reporter and writer can, in a short time, have access to the information about this war before and after it was started. Apart from the offices of presidents and kings, each newspaper, magazine and radio broadcasting system have huge archives at their disposal enabling them to obtain the desired information in a very short time.
This book is a short attempt and reminder of the most important information relating to the invasion of Iran by Iraq. In writing this book reliable sources have been used. Some of this information is on tape, other on videotape with the voices of their speakers. The purpose of this work is to address those who seek the truth and wish to understand how the event exactly took place -these are People who are the objects of malicious and misleading propaganda and are opposed to incessant invasions of lies and falsehoods.
And now, the truth, as it is, is stated in this book and is presented for the dear readers.
War Information Headquarters
Supreme Defense Council
Islamic Republic of Iran

PREFACE

First Discourse
This book has been based on the following essential thoughts: Whenever a war is started by one country against another, it is usual that its specific objectives can be derived or understood from the words and statements of those who have started it. The objectives of the perpetrator of this war are easily discernible when he says: "I have arrived at all the objectives for which this war was started and therefore, I unilaterally declare the end of it."
The Iraqi regime, as we read in this book, had been arming, rearming and fortifying and economically strengthening itself for war against Iran ever since 1975 (1353) after signing the Algerian treaty, the treaty that was deemed to end forever the disputes that had existed between the two countries.
However, on 7/9/1980 (16/6/1359) at dawn, the Iraqi regime began its aggressive war against Iran by sending its troops into this country. It began occupying lands and areas, which Saddam claimed at that time, were usurped Iraqi lands. On 22/9/1980 (31/6/1359), he launched an all out attack by land, air and sea.
The declared objectives for the aggression of Iraq at the start of the war were based on the following premises:
1. Repossessing the islands of Abu Musa and the Bigger and Lesser Thumbs. Saddam posed this point by mid-1979 (early 1357). On June 16, 1980 the following problem confronted this regime.
2. The claimed usurped Iraqi lands which, alleged by the Iraqi regime, should be returned to this country on the basis of the l975 Algerian Treaty through mutual negotiations by delegates of both sides as stated in the Algerian Treaty of 1975. However, the Iraqi delegation walked out of the negotiations, which were being held at Tehran in 1978 (1357). In spite of this, the fact that no mention of the Iraqi usurped lands was made in that country's mass media nor by its authorities during the one year of war propaganda against Iran raises the questions why the Iraqi regime has tackled during the period on these three Islands and on the rights of non- Persian minorities that had nothing to do with it and insisted on these points while it remained completely silent over territorial matters which later shall be claimed as Iraqi territory?
3. Securing the rights of non-Persian minorities that used to form one of the Iraqi objectives and later the government of Iraq found it an obstacle in establishing relations between the two countries, made this government request establishment of autonomous governments for these minorities such as the governments of Khuzestan, Azarbaijan, Baluchestan and Kurdestan inside Iran. This book studies dozens of examples of Iraq's outright interference in the internal problems of Iran.
These interferences by Iraq, as testified to by Iraqi authorities include financial and military cases that have been made available to the corrupt elements of the former regime and its SAVAK stooges.
But now, the Iraqi regime has maintained silence concerning minority rights who, according to Iraqi authorities had been maltreated.
4. Gaining complete control of the Arvandrud. The Iraqi regime abrogated the 1975 Algerian Treaty on 17/9/1980 (26/6/1359). As confessed by Saddam Hussein, his regime has meant to cancel this treaty ever since it had been signed. By the end of June 1980 (Khordad 1359) when Naeem Haddad announced that its country is going to reassert its rights to the other coastal section of the Arvandrud by force, which, as claimed by Saddam was forcefully usurped by Iran. He called for the practical abrogation of the 1975 Algerian Treaty. Whereas, legal facts and data are available to the effect that even before the 1975 Algerian Treaty, the Arvandrud never wholly belonged to Iraq. Nevertheless, we notice, after a war that has lasted six years and the Iraqi regime claimed complete control of this waterway from the beginning of the year, in his last peace proposal dated 2/8/1987 (11 Mordad 1365) Saddam made no mention or reference to this problem.
5. Geographical Depth -The Iraqi Regime, following withdrawals of parts of its forces and after admitting defeat in the battlefield, announced that it has had no intention of entering Iranian territory, but what made him enter these land areas has been lack of geographical depth and that this aggression has been merely to remove Iranian artillery from Iraqi borders. We will not dwell on this point, the book has described in detail all of the objectives of Iraq in waging war on Iran.
Although none of above objectives was realized by Iraq, for their realization required acceptance by Iran of the proposed Iraqi conditions, yet, the Iraqi regime insisted on peace and the acceptance of its conditions. It was persuaded in this by some of the countries who urged it to fight or otherwise helped it.
The story of Saddam is reminiscent of one about a thief who had entered a house for robbery, but upon being caught red-handed and after having killed a member of the household and set fire to a part of the house was captured by the homeowner and the thief begged forgiveness and arranged for some others to intercede on his behalf and have him accept peace. If the owner of the house would not accept these terms, he would be called obstinate and head-strong. The owner of the house is not even given the right to insist on prosecution of the thief.
Some countries protest Iran's insistence on the fall of Saddam and his prosecution in an international court of justice. They claim this to be an internal matter, which concerns the people of Iraq. The present book has studied this point in detail on the basis of the methods used by the allies in World War II.
When Allied Forces were advancing toward Berlin, their excuse for this action was to overthrow the fascist regime that had devastated European countries. And when Hitler committed suicide, the Allied Forces continued their advancement on Berlin saying they wanted to prevent the formation of a fascist regime, which would inherit the Third Reich. At last the probability of the formation of a fascist regime became the excuse of the Allied Forces, advancement on Berlin. Even when the Allies realized that the formation of a neo-Nazi government was completely non-existent, their military commanders proceeded to Berlin for the court prosecution of the leader of Nazism.
At last, the Allies, who were not German, set up a court in the city of where Nazis usually held their major conferences. They tried many Nazi leaders in court and convicted some of them to death. Now, what difference is there between the Islamic Republic of Iran, invaded by Iraq in its request that Saddam be tried as a war criminal and asking for Hitler's head by the Allies?
Finally, assuming the signing of a peace treaty with Saddam, which will never come about, there shall be no guarantee that it will last because after 5 years or more Saddam will claim that at the time of signing the treaty he had been subject to injustice, just as he made a similar claim after the 1975 Treaty in Algeria. He claimed that the treaty had been imposed on him and therefore he annuls it unilaterally (17/9/1980) (26/6/1359). But we have proof that Saddam had repealed this treaty four months before this when his defense minister rescinded it.
Fortunately, we have a tape in hand in which Saddam says that if he sits at a peace table with Iran, he will not speak frankly and clearly.
Therefore what guarantee is there that, five or ten years after signing a peace treaty, Saddam may not claim that he has been a subject of injustice and not say that the conditions of the contract have been unfair for him and therefore he unilaterally repeals the agreement and starts a new full-fledged war of national liberation? Exactly as he has done with the Algerian Treaty of 1975.
At the conclusion, let us remember that none of Saddam's objectives for starting the imposed war has been realized. Because, Iran did not accept Iraq's absolute control of the Arvandrud and does not want the stretches of its land occupied by Iraqi forces on 7/9/1980 (16/6/1359) and after this date to remain in Iraqi hands. Also, the self-governments, which Saddam had wanted for Khuzestan, Baluchestan, Azarbaijan and Kurdestan, have not come into being. Notwithstanding all this, we see that Saddam wants Iran a country that has been invaded -to accept peace. Would it not be better if Saddam announces to the whole world that none of these objectives have been realized and that he has lost the war?
This book shall make a survey of the real objectives of Iraq behind its aggression, which is to overthrow the Islamic Republic in Iran.

An Important Explanation
The present survey and analysis has been made mostly on the basis of texts recorded on cassette tapes, videotapes or videocassette tapes.

CHAPTER ONE

WHEN DID THE WAR START?
Violation of peace means preparation, administration, the start or continuation of an aggressive war or challenging peace by violation of treaties, contrary to international agreements. It also implies creating unrest and instability or participation in any schemes and or group planning having one of the above intentions.
Article 6-para A of the charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal.
"We have now acquired the necessary military power to retake the three Arabian islands that have been occupied by Iran. Contrary to what some may think, we have been neither quiet, and nor idle since the occupation of these islands in March 1975 (Esfand 1353). Rather, since that time and following a war of attrition with the shah, we have enhanced our military and economic might."
Saddam Hussein's press conference on 20/7/1980 (29/4/1359) as quoted in the Kuwaiti newspaper â€کAl-Siasat', issued dated July 22, 1980 (Tir 29, 1359).
Q: Is it possible to state the reasons for the excessively strained, relations between Iran or Iraq following the fall of the shah?
A: "Saadoon Hamadi: "I don't think the shah's fall has had any special effect on the relations of Iran and Iraq. Rather, the period from 1975 to 1978 (1354 to 1357), which culminated in shah’s fall, is considered a breathing spell in these relationsâ€‌
From 'Al-Qabass', Kuwaiti newspaper issue dated Oct. 2, 1980 (Mehr 10, 1359).
On June 29. 1980 (Tir 8, 1365). Saddam Hussein, in order to show off his matchless genius, gave a speech in the presence of a good number of Iraqi Army personnel. Analyzing the situation, he made astonishing remarks in his conclusion. He said that since 1977 (1356), he had been expecting the plot that was being planned against Iraq and in about 1980 (1359) it was executed. He had added that: "His friends had accepted his predictions on this subject even though he had not given any proof or reason for them."
1. It was in 1977 that matters were formally discussed that the year 1980 would not end unless the plot to force Iraq into a deadlock is carried out. This point was discussed in the State Civilian Leadership Council. We decided to be cautious because there were indications that before the year 1980 comes to an end an all inclusive, widespread plot with the intention to stop the trend of the new life in Iraq would be implemented. When party members inquired as to the basis of such reasoning, I said: "I don't have much information on the subject but it is clear to me how Iraq will be after the year 1980 but I know what the social, economic, scientific and political conditions and its national standing and internal forms will be like. And the effects that will take place in Iraq will not be pleasing to its enemies nor to the Arabs. My guess is that the year 1980 will not end unless a great plot against this country is executed. And when I was asked about my views regarding the perpetrators of this plot, I first said Israel, then Iran. But, as I recall in 1980, four months before the war, I told them to alter positions, that is, Iran first, Israel next."
It may be naive to accept such prophesies whose source of revelation to Saddam is not known. Truly, why has Saddam selected the year 1980 (1359) as the year in which aggression will be launched against Iraq? Undoubtedly, the event that had occurred in 1977 made Saddam forecast his theories on this basis.
The report of the Ninth Congressional Meeting of the Arab Ba'ath Socialist Party on Army conditions reads: "From the end of 1977 on, the leadership acquired more suitable terms for reformation of the Army also, for the groundwork of new foundations. At this phase, well-calculated training programs for Army commanders whose patriotism and faith had been proven to party and revolutionary authorities were arranged. Such opportunities were also provided for the younger party members.
After comrade Saddam Hussein, assumed all responsibilities for leadership of the party , the armed forces and the revolution, a qualitative upgrading, reformation and revamping of the command posts; in reshuffling military manpower as well as in general mobilization became evident. [1]
Therefore, Saddam's forecast that war will take place exactly in 1980 was the outcome of his army reformation in 1977. Also, Iraq had been preparing for a widespread attack on Iran ever since 1977 and led the Ba'ath Party members and public opinion to think and believe that an attack by Iran on Iraq was in the offing. The mention of Israel by Saddam had been made to confuse the minds and blur the vision of people everywhere. All the points mentioned above indicate that an attack on Iran is not only the presaging art of Saddam, but it has been based on pre-calculated plans.
The New York Times quoting a specialist on Middle Eastern military affairs indicates: "The plot to occupy Iran thru an Irano-Iraqi war, was planned in 1950 (1329) with the help and assistance of England and the purpose of it was to gain domination over the oil-rich Province of Khuzestan provided that a cease-fire be instituted after the attack. During the cease-fire period Iran should abandon Khuzestan in favor of Iraq. The plan was revised many times until ill conditions were right and co ordinations duly planned.
According to this plan, Iraq had to use the Marshal Montgomery tactics which meant high emphasis on use of artillery fire which lad proved useful at Al Alamain (WWII) and last month Iraq had employed this tactic at the war fronts."
The same newspaper adds: "The said plan had been devised by English advisors who, in those days, roved about in area but was dispensed with because Iran was under the influence of British colonialism. [2]
If we go back to the 1950s, that is, to the time when the plan to occupy Iran was devised, we shall note that at that time a real threat endangered the interests of Western companies in Khuzestan- an. The question of nationalization of Iranian oil made the governments of the West to devise the plan to separate Khuzestan from Iran through an Iraqi attack on this country.
Our knowledge of the trends of Western mentality and thinking with regard to the Third World makes one understand with certainty that if the said plan had gone through in the 1950s, Western countries would, with the help of Arabs have set up a government in Khuzestan subservient to the Arabs because the method of dividing oil-producing areas among puppet states would ease and even up their domination by the West.
Generally speaking the existence of an oil-producing and united country with revolutionary movements, the sort that took place in Iran, is not in the interest of the West. Therefore, the formation of a powerful Islamic Republic with popular roots among the people internally and externally, made the colonial powers reconsider their plans of the occupation of Khuzestan by a neighboring state. This time, too, Iraq was chosen for this purpose.
At this point it is necessary to make mention of the note submitted to the U.S. State Department in 1979 (1358 A.H.) by Z. Brzezinski, national security advisor to the U.S. president. In his note, Brzezinski has said that, "The U.S. State Department should carry out all its defense, security organizations and its other agencies, in consideration of the shah's guidelines."
Brzezinski has imputed his statement to James Carter and has added: "We must take advantage of Iran's lack of self-confidence and increase America's contacts and aid to all groups and political leaders of this country, particularly with those who are able to take military action against Khomeini's regime." [3]
The New York Times statement in its issue dated April 1980 (Ordibehesht 1359) should not be forgotten: "After the failure of the U.S. operation in Tabas, this country is now considering three very important military plans. They are: a) To land American army troops in places where the hostages are kept; b) mining the oil jetties and c) bombing Iranian oil refineries." This newspaper also points to American efforts to start a regional war in the Persian Gulf and writes: "Washington is hopeful that an economic and political boycott of Iran can have more effect in the Iran-Iraq strained relations."
The newspaper (New York Times) then adds: "Some believe that war with a powerful Iraq, may induce Iran to review its policies [4]. Thus the objective has been to overthrow the Islamic regime in Iran. The hope and confidence of the enemies of the Islamic regime were so high that they even predicted the exact date of its downfall.
Shahpour Bakhtiar, the last prime minister of the Shah's regime announced on 29/8/1980 that the fall of the Iranian regime will be realized within the next few months. [5]
And when Saddam started his aggressive war on Iran, to spur the morale of the enemies of Iran, he predicted that, "the war will come to an end in ten days with Iraq as the victor. [6]
Iraq was the choice country to launch an attack on Iran in order to overthrow the Islamic regime. Because, the effects of the Islamic Revolution had not only penetrated deep in the hearts of every free and honorable man in Iraq but had affected the upper Muslim echelon of the Ba'ath Party. It had thus created arguments among a number of party members who had faith in Islamic tenets. This situation pleased neither Saddam nor the Ba'ath Party because this is essentially a lay religion. [7]
The above points leave no room for argument except to say that the prognostication of Saddam Hussein regarding the danger threatening Iraq in the year 1980 can be not only the result of his prophecy but the events and incidents were indicating that Iraq would be strengthening and mobilizing its military might since 1977 (1356) for performing a role in the area. And the fall of shah's regime in 1979 and the institution of the Islamic Republic system, afforded Saddam the opportunity to show off his might by delivering a sudden blow to a neighbor who, he thought, had been weakened and was unable to handle its own domestic affairs.
Let us not forget to quote Saddam regarding his prediction. Saddam had said that he had changed his prediction as to "which of the two countries, Iran or Israel would first attack Iraq." He had also said that the correction of this evident and clear matter had been made eight months before the Islamic leader took over, and not, as he had previously said -four months. He has described the matter as follows:
2. It was 1977. We were at a meeting of the Leadership Committee and I told them: My heart testifies: -- of course it was the result of surveying and analyzing conditions- that Iraq is in danger from now until 1980. He then adds a different story and adds another four months to the period enunciated by him earlier.
3. Eight months before they (the Iranian statesmen) came to power -this matter is recorded phonetically and pictorially -I described to them (the comrades) in the Ministry of Information, how the only problem or event which may not take place will actually occur. I had thought that the shah's son would succeed him, and the shah would abdicate and a government based on a mighty Majlis would take over and the akhunds (Muslim canonists) would execute their role in such a way as to create problems for Iraq."
That is all, but in all these events and happenings there is a missing link, which has not yet materialized, but it is likely that this will occur in the future. [8]
It is now time to study Saddam's prophecy. It is appropriate that we go back to the days just before the start of 1980 -the year, when, inspite of Saddam, something will happen to Iraq.
When we review the news published about the Islamic Revolution in Iraqi official newspaper, printed just before Saddam came to power on July 12, 1979 (Tir 21, 1358 A.H.), we note that the official magazine Alefba (Alphabet) in its issue No.562 dated July 4, 1979, eight days before Saddam assumed power as the government head and party leader, has devoted its cover page in bold letters, to the Story of a Mazandarani. As we read the story in the pages we find the story of a SAVAK member who after the revolution, had been able to change into a Muslim spiritual man's garb and influence men in the leadership ranks.
It is obvious what the writer is trying to say by fabricating such lies. In this same issue we come across much more sensitive points, In its editorial titles: "Iraq: Five Thousand Years of Confrontation" we read:
"The Arabs are used to having Iraq stop the Tatar invasions in the tenth and the twentieth centuries and prevent the incursions of the Seljukians and Elamites in the 20th century so that they may break up one after the other. They (the Arabs) are used to having Iraq safeguard the eastern borders as far as they may extend and are within range of enemy fire and as far away as the wishes and dreams of the Elamites and the meanness of Seljuks and the grudgingness of the Tatars' reach; with the corpses of soldiers being piled up to create another armor for the ummat. On the eastern front, the Iraqi soldier is guarding an area which is the target of bullets and, Iraq -I say this for those who have no1 studied history -has been, since five thousand years ago until now, a powerful arm on the eastern frontiers and a steady and highly active one on the Western lines. This has been felt and experienced by Nebuchadnezar, and the Elamite rulers and even by (people) before them. [9]
What really is the meaning of their writing in the magazine which is dated July '79 (Tir 58 A.H.) and why does the writer want us to particularly take note of the Elamite date?
History tells us: The Elamites were a people of Aryan origin whose country stretched from the northeastern points of the Persian Gulf all way to southern shores of the Tigris River. And, Susa or (present Shush), a city in Khuzestan, Iran, has been their capital city. Their civilization flourished from the 14th to the l0th century B.C. In the year 645 B.C. Ashur-Banipal the Assyrian king captured the Elamites' capital city and not only took all the wealth of this land to his own capital (Nineveh), but also by exhumation of the graves took the bones of all Elamite kings and grandees to Nineveh. [10]
According to a chronicler who always accompanied Ashur. Banipal and wrote down his words and acts in a salnameh (year book) quoting him he writes: "I destroyed so many Elamite cities and towns that to pass through them one needs one month and twenty-five days (for their destruction). Everywhere, I sprayed salt and thorn; took into captivity, princes, women of the royal court, young and old, chiefs, rulers, nobles and artisans and brought them to Assyria. I took as booty, men, women, horses, mules, donkeys, and herds of domestic animals, which ran into the thousands. I took the dust of Susa, Madaktu, Heltmash and other cities to Assyria. In a month I captured all of Elam and took possession of it. I make all the voices and sounds of man, beast disappear from the lands and made all the lands places for asses and wild game to graze in and inhabit the ruins."[11]
"Other things done by Ashur-Banipal which show his enmity toward Elam include, "They brought as a gift the head of the beheaded monarch of that country to him. He and his wife were sitting in a garden having a party .The very moment he saw the head of the slain king, he ordered the head to be placed on an arrow amongst his guests and they all cheered and drank to it. The head was then suspended from the city gate and there it remained until it got rotten. An Elamite general was skinned alive in the same way a camel is butchered. His brother was beheaded and his body shredded into hundreds of pieces. They then divided the booty among the populace."[12]
If we describe the events in detail, it is merely to show the extraordinary semblance of the doings of a criminal king who lived over two thousand years ago to the people of Elam (Khuzestan) with the conduct of a modern warmonger in his invasion of Khuzestan in September 1980 (Mehr 1359). This is the land of Elam which is now called Khuzestan and the writer of the editorial of Alefba (or Alphabet) magazine had called on us to read -as if he knew the crimes that Saddam would commit in occupying the land of Elam (Khuzestan) and what destruction he would leave behind.[13]
It is as though Saddam Hussein has realized that he had been making use of patriotism against Iran in an age when the world is concerned with scientific discoveries in the space. So he decided to stir up old historical animosities in order to cover up his retarded mind and underdeveloped logic. To this end he has said.
4."Some say that we Iraqis are trying to revive negative aspects of past history in our relations with the Tehran rulers."
"My answer is no! It is they who have reminded us of the negative aspects stored away in some forgotten corner of our mind. The insults of a country, which, unfortunately, has been our neighbor for more than a thousand years has revived in us the forgotten memories. [l4]
However, he, (Saddam) doesn't say how Iran reminds him of the negative aspects between the two countries that have existed, in spite of him, for a thousand years. This Alefba magazine's (or Alphabet) editorial is of special importance because it speaks of the eastern borders, the Mongols, Seljukians and Elamites and all these point to Iran. The Mongol invasion started from East Asia and ended in Baghdad, devastating Iran in its path. This editorial by making such pretentious statements tries to provide excuses by which to incite public opinion and readiness for an attack on Iraq by Iran from the east. It reminds the Iraqi people of their patriotic duties for withstanding such an attack.
The above affairs have taken place early in July 1979 (Tir 1358) that is, 14 months before the attack of Iraq on Iran which started in a widespread perimeter of Khuzestan.
In a talks with the Al Mustaqbal magazine on Oct. 13, 1979 (21 Shahrivar, 1358 A.H.) Saddam said:
Q: During the past few days you have sent delegates to some Arab countries to deliver your message to kings and.….
A: You mean Kuwait and Bahrain. We wanted our friends in these two countries and in all the world to know that any foreign government who thinks that it can terminate the eminence and rule of the Arabs as one nation and one country, shall not be able to do so! [15]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Central Report of conference held in June 1982 (Tir 1361) printed by Chap Al Horriah, Baghdad, pp. 200-201.
[2] Look up the summary of these discourses in the Al Ahrar newspaper, issue dated 17/10/80 (25/7/59).
[3] Al Safir newspaper, issue dated 22/4/80 (2/2/59), subject: Lack of Self- confidence of Iranian neighbors, a subject posed by some world authorities to create fear of Iran in regional states to be u e as an excuse to send their armadas to preserve peace.
[4] Al Safir newspaper, issue dated 3/4/1980 (10/2/1359).
[5] Al Bairaq newspaper, issue dated 30/8/1980 (816/1359).
[6] Al Safir newspaper, issue dated 29/8/1980 (7/6/1359).
[7] Look up the section on religion of the report of the 9th congressional meeting of the Ba'ath ruling party of Iraq, from page 263 on...
[8] Video-cassette taped speech made at a gathering of top-ranking Ba'ath Party authorities at Baghdad in January 1982 (Dey 1361 A.H.). Subject: sending troops for voluntary! ) participation in "Saddam's Qadessiah).
[9] Look it up in the issue 562 of Alefba magazine.
[10] See the Farsi Encyclopedia by Dr. Mo'een and in the Al Munjid. The term Elam which in Farsi reads Ilam and its people are called Elamites Dr . Ahmad writes Suseh or Sus or Susa is located south-west of Dezful on the west bank of the River Karkha. It is now called Shush (see Al Arab val Yahood in History, page 476).
We must add here that the hard-heartedness of the Assyrians in wartime knew no limit, particularly their king, Ashur-Banipal has not destroyed Elam alone. He treated all the peoples whom he contacted in the same way. In regard to putting down the uprising of his brother Shamsh-Shum-ukin and the conquest of Babel, we read that after a long, hard siege of the city and its eventual conquest, the city was in such an awful condition that even Assyrians shivered at its sight. Most of those for whom starvation and wandering was brought roamed in the empty streets until hunger made them fall only to die on some street corner. The same sights could be seen everywhere on the roads leading from the city. Dying human beings had become preys of wild pigs and hungry dogs. Those who had been able to flee were followed and captured and Ashur-Banipal ordered their tongues pulled out and they were tortured till relieved by death (see Will Durantes History of Civilization, Arabic trans., Vol. 2, page 276-277).
[11] Same source as above, Vol. 2.
[12] Same source as above, Vol. 2.
[13] It seems that the fate of Ashur-Banipal's kingdom was due to strike 14 years after his death in 626 B.C. An army of Babylonians headed by Nebuchadnezar and with an army of the Medes headed by Siakhar together with a number of the irregular men of Scythians of the Caucasus, quickly overran the Assyrians northern fortresses and destroyed Nineveh. Cities were burned down, people were beheaded or taken captive, a new palace was utterly demolished. (see the History of Civilization, Arabic version Vol. 2, page 13, Nebuchadnezar is the person whose study is recommended in the introduction of this book.
[14] Saddam's speech at a special arms base, located in Anbar Province dated 4/3/82 (12/12/1360 A.H.)
[15] Saddam's press conference with Al Mustaqbal magazine published among the series of discourses, thoughts and viewpoints, issue 1, Iraqi Embassy, Beirut.

CHAPTER TWO

EXCUSES FOR START OF WAR
"We declare to all Iranian nations, the Kurds above all, to the Baluchestan nation, to Azarbaijan and to all true and noble patriots of Iran who have no relation with colonialism and who are not foolish, that we are ready to have solid relations with them for the purpose of attaining their national rights and a calm and noble life. To this end we are ready to have good neighborly relations and to provide them with any help including giving arms, etc.â€‌
"This is not mere talk. This is a decision. We tell them, the entire world and we say this especially to our nation in Arabia that it is up .to them to prepare themselves for acquisition of their homeland and national rights. Also to get ready to execute their role on national legal rights as a nation having special historical and social characteristics."
From: Saddam Hussein, March 4. 1981 (23rd Esfand, 1359).
"Iraq is the Arab revolutionary base of Ahwaz. It considers your struggles for liberation as an example of national liberation fights of a nation who tries to get its rights in its own land."
From: Ezzat Ebrahim al Doury, Saddam's first aide in making speeches for the so-called leaders of the so-called Arab front for liberating Ahwaz, dated J/7/1983 (lJ/41l361).
“Peace will be realized honorably when non-interference in international affairs of another country is observed and its rights respected.â€‌ From: Saddam Hussein 2IB/l9B6 (WS/1365).

* * *

Saddam Hussein is one of the first persons who said certain things to incite people towards a propaganda war against Iran. In an interview printed in' Al Mustaqbal' magazine, issue dated October 13, 1979 (Mehr 21, 1358) there is an argument by him as to why Iran has not retransferred the 3 islands [1] in Persian Gulf and following him, toward the end March 1980 (Farvardin 1, 1359 A.H. Solar), Tareq Aziz, present Iraqi foreign minister demanded the return of the Islands to the Arabs.[2]
Finally, April 1980 (Farvardin 1359) crept in with all its events and speeches. Taha Yassin Ramadhan, first deputy prime minister of Iraq insists that Iran return the Arab islands of Abu Musa, Little and Bigger Thumbs, occupied by Iran be returned to Iraq and announced (T.Y. Ramadhan) that his country insists on the granting of the rights of the Arab Nation to Arabia and asks Iran to review the 1975 (1353) Treaty signed between the two countries.[3]
The same day, the official Iraqi news broadcast announced: "Iraq not only demands these rights but will resort to action to get them." The said broadcast agency also announced: "Iraq finds itself duty-bound to remain by the side of the Arab people of Ahwaz -a place where a million Arabs live in oil-rich areas and fight for self-rule." [4]
Saddam himself in a gathering of Iraqi poets held on the 24th of April, the same year (4/2/1359) said: "We have never forgotten our mission, we have not forgotten the orphan child or a widow living in Egypt, Syria, West Banks, or Palestine (applause