|
CHAPTER FOUR
A GEOGRAPHIC TRICKERY
"When a war starts, it is wiser to have its wheels turn in enemy territory and not in our land. There is a military saying which goes something like this: "The defense of one's territory never takes place within it but takes place without."
Saddam Hussein, 25/12/1980 (4/10/1359)
This situation -retreat from Iranian territory -shall not occur to the new Iraq and its people. Retreat is the business of the weak, the imbecile, of those who do not love their homeland and are not concerned about their own nation.
Saddam Hussein, 25/12/1980 (4/10/1359)
"Even though the Khomeini regime's answer to the notice of the Revolutionary leadership dated June 10 was negative, the Revolutionary Council has decided to carry out the contents of this notice and on that basis we started to recall our troops from Iranian territory and cities and will complete this task within ten days."
Saddam Hussein, 20/6/1982 (30/3/1361)
"Our military position is now different from what it was before. It has radically charged in our favor. In fact, the improvement in the conditions began when we returned to our international borders.
Saddam Hussein, 6/2/1983 (16/5 /1362).
We accepted the idea of defending Arab territory on its international borders. Consequently our troops ran into difficulties which gave the enemy maneuverability along the fronts and the ability to choose the proper time and place for its aggression.
Military communiqué of the Iraqi regime 17/5/1986: The commander of Iraqi forces in the Mehran area has announced that the retreat of Iraqi forces from Mehran, has been achieved in an orderly fashion, with high spirits and perfect care and consideration of all probabilities."
Radio Soat Al Jamahir, 12/7 /1986
In previous chapters we noted that Iraq's excuses for waging war against the Islamic Republic gradually increased and we also mentioned that conditions at the fronts and the losses sustained by Iraq at various times and sectors made Saddam to forge fresh excuses to justify his invasion of Iran.
The question of geographic importance as a reason for occupation of Iran by Iraqi armies was not mentioned by Saddam until early 1982 (end of 1360 A.H.). That is until the forces of Islam scored several victories over the aggressor and the numerous defeats of the Iraqi armies made their stay untenable. This is the why and the how of the retreat of Iraqi forces from Iranian territories.
Inadequate Territorial Depth Trick
By this interpretation, we have Saddam's words in mind: "The occupation of Iranian territory was because Iraq lacks the necessary territorial depth. This country, with its small area is always within the range of Iranian artillery fire and even some of the cities of Iraq are within reach of Iranian artillery shellings. The Iraqi regime entered Iran in order to remove the danger."
The above is the gist of the territorial depth matter in the Iraqi regime's view. However, the inadequacy of geographic depth was mentioned as a reason for occupation of Iranian territory until early 1980 (late 1360 A.H.) but, there were other excuses which Saddam used to announce before and after the start of the war. These excuses included the three islands, rights of non-Persian minorities, the right of navigation in the Arvand Rud and the liberation of the usurped lands!!!
At a cabinet meeting held on Dec. 25, 1980 [1] (3/10/59), Saddam for the first time announced what he called live or active territory, meaning Iraq, of course.
"When war occurs, it is wiser that its 'wheels turn in enemy territory, not in ours. A military expression says: "Defense of a live territory never takes place within it, it takes place in points without."
He ridiculed the suggestion to call back the Iraqi troops from Iranian territory:
"Someone might say or you yourself may say: "Now that we have defeated the Iranians, now that we made them understand that we can confront and hurt them, let us return to Zein-al Ghoas and to Seif Saad, the international borders which we have taken back. The answer to such a question will be as follows:
"The Shatt al Arab cannot be made secure by ground borders. Sovereignty is necessary. Besides, if you retreat, they reach your borders and you will have dangerous poles. Thus according to probabilities embodied in their plannings, they advance from these poles and compel you to make defenses in your own territory and make targets of Iraqi cities just as Iranian cities such as Ahwaz, Abadan, Dezful and Gilan now, are within our reach.
"We shall never make such a mistake, our military borders during the war shall be these borders."
Thus the Iraqi borders during the war were the lands occupied by Iraqi forces and withdrawal from them would be considered a grave mistake. Saddam expressed the importance of remaining in Iranian territory in the following terms:
"Therefore the move we retreat, the further they will pursue us until they attack us again and we shall enter into war once more. With our withdrawal, the city of Basra will come within range of their artillery fire and at some other time they will position artillery pieces in Abadan and shell Basra. You are asked to remain at a point where from they (the Iranians) may overtake other Iraqi cities. This (he means retreat from Iran) condition shall not occur for Iraq. This is the condition of the weak, the imbeciles, of people who don't love their homelands, of those who don't care for their nation and of the white-collar workers who wish to sit behind desks and count down the remaining days, hours and months."
Thus spoke Saddam. He then said that the moral reason for the stay of Iraqi troops in Iran is the mounting losses of his men upon entry into Iran and added for that reason he will not retreat unless Iran gave satisfactory answers to his demands:
"Some of them suggest we return to our places without Iran's giving in to our demands. Imagine that! Our victory overburdens them so much!? I tell them: What should be my answer to our nation ? ! The Iranians attacked us, invaded our cities. Then we came and attacked and invaded them and entered their territory. Now we ask for our rights! ? Shall we tell our nation that it has bled so much all in vain and then return to where we come from!? What prevents the Iranians from starting up again and drawing us into war inside our territory, if we return to previous borders!?
The Islamic Conference opened in Taef early in 1981. Saddam attended and, in a speech, repeated all his previous words. [2]
"When a war occurs, brothers, and they want to have it waged inside Iraqi territory, let them have it on Iranian soil. We say we will not withdraw our troops from Iran unless Iran accepts that the war has ended and recognize our due rights on the basis of the treaties existing between the two countries. That is why we want to guarantee Iraq's security. We don't want to retreat without having the principles we have set forth agreed to, otherwise, Iran will have the war wheels spinning in Iraqi territory and destroy our economic facilities and our cities. No! We shall never permit that."
Also, at the end of March 1981, Saddam openly stated: "We shall not withdraw even one inch unless our national and homeland rights are recognized!"[3]
In order to better understand the dominance of this type of thinking over Saddam's mentality, we shall make further analysis of his words. In doing so we notice that the expression inadequacy of Iraq's territorial border depth" which was used to replace expressions such as "drawing the war inside Iranian territory," "defense of one's territory takes place outside of it and not inside or the threat to occupy more Iranian land, were used in Saddam's speech at some other times.
"Mehran is in our hands, so are Khosrovi and Qasr-e Shirin. We declared at the beginning of the war that these cities are at our disposal. Gilan is now at the mercy of our shellings, also, Sar-e Pol-e Zahab. We can attack and take these places any time we wish, and suppress any forces that may be there."[4]
Saddam had not until now uttered words regarding Iraq's territorial depth. Even in his talk at the National Assembly at the end of 1981 (mid 1360), he spoke of "active territory" and the need to draw the war into enemy territory:
"Thus the war started. When a war starts, the wisest, the wisest thing to do is to have its wheels rotate in enemy land, not in ours. An expression says: The defense of a territory never takes place inside of it but outside of it."[5]
But in the year 1982 after Iraq sustained severe defeats, then the question of "territorial depth" was discussed and Saddam used this expression for the first time. By the end of March 1982 (Farvardin 1361), when Saddam was talking about the strategic importance of Khorramshahr, he said that this city was his bastion, that is, the bastion of Iraqi armies and should remain his hands to prevent the destruction of Basra. In a message to the commander of Iraq's fourth army Saddam said:
"Thus Mohammarah (Khorramshahr) has become a base which should remain in our hands so that the enemy may not destroy Basra with artillery fire from there."[6]
In April, 1982 (Ordibehesht 1361), Saddam described in depth the importance of entering in the following words:
The distance between Baghdad and the border is 120 kilometers. If we relax, they will advance. Baghdad will then come into range of their fire. We must, therefore, achieve a distance from which we can stop their advance in the area. If they are positioned here, they will indirectly endanger our border towns and installations, if the war "is not over."[7]
He (Saddam) then comes to the following conclusion and says:
"Therefore, as long as the war continues we should halt their advance as far as we can and keep them away from the borders and the destruction of our towns. But, if they do say "that the war is over and we respect your rights to your waters and land, we shall retreat at once."[8]
He (Saddam) claimed, in the course of his speech, that he had discussed the possibility of retreating from Khorramshahr with some of the comrades in leadership cadre because the difficulty of getting the agreement of some of naive soldiers of the Iraqi Army and made him aware they could not comprehend the idea that "defense of one's territory should take place in front of it, not from inside”. His comrades were of the opinion that they should remain in Khorramshahr because, the defense of Basra requires that a part of Iraqi troops remain in Khorramshahr.
"For sometime I and the friends in the general command have been thinking and I asked "can we not retreat? Perhaps a number of simpleminded Iraqis cannot understand the complex concept of being placed in advance areas in spite of having borders behind for this may weaken in them the zeal to fight as well as they would at border points."
The essential problem was before us. We had to defend the area around Khorramshahr (Mohammarah) and its whereabouts and this is possible only when we can be in Mohammarah and on the Karoun River. If they take this area, they will demolish Basra with cannons and if they get to Qasr-e Shirin, these will demolish Khaneqain, Mandalay, Zorbatieh and Qarehtoo and they can destroy the oil area without having to enter Iraq."[9]
However when the issue of recalling Iraqi armies, came under consideration, Saddam justifies that by saying:
'Why dosen't Iraq withdraw from Iran? We will withdraw right now but what guarantee is there that they will not enter our territory? What guarantee is there that they will end the war? What guarantee is there that they will respect our rights everywhere? Who will provide us with their guarantees?"[10]
From the foregoing we conclude that:
1. Inadequacy of territorial depth compelled Iraq to enter Iran.
2. As long as the war continues, Iraq will continue its advance into Iranian territory.
3. It is to the interest of Iraq that its troops enter Iran as much as they can because it will keep away Iranian artillery from Iraqi territory.
4. Defense of Basra necessitates holding on to Khorramshahr because retreat from it endangers that city. This goes for Qasr-e Shirin which was occupied by Iraq. For withdrawal from this city would endanger the cities of Khaneqain, Zorbatieh, Mandlay, Qarehtoo and would put the oil area within range of Iran's artillery without Iran having to enter Iraq.
5. The Iraqi regime will accept withdrawal from Iran on the condition that this country end the present state of war between the two sides and guarantee that it will never enter Iraq's territory and that it will respect the rights of Iraq. Furthermore, there should be a third party to guarantee all these commitments by Iran.
The foregoing is a summary of the views of Saddam concerning remaining in the occupied lands of Iran. These views were expressed early in 1982 (end of 1360) that is, a year and half after the start of Iraq's aggression, in order to justify the occupation of Iranian territory. In short, Saddam holds the view that as long as there is war, Iraqi occupation of Iranian lands should continue and such prolonged occupation would be to the interest of Iraq.
However, on July 30, 1982 (29/4/1361), Saddam unexpectedly appeared on the television to bring up a new issue which was his adherence to the notice of the Revolutionary Leadership Council [11] regarding recalling the Iraqi armies from Iranian territory and expound the problem of territorial depth in the following words:
"Our compulsion to defend our country against aggression by the rulers of Tehran, inadequacy of our territorial depth for defending our border within our own territory impell us to use the former method. We now declare that we are ready to withdraw from Iran territory on condition that Iran recognize our rights, our borders and our sovereignty and our right to choose our own economic and political systems."
Although Saddam had set conditions for withdrawing from Iranian territory and had insisted that he would not withdraw unless those conditions were met, he decided to return to international borders.
"In spite of the Khomeini regime's negative answer to the notice of the Revolutionary Leadership Council dated the 10th of June (Khordad 30th), the council decided to act according to its notice. On this basis we began to withdraw our troops from Iranian cities and lands and we shall complete this in ten days from this date."
One is baffled by such assumption of positions. What became of Saddam's terms and conditions for withdrawing from Iran's territory? If, as claimed, the approach of Iranian troops to Iraqi borders would endanger Iraqi border towns and cities, if such approach would create dangerous poles, with all this knowledge, why then did they retreat!? And do Saddam's words that he has returned to the border imply the international borders between Iran and Iraq that are defined in the 1975 Treaty signed by both states? Or, do the borders that Saddam has spoken of mean the usurped lands which, according to Saddam, Iraq will never give up?! In other words, has Iraq given up the usurped ( ! lands such as Zein -al Ghoas, Seif Saad and Meimak and returned the international pre-war border, or does the retreat not include these areas!?
Saddam has said that Iran has given a negative reply to his proposal, why then has he given up, so easily, his emphatic demands? Do not such moves indicate that Saddam himself did not mean all that he has said concerning usurped lands, territorial depth, etc., but, he had really wanted to overthrow the Islamic regime ? [12]
Saddam undertook a more astonishing move while all meetings and gatherings he made lengthy, elaborate speeches on the benefits of remaining in Iranian territory for the defense of Iraq, at a later stage, spoke fervently in favor of defending Iraq from within the borders and emphasized the benefits of it. In an interview with the Iraqi news agency on February 6, 1982, Saddam said:
"Our soldiers are defending Iraq from within its borders and not from the opposite side, although it is best to defend some positions from their opposite side. This reality was confirmed after major enemy troop columns which could advance deep into our territory and disrupt our military strategies were beaten back. We say that this reality has improved the morale of our fighting men."
The theory of "destroying basic or major columns of enemy forces that can penetrate Iraqi defenses" did not hold while the Islamic forces penetrated Iraqi Army lines and thus we see that this theory was used as an excuse to justify the retreat of Iraqi forces when facing the stormy rushes of the forces of Islam. Therefore after successfully retreating, the Iraqi mass media would announce each retreat as a blessing to them because the Iraqi Army has been able to destroy the Iranian forces that existed in the area and prevent their march into Iraqi territory.
The above points were retold by Saddam in the following words, on 29/3/1982 (9/1/1361 A.H.):
"Brothers, we in the General Command decided, therefore, to pull back your defense positions after you succeeded in halting enemy invasions destroying its forces and changing military conditions so that the enemy is unable to attack our heroic army in this area of operation."[13]
Below, you will note part of Saddam's answer to a question by the Iraqi news agency regarding the comparison between conditions of Iranian and Iraqi armies:
"Military conditions have altered essentially in our favor in comparison with the past. This improvement of conditions occurred after we returned to our international borders."[14]
But, when 1986 (1365) came and the Islamic forces entered the military town of Faw in order to silence Iraq's long range artillery that constantly pounded Iranian towns, and in view of the inability of Iraqi armies to retake the town, Iraqi forces made an attempt to re-enter Iranian territory at the border town of Mehran. It was at this point that Iraqi propaganda machinery announced that the method of static defense, that is, fighting on Iraqi territory or international borders is in the interest of the enemy and not in the interest of Iraq who has decided to employ the mobile method, that is, to enter Iran and fight on its territory .The day the army of Islam entered Mehran, Saddam expounded the Iraqi Army's communiqué in the following words:
"Although we all know if the Iraqi Army, nation and command lacked the present power, intelligence and stamina, static defense along the 1,180-kilometer frontline would have been a complicated, almost impossible task to perform. We accepted the difficulties and outcomes of the static defense strategy for Iraq on its borders instead of a mobile strategy and as far as possible we have adhered to the principle according to which defense of a territory should be waged in front and not inside of it. We now say that we accepted the idea of defending Iraq on its international borders and this put the various strata of our army in an awkward position and as a result the enemy was able to give mobility to its forces as well as the initiative to select the time and place best suited for attack."[15]
The military communiqué then states that after the entry of Islamic troops in Faw, the Iraqi regime decided to make a new appraisal of the static defense strategy and to resume a strategy of mobile defense.
"We had to review the said strategy of defense for Iraq and to use another method based on active defense with the object of making targets of the aggressive Iranian forces whether in our or in their territory and thus repel and corrupt forces or occupy as much land of Iran as they have occupied of ours until the return of both sides to international borders is realized." [16]
This communiqué also announced certain conditions of peace and added that Iraqi troops will not leave Mehran until peace is realized.
"We announced, that without a doubt, our forces shall not leave this city and other places, by use of iron, unless an all- inclusive peace is realized." [17]
However, the hard blows of Islamic forces early in July of the same year, threw out Iraqi forces from that town (Mehran) and country's military command, perforce, declared in a short communiqué that the Iraqi Army had retreated from Mehran, in an orderly fashion, to the international borders. This withdrawal received slight attention in the press supporting Iraq and there was minor reaction to it by the Iraqi military top brass. The Tunisian newspaper' Al Amal' which has close relations with the Iraqi Embassy in Tunis wrote:
"The Iraqi Army commander in the region, in a statement, quoted by international news agencies, said that the retreat of Iraqi forces from Mehran was orderly, pre-conceived and planned and the result of expertise and efficiency of the Iraqi fighters who, in high spirits, vacated the area for return to the international borders.
"He (the military commander) also explained that the Mehran operations zone will be useless, in military parlance as long as it is within range of Iraqi fire.
"To carry out the decision to retreat, Iraq had to expect an attack by Iranian forces on its troops in order to destroy more Iranian soldiers during such attack and retreat. And so, Iraq's decision to return to international borders was implemented."[18]
Therefore, the question of lack of territorial depth was a trick used by Iraq to justify the entry of its troops to Iran and, as we noted, this claim took different forms at various times. At one time the presence of Iraqi armies in Iran becomes their strategy. But, when they are forced out by the Islamic troops and have no choice but to retreat, this strategy is declared as bad and ineffective by them, and they give preference to and acclaim the method of fighting inside Iraq or on international borders.
FOOTNOTES
[1] A summary of this speech was published in the Al Leva newspaper, issue dated 27/12/1980 (6/10/1359).
[2] The complete text of this speech was published by the Iraqi Embassy, Press Bureau, London, in a pamphlet titled: Al Haqayeg-al Tarikhiah Lel Atma-el-Farsiah.
[3] The Al-Nawar newspaper, issue of 30n/1981 (10/1/1360).
[4] Speech at National Assembly on 22nd Nov/1981 (31/4/1360).
[5] The complete text of this speech was published in Al Thorah newspaper, Baghdad 24/11/1981 (3/9/1360).
[6] Excerpts from Saddam's message to the commander of the 4th Army after what he called "the re-organization of the defense positions behind the front lines," 29/3/1982 (9/1/1361).
[7] Saddam's speech at the National Assembly on 11/4/1982 (22/1/1361) in which he has explained the positions of Iraqi forces with the help of maps or charts hung from a wall inside the National Assembly.
[8] Same source as above.
[9] Same source as above.
[10] Same source as above.
[11] This is an effort by Saddam Hussein to save his prestige. In it Saddam has claimed that he has acted according to the decision of the Revolutionary Council, dated June 10, 1982 (20/3/1361) implying the retreat of Iraqi forces to international borders. Saddam himself is the president of this council and it is he who has made these decisions.
[12] Here, reference should be made to page 341 of the Central Report of the 9th cross country Congress of the Ba'ath Party, which in vivid terms declares: Some of the withdrawals were forced on us by war conditions or by Iranian forces, yet, many questions remain unanswered.
[13] Saddam Hussein's message to the commander of Iraq's 4th Army.
[14] Saddam's talk with Iraqi news agency on 6/2/1983 (7/11/1361) during which he has described, at length the powerful positions of Iraqi armies after their retreat to international borders but has ignored to specify these border points.
[15] Communiqué No.2229 of the General Command of the Iraqi armed forces dated 17/5/1986.
[16] Same as above.
[17] Same as above.
[18] Political program of Radio Soat Al Jomahir dated 12/12/1986 (21/4/136), quoted y its agent in Tunisia. We notice that the question of destruction of Iranian forces in this sector of the fronts is the same excuse that Saddam has tried to maintain whereby he might save his prestige. It is reflected in his message to the commander of the 4th Army on 29/3/1982 (9/1/1361).
CHAPTER FIVE
THE IMPOSED PEACE
Answering a question about mediation between Iran and Iraq, Haddad has said: "Many people tried to mediate between us and our answer has been that there is no room for mediation because we fundamentally reject the proposition."
Naeem Haddad, 27/5/1980 (6/3/1359)
"Iraq has reached its real borders and has announced that even if the army has to stay on these borders for ten years, there will be no retreat from them."
Latif N. Jassem, Al-Qabas newspaper, issue dated 18/1/1981 (28/10/1359)
There exists no border agreement between Iran and Iraq except the 1913 (1292 A.H.) treaty. The 1975 treaty was actually cancelled by Iran and Iraq cancelled it later. The 1937 (1316) treaty was cancelled by the shah unilaterally. Therefore when we talk about retreat, how far should it extend?"
Saadoon Hamadi, 25/1011980 (3/8/1359)
"Peace can be realized honorably only on the following terms: Complete, unconditional withdrawal to acceptable international borders."
Saddam Hussein, 2/8/1986 (11/5/1365)
Saddam's demands during the period of 15 months were irrational and crazy which was to some extent proportionate to his excitement about the Iraqi Army's entry into various towns of Iran. At that time the negative outcomes of his aggression was not known to him. But with the start of 1982 and the marvelous resistance of the Islamic forces which culminated in widespread and effective counterattacks, the negative outcomes of Iraq's invasion of Iran began to show.
We must point out that from the very beginning of the barbaric war started by the Iraqi regime, the Iranian nation exhibited heroic resistance as a result of which, the Iraqi armies, in spite of their unexpected and widespread invasion were stopped and their advances curtailed.
A look at Khorramshahr, which Saddam calls Mohammarah, tells us that this city withstood the attacks of the highly modern and mechanized Iraqi armies with shotguns.
The Iraqi military communiqués concerning various stages of the war of Khorramshahr are as follows: 23/9/1980 (1/7/1359): The Iraqi troops were able to lay siege on Muhammarah (Khorramshahr) and occupy the road leading to Ahwaz.[1]
25/9/1980: Iraqi forces entered Khorramshahr at 12:00. [2]
24/10/1980: Iraq announced it had liberated Khorramshahr and annihilated its usurper, and hoisted the Iraqi banner atop the governor's building.[3] Iraq's military communiqués reflect the fact that a highly intense and rough fight had taken place at Khorramshahr before the Iraqi forces could enter this city. It took them one month to achieve entry. It shows that the fighting people of Khorramshahr had put up a heroic resistance.
As Adnan Khayrullah, Iraq's minister of defense has said: "Iraqi forces were able to take six towns in six days and are now erecting a steel wall around Mohammarah (Khorramshahr)."[4]
These military victories which were magnified and broadcast or published in the mass media that were opposed to Iran plus the military and economic aid extended to Iraq by Arab and non-Arab countries made Saddam proud and think highly of himself and believe that it would be impossible to take back the occupied ) positions from the Iraqi armies:
"The point which they must understand is that the continuation of war and retaking the Iraqi occupied Positions by force is impossible."[5] Also on 27/3/1981 (7/1/1360) Saddam had said that if Iran does not recognize the rights of the Arabs, the Iraqi forces will not move back an inch from the occupied lands. "He who won't officially recognize our rights, with the power of arms of Iraqi men we shall wring such rights from his eyes at the war front!"[6]
Saddam rejected negotiating with Iran unless Iran first agrees to a cease-fire and end of the state of war. How impudent!? The Iraqi regime that had started the war, now wanted Iran, against which the aggression has taken place, to ask for a cease-fire and end the war before Saddam would sit down and talk. In talks with the goodwill commission which was broadcast from Radio Baghdad, Saddam has said:
"Peace will begin with a cease-fire. Now, I say, if Iran agrees to it I accept the cease-fire readily."
On 22/7/1981 (31/4/1360) during a press conference, Saddam expressed clearly his views on peace negotiations in the following words:
"If you want to know my views, I say that we prefer to negotiate with the Iranians while the war is being waged and when we reach agreement we will have the war ended."
He (Saddam) also declared at that time that if war continues, Iraqi borders shall be where Iraqi forces were at that time and retreat from those points will be contingent upon Iran's acceptance of Iraqi borders. Withdrawal to international borders, which Saddam constantly talks about these days, had been proposed to him in the early days of the war by a source unknown to us. However he had rejected the proposal.
"Some propose we return to pre-war conditions even without Iran's positive answer to our demands. Think of that! Our victory hurts them so much! To them I say, "What shall we say to our nation then!? The Iranians bombed our cities and attacked us. We retaliated, bombed their cities and entered their territory. We now demand our rights. Shall we say to the nation that it has bled in vain?! Shall we tell our people that we returned to former status without securing our rights?! What guarantee is there that the Iranians will not attack us again once we return to former borders, and be compelled to fight in our own territory?![7]
The conditions which Iraq formerly voiced for ending the war are very different from what it proposes now. For a comparison of both, we must discuss the earlier conditions:
-During an interview in Amman on 26/9/1980 (14/7/1359), Tariq Aziz, present Iraqi foreign minister demanding the return of the three (Persian) Gulf islands, said: "Respect for the rights of Iraq to sovereignty over its lands and waters; respect for the sovereign rights of the Arab (Persian) Gulf states plus the return of the three islands in the Strait of Hormuz."[8]
On 10/11/1982 (19/8/1359), Saddam Hussein, in a press interview, demanding the return of the three islands, said: "Otherwise if the war between the two countries ends without the return of the islands, the world should expect another war between the Arabs and Iranians."[9]
If we add to the above statements Saddam's words to the National Assembly meeting held 4/11/1980 (13/8/1359), we will see the barbaric nature of him: "The outcome of any war is adding some rights to those which one already has ...the nation who remains the longest period in a land, acquires more rights! [10]
On 6/1/1981 (16/10/1359) Saddam announced his condition for ending the war in these words:
"We pointed out to all those who are making efforts to find a peaceful solution to the war that we are fighting for our just and historical rights and our objective is to regain those rights and find a peaceful and honorable way to solve the existing disputes."[11]
He (Saddam) announced those rights in the following terms:
"The land and the rights which Iran has usurped from us should be returned to their lawful owners, the Arabs."[12]
On 18/5/1981 (28/2/1360) he (Saddam) added a new condition, that is, Iran's acceptance of the termination of the state of war:
"On the same day we said that as of that date we are ready to retreat provided that Iran formally recognizes our rights and the termination of the state of war ."[13]
From the earlier days after the triumph of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, February 1979 (Bahman 1357) through 6/1/1981 (Dey 1359), Saddam who had constantly spoken about the three islands, was silent over them for the first time. In his speeches since May 1981 (Ordibehesht 1360), the question of the three islands ceased to appear. Also, that ardent Arab nationalism which Saddam claimed all the time, had stopped since this date. It may be said that a vague referral to the islands is reflected in his speech on 6/1/1982 (17/10/1360 A.H.):
"All that we want is Iran's clear and specific definition and recognition of the historical and lawful rights of Iraq to its waters and land; to adhere to the good-neighbor policy, to give up expansionism, aggression and racism and to return every inch of the usurped lands."[14]
From early days of 1980 (Dey 1360), Iraq began to retreat from the lands (its former positions) over which it claimed the war was started for in the first place. Without a doubt the effective blows of Islamic forces had something to do with these withdrawals because the Iraqi armies suffered heavily from these blows and as a result the Iraqi regime gave up its almost insane claims. The losses of Iraq were not limited to the battlefields. Rather, it endangered the political existence of the regime which had started an aggressive war against Iran.
In his speech at the conference of the Non-Aligned labor ministers, held at Baghdad in January 1982 (Dey 1360), Saddam said:
"If the responsible authorities of Iran could decide about the cessation of war and recognize the international borders of Iraq accepted by both sides in international agreements, Iraq should be happy and delighted." And since the 1975 (1353) Algerian accord is one concluded on accepted international standards between Iran and Iraq, therefore, Saddam's words mentioned here above amount to formal recognition of this treaty which Saddam had unilaterally abrogated on 17/9/1980. What became of the claims and decision according to which the said treaty was annulled ? What became of Saddam's words, said in opposition to the Algerian accord, claiming that the treaty was imposed on Iraq? We see that in his talks with the labor ministers of the Non-Aligned states, Saddam says something else:
"We said we are ready to stop the war at once without any prior terms or conditions, that we are ready to sit at the negotiation table on the basis of the principle on which the N on-Aligned Movement is founded, viz, that no unlawful rights may be afforded to either party by force or coercion."
It was at this stage that Saddam tersely cancelled all his previous claims and conditions. One of his major conditions for termination of war with Iran was the formal recognition, by Iran, of Iraq's rights to sovereignty over its land and waters and other rights which accrue from prolongation of war (Saddam's speech of 14/11/1980, referred to already). But, in his visit with labor ministers of the Non-Aligned states, Saddam stated his opposition to acquiring any unlawful rights by force and coercion. Surely, if talks are held with Saddam, he will define the term "illegal or unlawful" to mean something other than its obvious meaning. He might say by this expression he has not meant that Iraq's rights are limited to such and such a land area, or river or mountain because Iraq's rights to these points are definite and well established, rather, he had meant that unlawful rights ( ! be not imposed by force.
Last Proposal
In his last proposal for the establishment of peace between Iran and Iraq, Saddam Hussein recounted the opportunities as follows:
"Honorable peace will be realized on:
1. Unconditional and complete withdrawal to accepted international borders
2. Total exchange of prisoners
3. Signing of a peace and non-aggression treaty between the two countries
4. Non-interference in the internal issues and respect for authorities of each by the other party
5. Both Iran and Iraq employ Positive measures to insure the security of the region, especially of the Arab (Persian) Gulf area."[15]
Concerning the above proposed terms Reagan has said:
"It is regrettable that Iran does not accept this proposal."[16] Shah Hussein and Hosni Mubarak, too, in a joint resolution made after their meeting at Alexandria invited Iran to accept this proposal. [17]
Saeed Ramal, deputy director of the political bureau of the P.L.O. had said: "The P.L.O supports Iraq's position in confronting the Iranian aggression and confirms the efforts made to establish peace and find a peaceful way to end the war with Iran.[18]
The views of the Soviet Union, as stated by Playeff and Musilian, Chairman of Soviet Foreign Relations Committee, and as published in the Al Siasat newspaper of Kuwait in its issue dated 2/9/1986 (11/6/1365) are as follows: "It is not the mission of the Iraqis to state, explain and justify President Saddam Hussein's message for the world. The friends of Iraq should obtain the support of international organizations; of the conference of the heads of the Non-Aligned states, and other international tribunals for the just efforts Iraq makes toward peace."
It is necessary to remind ourselves of Iraq's announced reasons for starting the war before making an analysis of Iraq's proposal for peace because such an analysis will lead us to the termination of the war. In other Words, the realization of what Iraq calls its lawful rights makes its regime to announce that the war has ended. In such a case Iraq can say: "I have obtained all the rights for which I started the war against Iran and therefore, I unilaterally announce that the war has ended."
The Three Islands
The first time Saddam spoke about the problem of these three islands was during an interview with the A1 Mustaqbal magazine on 13/10/1979 (21/7/1358) when answering a question as to why the Iranians do not return the islands.[19]
Also, late in July 1980, Naeem Haddad, former speaker of Iraq's National Assembly said: "My country demands the withdrawal of Iran from the three occupied islands in the Gulf (Persian Gulf)."[20] Early in July 1980 (mid Tir 1359) he had said: Iraq categorically rejects mediation with Iran... the return of the three islands, which the shah's regime had overtaken in the (Persian) Gulf, will automatically prepare Iraq for negotiation with Iran."[21]
We ought o point out that statements such as these (above) are very much like those of two countries who are at war with each other whereas Naeem Haddad has uttered them two months before the start of the war. It follows therefore, that the hidden objective of Iraq, from the beginning of the war, had been to perform acts of aggression against the Islamic Republic.
Also, Hamid Alwan, Iraqi advising minister for Foreign Affairs considered the return of the three islands as a condition for having relations with Iran. [22]
On 20/7/1980 (29/4/1359) Saddam Hussein discussed the issue of the three islands and scolded those who questioned his posing the issue after years of silence while the shah was in power:
Some Arab states say: "Why did you wait from March 1975 (Esfand 1353) until now, when the shah is overthrown, to raise the issue of the three islands?"
Prior to this time, on 22/4/1980 Taha Yassin Ramadhan, member of the Revolutionary Council had said: "The question of retaking the three islands, which are occupied by Iran, is very much alive in the minds of Iraqi authorities."[23] At the same time, Iraq's official news correspondent on political matters had said: "Iraq does not simply make efforts to retake the three islands and the other half of the Shatt al Arab, it takes practical measures.[24]
In a message to Mr. Waldheim, Saadoon Hamadi, former Iraqi minister for foreign affairs, had said: "Iraq wants the withdrawal of Iranian forces from the Lesser and Bigger Thumbs and the Abu Musa Islands located in the Strait of Hormuz."[25]
Latif Nassim Jassem, Iraq's minister of information, in May 1980 (Ordibehesht 1359) in a talk about the three islands, has said: "We will take them any way possible."[26]
All these provocative utterances have been made prior to the massive Iraqi invasion of Iran on 22/9/1980 (31/6/1359). After the start of the war such utterances increased and we pointed to some of them in previous chapters including Saddam's statement that: "If these islands remain in Iranian hands, the world should expect another war between Arabs and Iranians to get back the islands and return them to their owner."[27]
The statement of Latif Nassim Jassem to the effect that the Iranians should return the triple islands [28] is just another claim. Early in December 1980 (Azar 1359) he announced: "The indefinite occupation of these three islands by Iran not only upsets the security of Iraq, it also threatens the peace and security of the Arab countries in the region. The solution to this struggle must include, forever, the withdrawal of Iran from these islands. [29]
We don't intend to narrate all of the countless statements of Iraqi authorities on this issue, rather we aim to establish the fact that from times before the war until early 1982, the Iraqi regime had consistently connected the matter of peace to the issue of the three islands. But, now Iraq has given up this issue. The question is: why has Iraq given up this issue now? Or, do the recent proposals of this regime on 2/8/1986 (11/5/1365) which include the issues of "security of the (Persian) Gulf" cover the issue of the islands as well ? Does Saddam still believe that if the question of the three islands is not solved the world should expect another war in the region in the future?
Tareq Aziz on 15/7/1981 (24/4/1360), expressed surprise at Iran's demand for withdrawal of Iraqi forces without indicating its stance over the three Arab islands.[30] Does this minister's wonder still exist?
2. The Usurped Lands
We discussed this point before. As we note, the Iraqi regime immediately after entry into Iranian territory posed this question (the usurped lands). A few hours after entering Iranian territory, which Iraq had claimed were usurped lands, in a message to Iran, Iraq demanded that Iran recognize its sovereignty over the areas it had occupied. [31]
These events are in harmony with what Saadoon Hamadi had said: "On September 8 our forces entered a territory that originally belonged to Iraq and we sent them (the Iranian government) a note and advised them of our actions and told them that these areas are Iraqi territory and we are ready to negotiate now. But we received no answer." [32]
Earlier in this book, we mentioned the timetable for the Iraqi armies' entry into Iran as announced by Iraq. We now give a summary of it in the words of Adnan Khayrullah, Iraqi minister of defense. On 25/9/1980 (3/7/1359), in a press interview Adnan Khayrullah had said: "On the 7th of the current month we retook the first area called the Zein Al Ghoas area, on the tenth day of same month we took back the second area called the Seif Saad area. And as far as I remember, on the 12th and 13th of this month we retook five border stations and thus we regained the entire area occupied by Iran and so, we settled our land disputes with Iran."[33]
The Revolutionary Leadership Council in a communiqué dated September 22, 1980 (31/6/1359) states that Iran's refusal to recognize the Iraqi sovereignty over the usurped lands occupied by Iraqi armies made the Iraqi regime have its armed forces give a military answer to Iran. [34]
That is why the ruling regime in Baghdad calls the aggression, known as the Qadessiah of Saddam, the "Liberating War" because, Saddam regarded it as the war to liberate Iraqi usurped lands. After the entry of Iraqi forces into Iran on September 7, 1980, this point somehow entered the picture and became topical.
However, if a land problem had existed between the two countries, Iraq would surely have raised it before. Reason does not have it that Iraq with such demands on the three islands and on Iraqi lands usurped by Iran would remain quiet all this time.
Since 13/10/1979 (21/7/1358) when the question of the three islands was posed by Saddam, not a word was spoken by him or other Iraqi authorities in their heated publicity campaign about usurped lands until after the entry of Iraqi armies into Iran on 7/9/1980 (16/6/1359). Is this an acceptable approach to the issues? More brazen yet is that Saddam does not call the entry of Iraqi troops into Iran occupation. He calls it liberation and says that Iran has occupied these territories through aggression. At the Taef Conference Saddam said:
"When Iraq was impelled to eradicate the signs of illegal occupation in the regions of Zeinal Ghoas, Seif Sa ad, Meimak and other areas, it was not invalidating Iranian territory nor was it trampling its rights.[35]
While bragging about the return of Iraqi sovereignty to these areas, Saddam recalled his own words uttered at a meeting with the goodwill commission for terminating the war:
"Last night, in a meeting with the goodwill committee we addressed them in these words: All should know that the time to ignore the sovereign rights of Iraq and the Arab Ummat is behind us. Now is the time to take back our usurped lands as well as our sovereign rights. Because the land and sovereign rights of Iraq is considered as the land and sovereign rights of the Arab ummat."[36]
A look at the area of Iranian land claimed by Iraq, indicates the greed and avidity of this country in its claims to Iranian territory.
Ezzat Al-Doury, in a press interview in Rome on 15/9/1980 (24/6/1359), which was published by the Al Thoura newspaper, official organ of the ruling Ba'ath Party in Baghdad on 16/9/1980, for the first time, indicated the extent of land claimed by Iraq. He said: "Iran had occupied 150 square kilometers of Iraq's territory." But, Iraqi Defense Minister Adnan Khayrullah at a press conference held 25/9/1980 (3/7/1359), just a few days after the occupation of Iranian territories by Iraq's armies said: "324 square kilometers of the lands occupied by Iran have been retaken."[37] However, in Saadoon Hamadi's talk at the United Nations the figure was raised. He said: "Iraq has retaken its occupied land amounting to 400 square kilometers.[38]
Thus, we see that the area of occupied lands increased by 76 square kilometers in 10 days in the interim period between the statements of Iraq's minister of defense and statements made by this country's minister of foreign affairs. However the statements of Iraq's minister of information issued at the same time clearly indicates that the area of land claimed by Iraq exceeds the area that had been announced:
"The Iranians must officially recognize our sovereignty over our lands and withdraw from the occupied areas; they must not interfere in our international affairs. They must return the three Arab islands and seek friendly relations and neighborly goodwill between the two countries. Iraq will continue the fight for liberating the lands Iran has occupied and does not mind attacks by Iran. We continue to liberate our land."[39]
If we consider the statements made by the Iraqi ministers of defense and foreign affairs in which the liberation of all usurped lands has been announced; if we also consider the statements made in Baghdad on 12/9/1980 (21/6/1359) indicating that Iraq has claimed: "It has liberated all the land areas occupied by Iran and additional land has been taken"[40], then, what purpose would serve the utterances of the minister just a few days after the statements of the minister of foreign affairs, to the effect that it has been necessary to continue fighting to liberate the usurped land areas. Which usurped lands is he talking about? What then is the meaning of the statements in the state newspaper Al Thoura which reads: "Iraqi forces were able to liberate seven cities and lay siege on six more.[41] This has been printed on January 4, 1981 (14/10/1359) and it seems that Iraq's claim to the usurped lands yet to be liberated has heightened considerably during these four months.
Some of Iraq's military communiqués talk about the entry of Iraqi troops into Khorramshahr and of "annihilation of the defeated forces in Arab Mohammarah and of the liberation of this City from the pollution of its occupiers."[42] Saddam Hussein links the liberation of these areas with the liberation of the usurped Arab lands of Palestine in the following terms:
"In this way the lands and waters you freed from bondage of the ...Khomeini group, in practical terms means the liberation of an equal area of Palestinian land."[43]
At the same time Saddam demanded that Iranians give formal recognition to occupation of the liberated lands, otherwise Iraqi forces would invade more Iranian lands and cities:
"We then demanded, in our messages, that they give up the usurped Iraqi lands otherwise we would take them by force. But they regarded our words as claims and therefore we took them by force and told them they should give up the dangerous game of bombing cities or else we shall consider the bombings as all out war and it happened exactly this way. Today we tell them in clear terms that they lose opportunities with further advancement of Iraqi forces and their occupation of more territory and cities." [44]
In his last peace proposal Saddam Hussain has made no reference to Iraqi usurped lands. Does his demand of returning to international borders mean that he will withdraw from the usurped territories liberated by the Iraqi Army!?
Will he give up claims for more territory?
What does Saddam mean by international borders?
Does he want to return to the borders as they were prior to his attack of 7/9/1980 (16/6/1359) or does he want to return to the borders as they were before the Algerian accord ?
We here set before Saddam the message of Saadoon Hamadi, Iraqi minister for foreign affairs to the foreign ministers, members of the U.N. Security Council, dated 26/10/1980 (4/8/1359):
"No border treaty exists between Iran and Iraq except the 1913 (1292) treaty. Iran actually annulled the 1975 Algerian treaty and Iraq followed suit and cancelled the said treaty. The shah unilaterally cancelled the 1937 (1316) treaty. Therefore, when we talk about retreating, we need to know where we are retreating to?''[45]
Now that Saddam poses the issue of retreat to international borders, the same question recurs: Retreat, how far and whereto?! The Al Thoura newspaper, official organ of the ruling Ba'ath Party, published in Baghdad, in its issue dated October 30, 1980 (8/8/1359) stated that retreat from Iran's territory is practically impossible from a legal point of view!:
"The demand that Iraq withdraw from the territories it holds before Iran's, formal, practical and legal recognition of Iraq's sovereignty, is legally and actually an unlawful demand because Iran has not defined its borders with Iraq."[46]
What made Saddam want so generously to return to international borders, whereas, until recently, such a thing was deemed legally and practically impossible?
Has Saddam abandoned the principle of "liberating the lands usurped by Iran, which he compared to an equal area of liberated Palestine land!?
Assuming that Saddam wishes to return to the 1975 treaty signed in Algeria, has he forgotten his previous words?:
"The Algerian treaty was presented to us in the conditions I already mentioned. But if the new rulers were bound by it, we, too, would uphold it on our part not because we considered that treaty as fair or correct but because we had signed it and we honor treaties. But the gentlemen -the new rulers of Iran, annulled the 1975 Algerian treaty and therefore we shall never return to it." [47]
Has Saddam withdrawn from a treaty which he claims has been imposed on him?
Besides the factors that made him cancel the treaty on 17/9/1980 (26/6/1359), has any other event occurred? This question reminds one of another question, that is, why doesn't Iran sign a peace treaty with Saddam ?
Without intent to enter a detailed discussion, several reasons, above all Iraq's invasion of Iran and the need to punish an aggressor, forbid us to make peace with Saddam. If we just consider the 1975 (1353) Algerian Treaty signed between the two countries, and has been actually a peace treaty, we note that:
Out of the four articles of the treaty signed the 6th of March, 1975 (15/12/1353) the first three are devoted to mapping the final charts of ground and water borders between the two countries and: "In this way the countries shall establish security and mutual trust along their common borders. Therefore the two parties herewith under- take to maintain a very careful and effective control, each in its own border, in order to prevent any infiltration for the purpose of sabotage from either side."[48]
Article four specifies: "Both signatories to this treaty have agreed that the above regulations are inseparable elements for a general solution, consequently, violation of any of them is in conflict with the spirit of the Algerian treaty."[49]
The Iraqi regime at a proper opportunity used article four to claim that Iran has interfered in Iraq's internal affairs and in spite of article three of the Algerian treaty and, also, of article three of the protocol concerning state borders and good-neighborly relations between Iran and Iraq, which bar any sabotage activity by infiltration of the borders, the Iraqi regime imputed to Iran several explosions that had occurred in various places of Iraq. It goes without saying that no proof was presented to establish the claim that someone from Iran had infiltrated Iraq to explode bombs in a given place.
It is appropriate, at this point, to consider Iraq's reasons for canceling the Algerian treaty:
The notice of the treaty's cancellation dated September 10, 1980 (19/6/1359), states:
"Whereas the Iranian government by deliberate interference in Iraq's internal affairs and not observing good-neighborly relations and by refusing to return the usurped lands, which, according to the treaty, were to come under Iraqi sovereignty, has violated the March 6, 1975 treaty and the protocols attached thereto, its acts are, therefore, tantamount to cancellation of the March 1975 treaty. In view of this the Revolutionary Command Council at its meeting of 17/9/1980 (26/6/1359) decided to cancel this treaty and return to Iraq its legal and actual sovereignty over the Shatt al Arab." [50]
Later on, Saddam realized that his reasoning regarding cancellation of the treaty by Iran has no rational or legal basis. Therefore, he decided to make up for it at the Taef Conference held 26/1/1981 (6/11/1360) by talking about "overt violation of the good-neighborly relations by Iran, non-interference in internal problems and prevention of infiltration of saboteurs, as guaranteed in the Algerian Treaty."[51]
He (Saddam) offered the following two points as proof of overt violation of the treaty:
1. The occurrence of explosions in Baghdad and the killing of a security man in Karbala. We already said that these claims were absolutely baseless, that no evidence, whatsoever, has been presented in support of the claim that these incidents had been perpetrated by Iran. Saddam must have thought that his mere words, claiming that Iran has been behind these incidents were proof enough.
2. The support afforded to Iraq's Kurdestan by Iran. This claim, too, is baseless and lacks supportive evidence, particularly that the Kurdish nation of Iraq has been the subject of suppression and oppression at various times, the worst of such treatment of them having taken place during the Ba'athist regime. The proof of this is found in the protest notes by international organizations served on Iraq demanding that this country give up its racist policies with respect to the Kurds. The last of such notes is issued by the World Organization for Defense of Human Rights. It reads:
"Last fall more than 300 children and youths have been jailed at Soleimaniah, north of Iraq. Their ages range from 10 to 14 years. The arrest of the children is due to the political activities of their kin against the regime. Mr. Minu Kaminka, member of the International Committee for the Defense of Human Rights announced that, of those arrested, three had died of torture. Mr. Kaminka further said that of those who had given themselves up at Soleimaniah last October 23 were executed in two groups, by firing squads. Eight others were buried alive by the regime's security agents and others were arrested in house searches and were immediately executed. [52]
When Iraqi authorities act so barbarously toward the Kurds, what concern is it of Iran if the oppressed take up arms in opposition to Baghdad butchers? All know that the Kurds of Iraq have often resorted to armed confrontation at various times, since the days of Iraq's monarchy down to the time of Aref and now the Ba'athist regime, to resist cruelty and oppression. What proof is there for Saddam to claim that such acts are performed at the instigation of the Islamic Republic.
The causes for cancellation of the Algerian treaty can be traced to Iraq's aggressive and expansionist thoughts and inclinations, for it thought it had a good opportunity to invade Iran while this country was busy with house-cleaning after the fall of the shah.
Saadoon Hamadi, Iraqi foreign minister, answering a question by the Al-Qabas newspaper said:
Q: Will you state the reasons for the stepped-up severance of relations with Iran after the shah was overthrown?
A: "I don't think that the fall of the shah has had a special effect on the Iraqi-Iranian relations. Rather, the period from 1975 to 1978 (1354-1357) when the shah was dethroned is regarded as a breathing spell for revitalization of these relations. And, before this period, an undeclared war had existed between us on our northern and eastern borders."[53]
Thus, Iraq has been at rest from 1975 to 1978 getting ready to reopen the file of Iraqi-Iranian relations with the bloodshed that the world is witnessing in the area. In the words of Iraqi defense minister, Iraq was compelled to face the facts when signing the Algerian treaty so as to be able, later to attain a position superior to that at the time of signing that treaty.
Iraqi defense minister said in a press interview held September 25, 1980 (3/7/1359):
"If we had a choice, we would not accept the Algerian treaty. But the existing regional conditions of the Arabs and world conditions at that time made us accept the realities in the hope of a time when we could be in a better position then at the time of signing the Algerian accord. "[54]
This was a model treaty between Iran and Iraq and we saw how Saddam disregarded it with fictitious claims. Has Saddam changed in some way that he now wants peace and asks us to sit at the negotiating table with him?
As Saddam has admitted, in his talks with the Iranians he will hide behind lies and words having double meanings or interpretations. He himself has said in a television program titled, "Let us think together of the revolution and the people."[55] When answering a question posed by an Iraqi, Saddam replied with pride and haughtiness:
"... The fourth is that we should get used to respecting our own words, that is, we should be careful in selecting our objective and our ethical, scientific and technical approaches and attitudes. When we say that such a problem has occurred, then it has occurred and we let it go at that. This is how it has happened, yes, it has occurred this way, viz, the sly opportunism of a fellow citizen vis-a-vis a responsible authority and against him or vice versa.
"Yes, it may be that Iraqi envoys sent to negotiate with Iran, have used it. Yes, it is permissible in such a case and it is appropriate to use the double talk, but it is impossible among ourselves to use such ruses."
Therefore, Saddam is determined to resort to lies in his meetings with the Iranians, otherwise, what should be our interpretation of such phrases as: "Sly opportunism and the term double talk." If we go back to our earlier discussions, we shall note that Saddam, has left Iran at a junction in his recent peace proposal:
1. If Iran rejects the peace proposals, Saddam and his supporters claim that Iran does not want peace and is a war-monger and as such it should accept its serious ramifications.
2. If Iran accepts a cease-fire, which undoubtedly will be the first step, and sits at the negotiation table, then the demands of Saddam are fulfilled, and it will be his turn to talk with the Iranian delegation in his twisted double talk jargon.
As a result, Iran will be compelled to accept all of Iraq's conditions because, if Iran should want to reject those conditions, it will have no choice but to resume its defensive military actions to regain its rights and the outcome of this enables Saddam and his allies to say to the world: You see, Iran did not accept peace, it is an aggressor state!?
But, if Iran accepts Saddam's terms, in view of all the documentary evidences which Saddam and other responsible Iraqi authorities talk about, and considering Iraq's demands on the Shatt al Arab (Arvand Rud), the three islands the usurped areas, his rejection of withdrawal from its positions and rights, in all probabilities, Iraq will declare Saddam's terms to mean that the condition of retreat to international borders means remaining in Iranian territory because these points are not the international border but are regarded as Iraqi territory.
That being the case, Iran will be unable to start a war to free these areas because Iran will be accused of having started the war and the mediators will demand that we solve our problems while we are at the negotiating table. Exactly at this juncture, Saddam will retain the Iranian lands and the Iranians will be told: "Who told you that return to international borders means that we shall abandon the usurped lands which we have liberated, or give up our rights to the Shatt al Arab." It will be so, particularly because Saddam's terms make no mention of these points and make everything pending on negotiation.
Another point raised by Saddam during the same TV interview is that: "Iraq and Iran should utilize, in a positive manner, all that helps to make secure the region, especially, the Arab (Persian) Gulf." Once more, he will pose the question of the three islands. And, with a view to this point, it will be claimed that by security of the Persian Gulf, Saddam has meant the issue of the three islands. Truly, what proof is there to maintain that he has not had that (the three islands) in mind, particularly because his words yield to various conclusions including this and other points beyond.
With regard to the condition of non-interference in internal affairs, we must say, that the possibility will be provided for Iraq to have a breathing spell, as noted by Saadoon Hamadi, for a period of say, five or ten years to re-arm and mobilize a much larger and better equipped army. When this is done, a bomb will then explode somewhere in the streets of Baghdad, an individual will be executed as a terrorist hired by Iran to commit sabotage and so Iraq may claim interference by Iran in its internal affairs and that is cause for cancellation of such and such an agreement signed between the two countries on such a date and imposed on Iraq under special Arab and world circumstances. And so the peace and non-aggression treaty is annulled. Certainly Saddam will take advantage of the term embodied in the appendix of the Algerian treaty. Article four of the protocol to the Algerian treaty says that the breach of any part of this general solution is contrary to the spirit of the Algerian accord.
This is the time bomb method that should go off at a special hour. It is set to go off as soon as Iraq claims the breach of contract condition which means total annulment of the treaty. [56]
FOOTNOTES
[1] Communiqué No.10 of the Commander-in-Chief of the Iraqi Armed Forces, page 26.
[2] Same source as above, No.29, page 46.
[3] Same source as above, Nos. 99 and 100, pages 54- 157. The telegram of the Commander of the Qadessiah forces appears on p. 100: Following the victory of the brave Arab fighters over the racist Farsi (Persian) and the annihilation of enemy forces at Arab Mohammarah (Khorramshahr) and liberation from the impurities of the aggressive usurpers, the term "aggressor" has been used to replace "Iranians" and this is how the real owners of a territory are referred to by the Iraqi aggressors.
[4] The At Bairaq newspaper dated 23/10/1980. The statements of Adnan Khayrullah were made 22/10/1980. We wonder whether the Iraqi minister knew that Mohammarah is the same as Khorramshahr. One of the strange contradictory statements appears in military communiqué No.39 dated 27/9/1980 to the effect that Iraqi forces are just about to enter the cities of Ahwaz, Susangerd and Khafajiah whereas communiqué No.40 also dated 27/9/1980 states: "This morning we were able to break enemy defense lines at Khafajiah area, where the enemy has renamed Susangerd by force. See pages 54 and 56 of the general command's communiqués.
[5] Saddam Hussein on 14/3/191, also, the Alefba magazine issue No.651 dated 18/3/1981.
[6] The Al Nahar newspaper dated 28/3/1981.
[7] Cabinet ministers meeting of 25/12/1980.
[8] The Al Safir newspaper dated 27/9/1980.
[9] Thoughts and Viewpoints, issue No.7, page 38
[10] Thoughts and Viewpoints, issue No.6, pp. 36 and 45
[11] Saddam Hussein in a speech on Iraq's Army Day, the Al Anwar newspaper published a summary of this speech on 7/1/1981.
[12] Summary of this speech on 7/1/1981
[13] Saddam Hussein in a talk with a number of hired Ba'ath Party clergy.
[14] Saddam on Iraqi Army anniversary day held each year on the 6th of January.
[15] Radio Baghdad 2/8/1986, Saddam's open letter to Iranian authorities.
[16] Radio Kuwait 7/8/1986 and news media.
[17] The Al Jomhurriah newspaper of Cairo, 8/8/1986 published an article asking the cessation of the war and the bloodshed of Muslims.
[18] Radio Baghdad, 7/8/1986
[19] The Al Mustaqbal issue dated 13/10/1979, also printed as footnote to Thoughts and Viewpoints No.1, page 26. To better understand the anti-Iran barrages, see the Alefba magazine, issue No.591, dated 23/1/1980, an article titled: The Ruler of Iran...
[20] Al Siasat newspaper dated 27/5/1980
[21] Al Watan newspaper dated 13/7/1980
[22] Al Nahar newspaper dated 24/8/1980
[23] Al Anwar newspaper dated 22/4/1980
[24] Al Anwar newspaper dated 22/4/1980
[25] File on Iraq-Iran War, page.6
[26] File on Iraq-Iran War, page 6
[27] Saddam's press conference dated 1011111980 printed in Thoughts and Viewpoints, issue 7, p. 38
[28] Al Safir newspaper dated 511011980
[29] Al Bairaq newspaper dated 211211980
[30] Al Bairaq newspaper dated 16/7/1981, a selected narrative from a speech at the World Conference on Union with Iraq.
[31] Based on the words of Saddam re: start of the war, the first note was sent a few hours after the entry of Iraqi forces to Zain -al Ghoas. Then another note was issued from Seif Saad area. Therefore, all the notes in which return of the usurped lands is demanded were issued after entry into these usurped lands!!! See Saddam's speech at the National Assembly dated 4/1111980, printed as footnotes to Thoughts and Viewpoints, issue No.6, p. 27
[32] Al Sharq dated 5/10/1980. Date of entry of Iraq's Army into Iranian territory announced as noted in the book Jarideh Al Jomhurriah, page 212 is 719/1980 which conforms to the date announced by Adnan Khayrullah, Iraqi minister of defense in a press interview on 2519/1980, see Al Anwar issue dated 2619/1980.
It follows that Saadoon Hamadi's assertion that the entry date has been 819/1980 is baseless unless, for special reasons, he had wanted to bring this date forward by one day.
[33] Al Anwar dated 2619/1980. The assertion of doubt by Iraqi defense minister as to the date of taking border stations is most strange, where he says: “as far as I remember." Because entry into these stations occurred just a few days before this minister's press interview. What kind of memory is this that he cannot recall the date of major events such as this!?
[34] Communiqué issued by the Iraqi Armed Forces General Command, p. 5
[35] This speech of Saddam is printed in the booklet titled "Al Haqayeq Al Tarikhiah LeI Atma el Farsiah (Historical facts about Persian Greed).
[36] This speech of Saddam is printed in Al Anwar newspaper, issue dated 1513/1980.
[37] Al Safir newspaper, issue dated 2619/1980.
[38] Al Sharq Newspaper issue dated 5/10/1980.
[39] Al Safir Newspaper, issue dated 5/10/1980.
[40] File on Iraq-Iran War, page 7
[41] Al Nahar newspaper issue dated 5/1/1981.
[42] Armed Forces General Command Communiqué No.100 -page 157 see previous pages.
[43] This speech of Saddam is printed in Al Anwar on 15/3/1981
[44] Same speech. We have already quoted the words and utterances of the Iraqi regime's authorities and we noted that their messages, as they themselves claim, were sent after the entry of their troops into Iran on 7/9/1980.
[45] Al Leva newspaper dated 26/10/1980 -Iraq itself as is obvious annulled the Algerian treaty on 1719/1980, and not Iran.
[46] Al Bairaq newspaper, issue dated 1/11/1980 had quoted this matter from an article published in the Al Thourah newspaper of Baghdad the day before. Al Thourah concludes its article in these words: "The grave reality that our Farsi (Persian) enemy should understand is that it has lost the war, it is fleeing and its efforts are useless." Surely these assertions were the result of the pride Iraq felt for occupying a large area of Iranian soil in the early days of its aggression.
[47] Complete text of Saddam's speech is printed in the booklet: Al Haqayeq al Tarikhiah Lel Atma el Farsiah, page 22.
[48] See An Analysis of the Iraqi-Imposed War on the Islamic Republic of Iran, page 17.
[49] Same as above.
[50] Same as above, page 10
[51] The booklet: Al Haqayeq Al Tarikhiah Lel Alma el Farsiah
[52] The Guardian newspaper of England issue dated 13/3/1986 -The report by Amnesty International prepared on the basis of investigations of said committee.
[53] Al Qabas newspaper dated 2/10/1980
[54] Al Anwar newspaper dated 26/9/1980
[55] Baghdad TV program: "Let Us Think Together" on 11/10/1980. In this deceitful show a number of people voiced complaints which the regime permits a number of Iraqi authorities to give answers.
[56] Before this, Saddam Hussein had proposed similar peace conditions. In a letter to Iranian authorities broadcast on Baghdad Radio on 14/6/1985 he posed a condition viz: "The above mentioned principles are interrelated. Violation of any of them means violation of all of them."
|
