“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 ‘In 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 ‘Al-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 relations”
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.”
"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.” 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 We shall never forget the cries of Arabian women living in Arabia."[5]
We have the text of his (Saddam's) words on the subject of "a city south of Iraq". He has added some words to clarify what he had said before; indicating Imam Khomeini: "In general the people of Iran and the Arab nation of Arabia will teach him not to overstep his limits and if he does, the Iraqi nation will teach him further as to how he should behave."[6]
Thus we see that Iraq has been preparing itself from earlier days to teach Iran a point or two and on the anniversary of the July 17 coup d'etat (26th of the month of Tir) Saddam Hussein said: "our greetings to the fighting nation of Arabia which has offered caravans of martyrs to fight the racist executioners in defense of their basic rights which had been denied them for years without any hope for the future."[7]
The passions and understandings of the leadership that governs from Baghdad, of interference in domestic affairs of Iran made other Iraqi authorities to gradually claim that it is Iran who is interfering in internal affairs of Iraq. Iraq's actions, if you were to psychoanalyze them are attempts to justify the interference of one order in another because all authorities in Iraq's government are convinced they are interfering in internal affairs of Iran. Three months before the aggression of Iraq on Iran, Saadoon Hamadi, former Iraqi foreign minister, in an interview on the subject of improving relations with Iran mentioned the following two conditions: .
1. Iran should not interfere directly or indirectly in the affairs concerning Arab countries, I don't mean just Iraq, I mean all Arab countries.
2. Iran should be a truly non-aligned country that is, not be dominated by any big power and remain independent of the political influences of world blocs. [8]
The words of Saadoon Hamadi imply that he has meant to pose the questions of the three islands. His comment on not being affiliated with any political world blocs makes us to question, although from the time the revolution succeeded Iran has not been close to any major political blocs. If reliance of one of Iraq's neighbors on a major world power means domination and influence and closeness of that power to Iraq, why is it that the regime of Iraq has not protested to some of its Arab neighbors who are totally dependent on the U.S.A. and have even provided military bases and other facilities for that power in their country. We can further ask why Saadoon Hamadi has not protested the membership of a neighboring country in the NATO and has not requested that neighboring country to not extend the domination and influence of that power to Iraq's border?
Another proof of interference in Iran's internal affairs is that by the end of July 1980 (early Mordad 1359) a number of Lebanese interviewed Latif Nasif Jassem, Iraqi minister of culture and information and asked him about the relations between Iran and Iraq. He replied: "Our dispute will become graver. Actions are being taken and will be continued until Iran acquires a government. [9]
This rather vague talk provides no explanation of the actions to be performed by the government, which is (according to him) to be instituted in Iran. In another interview published in the Kuwaiti ' Al Qabas' on 18/1/1981, Latif N. Jassem states:
"Iraq regards the government of Arabia as a definite right of the Arabs of this land. And if they wish to announce the establishment of such a government, Iraq shall aid them to realize it. At the gathering of the national heroes of the Qadessiah Base he was aware of what he was saying. He was referring to the Qadessiah War where Arabs overcame the Persians more than 1400 years ago. He said:
“You have your revolution before you at Qadessiah. It guides you to what Qadessiah means. Here, today, you not only have the name of Qadessiah on you, but you also have its meaning, its honor and its spirit with yourselves. You have the great readiness and devotion of the past just on the people of Qadessiah had in those days in liberating the Arab ummat and of all Arab homeland. You do not defend the free Iraq only."
This speech was delivered on June 8, 1980 (18/3/59). Days passed by and what was later on called "the Qadessiah of Saddam " was no doubt inspired from Saddam's speech at a military base by this name. It seems appropriate for us to read what the 'al Thorah' newspaper, the official organ of the ruling Ba'ath Party has written about this base.
"The project began on 22/6/1980 (1/4/59) and was finished before September (Shahrivar) was in. The name of the project was: The National Herpes Action Base of Qadessiah. About 4,000 men and women were lined up in it."[10]
The announced objective for the creation of this base was to build a model village to house 240 farmer families in the region of Nahravan on the road to Wasset. The programmed project as the newspaper says had to start early in September (early Shahrivar), but at the end of September of the same year, the Qadessiah heroes were driven out to a place they named the Qadessiah of Saddam where a black death was awaiting them.

Interference of Iraqi Regime in Internal Affairs of Iran
Apart from the fact that the Iraqi regime calls the Iranian nation the Farsi nations and this nomenclature is meant to divide Iran into separate states on the basis of races that make up the population of a country and considering that Iraq, inspite of its own multi-racial composition has not used the term "Iraqi nations" with respect to itself, the Iraqi regime exerted extensive efforts to assist agents of the shah such as the SAVAK and the like and supplied these agents with considerable amounts of arms and funds before and after the start of the war in order to create tiny independent states in Khuzestan, Azarbaijan, Kurdestan and Baluchestan. The Iraqi regime still calls Khuzestan as ‘Arabistan’.
The first clues of interference in the internal affairs of Iran can be seen in Saddam's speech delivered on May 2, 1980 (Ordibehesht 12, 1359) in an area called Khalifat, 400 kilometers north of Baghdad with a predominantly Kurdish population. The speech was printed in the 'Al Nahar' newspaper the next day. In his speech Saddam accused Tehran in these words:
"... the destruction of our Kurd brothers continues. However, a time will come when our Kurdish and Arab brothers shall be rescued from persecution by Khomeini and live in peace together in Arabistan (Khuzestan)." Saddam boasts and takes pride in his support of the oppressed nations.
On January 6, 1981 (Dey 16, 1359) Iraq's Army Day, such support became more manifest.
"…. Also, I send greetings to all Kurdish, Baluchi, Azarbaijani and Arab nations of Iran. I announced my support and assistance to their fight against tyranny and oppression and we shall help them defend their wishes and legal rights."
In his talk on March 14, 1981 (21/12/1359), he (Saddam) explicitly spoke of his support of anti-Iran elements in the following words:
"... We announce to all nations of Iran, especially, to the Kurdish nation of Iran, to the nations of Baluchestan and Azarbaijan and to all honorable patriots, except the ignorant ones who have relations with colonialism that in order to establish firm relations with them so that they may attain their national and homeland rights we are quite ready to assist, so that they may live honorably and peacefully with Iraq. We are prepared to provide them with arms and any of the things that they may need to establish this relationship... These are not just words. This is a decision."
With regard to the Arabs of Khuzestan Saddam has said:
"... We tell them and tell all the world and in these words we particularly address our own Arab nation in Arabia (Khuzestan) that it is up to them to prepare themselves to obtain their national rights and get their lawful homeland rights as a nation whose characteristics are specified in history and in its present national foundation." [11]
At a meeting with a group of Kurdish clergy and employees of the Iraqi Ministry of Vaqf (property endowed to religious purposes), one of the clergymen, addressing Saddam, asked that a portion of his blessings to Iranian Kurds who opposed the Islamic Republic regime, be granted to Iraqi Kurds, because, according to this man, relatives and kin take precedence over others when it comes to goodness. Read the following:
"Yet, we ask His Excellency the President now that your mercy and blessings are showered on the Kurds who fight the Khomeini regime, may your favor and goodness be awarded to us
for we too, who fight against Khomeini's insurgency and you know that kin gets first priority when it comes to receiving favors. God willing, the children are worthier of your fatherly goodness. [12]
On Nov. 23, 1981 (Azar 2, 1360), in his speech at the National Assembly, Saddam once more announced his support for all those who oppose the Islamic regime of Iran. He said:
"... As we have already said, here in the presence of the people's representatives in the National Assembly we reaffirm that without any pre-determined terms or conditions our doors are open to promote cooperation and, apart from the views and opinions of opposition groups in Iran, we increase our cooperation with respect to peace."
He (Saddam) then used the National Assembly tribune to discuss matters relating to the Iranian nation, hoping he would be blamed by the assembly members uttered the following words without realizing that his words revealed the height of the interferences of the Iraqi regime in the internal affairs of Iran:
"I hope you will not be surprised at my following words addressed to the nations of Iran because at present, the nations of Iran are suffering real misery and hardships. It is not our responsibility to try to rescue them but our humanitarian duty bids us to understand their misery and if we help free them from a common enemy, we won't be committing an error."

Interference in Operational Phase
On November 10, 1980 (Aban 19, 1359) during a press interview, Saddam Hussein appraised the power of the Iraqi forces in the following words:
"Try to pass through the areas and road of Abadan-Mohammarah (Khorramshahr), Mohammarah-Ahwaz and Mohammarah-Dezful so that you may see tens of kilometers of new asphalt roads. The roads are built by Iraq, by civil and national, behind the fronts organizations and not by our military personnel."[13]
Really, what does it mean that Iraq has leveled and asphalted roads in Iran. Five months after the start of the war, in a meeting with southern Iraqi farmers, who were complaining of welfare shortages and demanded a road be built to connect their village to a town, Saddam resorted to the war as an excuse and said that all the machinery in the country had been sent to the fronts to build roads, remove dirt and to erect a dam such as the Aswan in Egypt. Saddam then continued:
"The total amount of dirt used in the Aswan Dam has been 5 million cubic meters. By now our nation has moved more than 20 million, that is, four times the dirt moved for the Aswan Dam. Israel claims with pride that in its recent war with the Arabs:
"We built roads, for our rifle range, exceeding 160 kilometers.
"Do you have any idea how much road you built in five months?" "You have built over two thousand kilometers of road for your army."[14]
Seven years after the start of the war, the amount of dirt removed in the lands occupied by Iraqi forces was increased. According to Saddam's speech at the Ministry of Irrigation of Iraq on May, 1981 Ordibehesht 12, 1360):
"The amount of dirt removed is now 37 million cubic meters and your road building to help the army's mission is now at two thousand four hundred kilometers."[15]
Did the Iraqi army, that was stationed deep inside Iranian territory, require so much dirt to be moved? [16]
Do not all such operations indicate the intention of Iraq to annex the Province of Khuzestan, administratively? How are we to interpret the words of Taha Aljazravi in his interview with Monte Carlo Radio on the eve of December 8, 1980 (Azar 17, 1359 A.H.) when he said: "The Arabistan (meaning Khuzestan) area has been liberated."[17]
Truly, how are we to interpret the Iraqi regime's threat made on December 23, 1980 (Dey 2, 1359) in the following words:
"After the Gulf (Persian) war ends, it is likely that Baghdad may not accept the direct domination of Iran in the area."[18]
If we regard Khorramshahr as an example of the changes that this regime has made in the Iranian territory occupied by Iraq, we shall realize how deeply Iraq has interfered in the internal affairs of Iran. In a cable by the commanding officer of the Qadessiah forces that occupied Khorramshahr to the chief commander of the armed forces of Iraq, dated 24/10/1980 (Aban 2, 1359 A.H.) we read:
"Office buildings of the governor general of Mohammarah (Khorramshahr) were occupied. The Iranian flag was lowered and Iraqi flag hoisted. A large feast was arranged in coordination with the liberating forces of Mohammarah.[19]
The term "liberating" implies that our occupied land has been freed and this meaning is further enhanced by Notice No.100 dated October 24 of the same year which reads:
"Following the victory of the brave fighters of the Arab Ummat over the racist Iranian enemy and the destruction of their defeated forces in the Arab Mohammarah and purging this city of the pollution and dirt of the usurpers..."[20]
The official 'Alefba' magazine, in a survey of the visit of publicity and education delegates of Karkh, Baghdad district to Khorramshahr has written as follows:
"After Mohammarah was freed, once more this city returned to the arms of its motherland. The people of the city embraced their brothers and the city turned into a flower posed a top a large tree named Iraq...”[21]
Also, a female member of this group of visitors has said the following about the schools which the Iraqi regime claims it has established there:
"We visited several new schools in the Al Ba'ath district of Mohammarah and in the faces of the youth we saw manliness and generosity as they cried out the names of the party and its leaders and they had photos of President Saddam in their hands." The schools referred to here above are the three elementary schools that were reopened after the Iraqi Army entered the city of Khorramshahr. They were renamed after prominent Iraqi authorities, viz, the Qadessiah of Saddam; the Al Ba'ath and the Shohada. Altogether they had a total capacity of 600 boys and girls and, as claimed by the Iraqi regime: "Qualified and expert manpower has been assigned to these schools both as teachers or office employees." [22]
The question didn't rest there for the 'Baghdad Observer' newspaper [23] wrote: "Postal services and communication networks will soon join Khorramshahr to postal and wireless networks and as a result people of the area can contact any city in Iraq."
Also, the National house of Publications and Publicity, affiliated with Iraq's Ministry of Information arranged a peripatetic book exhibition in "THE FREED AREAS" [24]
It is appropriate that Iraq, which now seeks a peace treaty with Iran, one condition of which is non-interference in internal affairs of each other, recall its open interference in the internal affairs of Iran. For this country, in addition to annexing occupied Iranian lands to itself, supplied saboteurs with money and guns and had them deployed for action all over Iran before and after the start of the war. Let us recall that Saddam had meant to set up an Arab government in Khuzestan and other governments in Baluchestan, Azarbaijan and in Kurdestan, he had insisted on the accomplishment of this task.
"To them and to all the world especially to our own Arab nation in Arabistan we say to get ready to regain their national and homeland rights and carry out their national homeland role and experience the lawful national homeland rights as a nation with known characteristics in the modern national historical organizations." [25]
Ezzat Aldoury, vice chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council of Iraq, at a meeting of the leaders of the so-called “Arabian Ahwaz Liberation Front" has said new things on 3/7/1983 (4-1362 A.H. Solar): "Iraq is considered as the Arab revolutionary base for Ahwaz and it regards your liberation fights as examples of that of a nation who knows that it is fighting to gain its rights."[26]
And, finally, the coveting of Iranian oil by Iraq is plainly stated by Taha Yassin Ramadhan one month after the start of the Iraqi invasion: "To find a solution, Iranian oil shall belong to Iraq."
FOOTNOTES
[1] His interview with the magazine Al Mustaqbal in series 1 of discussions titled "Thoughts and Viewpoints".
[2] Al Amal daily printed in Lebanon 25/3/1980 (5/1/1359).
[3] Al Nahar newspaper issue dated 22/4/1980 (4/2/59).
[4] Al Watan Al Arabi has printed a resume of this speech in its issue of 5/4/1980.
[5] The Al Nahar newspaper has printed a resume of this speech in its 25/4/1980 issue.
[6] Al Bairaq issue dated 26/4/1980.
[7] This speech which was delivered 17/7/1980 (26/4/1359) is published in the series of discussions named "Thoughts and Viewpoints, series 2, page 45.
[8] Al Havadeth 21/6/1980 (31 Khordad 1359 A.H.).
[9] Al Watan Al Arabi.
[10] Al Thawrah, printed in Baghdad and dated Aug. 25, 1980 (3/611359 A.H.). Qadesslah is the name of a battle in which the forces of Islam defeated Yazdegerd the 3rd, shah of Iran in the year 14 A.H. Some Iranians who had been oppressed by their kings showed interest in Islam and fought in this battle by the side of the Muslims and this gave them the decisive victory.
[11] The Al Anwar newspaper has published a resume of this speech in its issue of March 15, 1981 (12/24/1359).
[12] This matter related to special ceremonies arranged for them by Saddam Hussein in July 1982 (Tir 1361).
[13] Thoughts and Viewpoints series of discussions (7) published by Iraqi Embassy in Beirut.
[14] This speech was broadcast from Baghdad television on January 30, 1981 (10/11/1359 A.H.).
[15] Official report, page 229.
[16] The Al Safir newspaper, issue dated 28/11/1980 (7/9/59 A.H.), quoting the state newspaper, the Baghdad Observer.
[17] The Al Anwar newspaper dated 19/11/1980 (18/6/1359).
[18] The Al Nahar newspaper issue dated 24/12/1980 (3/10/1359).
[19] The book: "Statements by the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of Saddam's battle of Qadessiah, page 156.
[20] Same as above, page 157.
[21] Alefba magazine No.647 dated 18/2/1981 (29/11/1359 A.H.).
[22] Quoting the Al Amal newspaper, Lebanon 11/11/80 (20/8/59).
[23] The Alefba magazine of 18/3/1981 (27/12/1359).
[24] Look up the Alefba magazine dated 18/3/1981.
[25] Al Watan dated 4/7/1983 (13/4/1362).
[26] Le Monde and Al Qabas of 22/10/1980 (30/7/59 A.H.).

CHAPTER THREE

OBVIOUS VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

Binding on Iraq:
"The Algerian Treaty was imposed on us but if the new rulers would remain faithful to it, we, too, would observe it, not because we believe in its correctness but because we had signed it and out of respect for pacts. But the gentlemen, the new rulers of Iran themselves violated the 1975 Treaty and therefore we shall have no return to it."
Saddam Hussein, Taef 2811/1981 (8/1V1359 A.H.)

Binding on Iran:
"The former shah had doubts about the treaty before agreeing to it. We told him that if this treaty were not signed, Iraq would have no choice but to allow a free hand to the communists on its borders with Iran. Hardly a week had passed when the dethroned shah announced his agreement. But in regard to this agreement we must unfortunately state that it was buried with the death of Houari Boumedienne, Algeria's president in 1978."
Tariq Aziz Iraqi Foreign Minister 15/1V1981 (2419/1359 A.H.)

There Has been a deal Between Iran and Iraq
"Any activity of this kind, such as the political activity of Imam Khomeini in Iraq, will place this country in confrontation with the shah's regime and affect the trend of execution of the 1975 Accord and the pacts signed before that and, also, create difficulties in returning the Iraqi territory to its present ruler. From this we conclude that Iraq has paid a unilateral price to the shah, that is, it has recognized the dominion and rule of Iran over one half of the Shatt al Arab without acquiring what it expected from that treaty." Central Report, Page 186

Return to the Treaty:
"If the Iranian authorities could decide regarding termination of the war and recognize the Iraqi borders as set forth in international treaties, Iraq should be delighted."
Saddam Hussein, in a visit with labor ministers of the Non-Aligned countries, Jan. 1982 (Dey 1360)
In the 6th article of the treaties related to state borders and good- neighbor policy, signed the 13th of June 1975 (23rd Khordad 1354 A.H.) between Iran and Iraq in Baghdad, one reads:
1. In case of dispute regarding the interpretation or the execution of this treaty (or agreement) and its three attached protocols, such dispute shall be solved according to article three with due regard to the borderline between the two countries indicated in articles on and two stated above and also due observation of the border security of the countries.
2. Such disputes shall, in the first stage within two months of one side serving notice, be solved by direct negotiations between the states.
3. If the two parties do not come to an agreement over their dispute, the matter will be settled by a third party to be agreed upon by both sides within 3 months.
4. If one of the parties declines third party decision or if third party efforts do not succeed, the dispute shall be referred to arbitration within one month after third party efforts have failed.
5. In case of disagreement of the parties as to the process of arbitration, each party should within 15 days refer the matter to a court of law."
From what we mentioned above, we can see that the total amount of time allowed in the Treaty for settlement of any dispute between the two parties is six months and fifteen days from the emergence of the dispute before it can be taken to a court of law. This agreement or treaty and its annexes have anticipated other steps to be taken after referral of a dispute to a court. But Saddam, who from 1977 (1356) had decided to abrogate the treaty in a preplanned manner and not just having made a prediction of an event in 1977, as we shall see, unilaterally abrogated the treaty.
Since October 10, 1979 (21/7/1358 A.H.) when Saddam had a talk with the Al Mustaqbal magazine regarding the three islands, it became clear that he had devised a plan for the area which he would carry out. And on February 8, 1980 (19 Bahman 1358) he made a declaration which he termed the "National Charter". In this declaration Saddam had indicated the necessity of observing non-violence among countries bordering Iraq. Thus Saddam actually proclaimed himself as the gendarme of the Persian Gulf.
Up to that time and until the end of 7/9/1980 (16/6/1359), the day that Iraqi forces began their invasion of Iran, Saddam had not made mention of any differences or disputes, whatsoever, with Iran, and there was no such thing as a "problem of Iraqi usurped lands", as later called by Saddam which on 10/9/1980 (19/6/59) he promised to liberate.
Iraq preferred to invade Iran by raising what it has called, "the question of the three islands", that is, Abu Musa, the Bigger and Smaller Thumbs. Without a doubt, the stoneblind perception of Saddam and the presence of an army well equipped with modern weapons were the essential factors in Iraq's invasion of Iran. Saddam, who had thought that Iran is all tied up in domestic problems announced during an interview on 20/7/1980 (29/4/59 A.H.), concerning these islands and another case which he did not go into: "We now have the ability to take back the islands and there is something else... why should we remain silent?"[2]
Let us consider the Iraqi authorities' earlier statements concerning these three islands. The point to be made now is that all Iraqi authorities are bound by Saddam's instructions otherwise they will meet death, shelving and elimination. Although the question of the three islands is not, in any form or fashion, referred to or mentioned in the accord or treaty of Algiers nor in its subsequent agreements, yet, we see that Tariq Aziz had announced, toward the end of December 1980 (1359): "It is up to Iran to return the three islands to their Arab owners."[3]
In a message to Fidel Castro, chairman of the 6th Conference of Non-Aligned countries, Saadoon Hamadi, former Iraqi foreign minister, has said: "The Iraqi regime does not recognize the illegal occupation of these 3 Arabian islands by Iran, nor will Iraq admit the consequences of this (occupation) and wants Iran to withdraw from the islands as soon as possible."[4]
Taha Yassin Ramadhan Al Jazravi, Iraq's first deputy prime minister reiterated on April 21, 1980 (1/2/1359 A.H.): “Iraq's belief in retaking the three Arabian islands occupied by Iran and further stated Iraq's determination to fulfill the rights of the Arab nation of Arabia."[5]
On 21/4/1980 Iraq's official news media announced: "Iraq insists on retaking the three islands occupied by Iran since 1971 (1350) and also shall retake that part of the Shatt al Arab that has been in Iranian hands since 1975. This country does not just ask for their return but makes any serious effort and action for their retake."[6]
Naeem Haddad, former Iraqi house speaker has said: "We will not accept mediation between Iraq and Iran. We want cancellation of the Algerian treaty, return of Iraqi domination over all of the Shatt al Arab and the retreat of Iran from the three Arab islands that have been occupied by Iran during the last shah's rule." [7]
Hamed Alwan, former Iraqi advising minister for foreign affairs, has said the following with respect to Iranian threats concerning the Arabism of the Persian Gulf as published by the Al Watan magazine: "Any threat against any of the Arab (Persian) Gulf countries will be considered as a direct threat to Iraq. We never regard ourselves as the guardian for our brothers in the (Persian) Gulf. Rather, we regard the security of (the (Persian) Gulf as an intrinsic part of Iraq's national security. Moreover, we have nationalistic commitments in relation to the whole region."[8]
Naeem Haddad has said: "Iraq will certainly reject any suggestion of arbitration between itself and Iran. However, the return of the islands which the former shah's regime occupied in the Arabian (Persian) Gulf shall render Iraq ready for direct negotiation with Iran."[9] It must be stated that the above words were uttered by Naeem Haddad two months before the start of the war but we see that he has spoken as if a war was being waged at that time.
Here we point to other plain and clear utterances of Saddam with respect to the three islands. So far he had mentioned his intentions implicitly as in his "National Charter" in which he talks of non-violence and not resorting to arms in settling disputes among neighboring states. Toward the end of July 1980 (early Mordad 1359), Saddam said:
"Last February (Bahman 1358) Iraq announced the principles of the National Charter. In our opinion the commitment of the (Persian) Gulf neighbor states to this charter as the instrument which decides the general framework for relations between the neighboring states, will insure the security of the (Persian) Gulf. The children of the (Persian) Gulf and its countries are the watchmen of the (Persian) Gulf.
"One of the principles stated in the charter is that of non-violence where Arab states are concerned. It is with a view to this principle that Iran is posed as a problem. Of course after Iran, has realistically and courageously considered the rights of the Arabs and withdrawn from the three Arab islands and based its relations with Iraq and the (Persian) Gulf states on respect for their (the Arabs) absolute sovereignty and eradication of errors in positions assumed by the shah.”
"Some Arab states and their representatives say: "Why have you been silent in the interim period from March 1975 (Esfand 1353) until now and when the shah is overthrown you pose the question of the three Arab islands?" They pose such question without asking why they themselves had been silent while they know that Iraq has been arguing with the shah's regime for seven years, and wrestling from 1971 thru 1975 (50-54 A.H.) on the question of the three islands. Besides, is it fair that we remain silent with respect to the occupation of a land by someone and break the silent vis-a-vis other?
"We have never been silent but we altered our techniques for regaining our rights to the three islands. One of these methods is the one I mentioned. Immediately after signing the agreement (or treaty) I visited Iran and discussed the matter with the shah and told him frankly and clearly that if the question of our sovereignty in the (Persian) Gulf is not solved, the existing pact between Iraq and Iran may be endangered at any moment."[10]
This claim of Saddam is absolutely a lie. There is no evidence, no matter how weak, to prove it for no reference is made to it in the pact (1975 Treaty) nor afterwards by Iraq. Would it not have been better for Iraq, who suddenly considers the matter a service to nationalistic goals to have referred to it when signing the treaty in Algeria!?
Truly, what proof is available of Saddam's having discussed the matter in his visit with the shah which he, after the death of the latter, claims to have done, in his talks with press representatives. And, why has he remained silent about the matter six years after the start of his invasion of Iran, of the "War of Liberation", as Saddam has put it! Why doesn't he claim the islands anymore? If this claim is a nationalistic concern on which the security and sovereignty of Iraq depends, why has he forgotten about the islands how, while Naeem Haddad considers this question as an obstacle to Iran-Iraq talks.
Has not Saddam declared himself as the gendarme of the Persian Gulf? Has not Saddam regarded the safety of the (Persian) Gulf his own duty? Kindly pay close attention to his words uttered in Baghdad on 10/11/1980 (19/8/1359 A.H.):
"No, this is not expedient to Iraq because it is a part of its rights, it is not to the interest of the Arab nation either -for it is a part of its rights -that the three Arabian islands not be returned to their lawful owners, the United Arab Emirates. The same Arab islands of Abu Musa, the Bigger and the Smaller Thumbs which were usurped in 1971 (1350 A.H.). It is to the interest of the world and of all those who seek their lawful rights and the security of the (Persian) Gulf and navigation in the Strait of Hormuz that these islands be returned to their owners, and, of Iran to recognize our rights. Fully not partially, in the Shatt al Arab and our usurped lands and the Shatt al Arab to remain Iraqi and Arabian as it was before."
"A partial solution cannot make the region secure. If the three islands remain in the hands of Iran, the world should expect another war in which the Arabs fight against Iran in order to regain the islands because the islands are Arab, their people are Arab and they have Arab identity.[11]
Saddam then ended his talk with the following words:
"Therefore, as long as the war between us and Iran continues, all of our rights ought to be settled in a lawful manner so that the world may have peace, the people quiet down, the neighbors and the Iranians calm down. The Iranians will be at rest when they realize that they have relinquished the usurped rights of others and will no longer prepare for war and its outcomes. Also the Iraqis and the Arabs of the Arabian (Persian) Gulf area and all the Arabs everywhere shall feel at ease."
Saddam retained his so-called nationalistic position until July 1981 (Tir 1360), that is, as long as there was some slight hope for this victory over the Islamic Republic of Iran. At this point he suddenly said that he is fighting on behalf of all Arab armies.
We have better read his words (Saddam's) uttered at a press conference held July 22, 1981 (31/4/1360):
"In case of aggression on any country in the (Persian) Gulf, the Iraqi Army shall counterattack the aggressor even before the attacker state gets ready for war. If Kuwait is attacked, they will find the Iraqi Army defending Kuwait with a bravery not below that of Kuwait itself, also with respect to the Emirates. It is we who shall defend the Emirates! Did we not say that Iran should abandon the three islands and return them to Sheikh Zaed. Therefore we defend the Emirates while their army is in their bases. Our word is proof that we don't just talk for publicity. We shall perform what we say!"
That was the last time that Saddam referred to the islands, also in his publicity media which usually remains silent on any point which Saddam doesn't talk about.
Afterwards Saddam gave up his nationalistic claims, spoke slowly and quietly of his Arabism and nationalism. His tempered tone no longer reflected the hubbub and fuss of his previous talks. Those who have heard his talk at a press conference on March 14, 1984 (23/12/1362) recall that Saddam's tone of voice was that of a person with hurt pride. In this talk he asked for settlement of all accounts with Iran for the sake of world peace, Saddam had said:
"We, your brothers, assume the defense of Arab homeland on your behalf and in a suitable manner."[12]
We see that in all the peace proposals made by Saddam, the last of which is dated 2/8/1986 (11/5/1365), he has made no reference, whatsoever, to the problem of the three islands nor to the "National Liberation War" which Saddam has considered as a means to regain the usurped rights of the Arabs. Also the question of "Fighting on behalf of the Arab Ummat and other expressions which he used to indicate his claims to nationalism for protecting the rights of the Arabs, were not mentioned. In lieu of all these terms and expressions, as was noticed on 2/8/1986, we see only one proposal and that is, the parties to withdraw to international borders, noninterference in each other's domestic affairs and full exchange of war prisoners. This opportunism and oscillation in Saddam's political positions is questionable. It poses a question as to the feasibility of entering into a contract with him. What guarantees can be supposed to exist for Saddam's abiding by the terms of contract of any sort. It may well be imagined that a few years after his signing a peace agreement, he may claim that terms were imposed on him under hard conditions and it is time he regain the usurped rights of the Arabs.
Was he (Saddam) not filled with a pleasure of victory and did he not call it a diplomatic success of the Ba'ath Party when he signed the 1975 Treaty in Algeria!? Was it not Saddam who called (the signing of 1975 Treaty) an attainment of reality! [13] and we saw he unilaterally cancelled the treaty claiming it was imposed on him?!

Who Deceived Whom?
In his speech at the Islamic Conference of January 26/1981 (6/11/1359), Saddam Hussein said: "The Algerian Accord was imposed on us under the conditions I indicated but if the new rulers had abided by it we, too, would have observed it, not because we considered it correct but because we had signed it and we honor agreements. But as the new ruler violated the Treaty of 1975 themselves, we shall never return to it”. [14]
From these words we gather that the entire Algeria Pact had been imposed on Saddam and he had been made to sign it. However, exactly ten months after the said speech by Saddam, in a talk to the Iraqi National Assembly, he said that some of the content of that treaty had been imposed on him:
"When agreeing to the 1975 Treaty, although some points in it, particularly the part that deals with the Shatt al Arab was imposed on us under conditions you know, yet we honored it."[15]
But, Tariq Aziz, the present foreign minister of Iraq has contradicted Saddam, that is, the treaty was not imposed on Iraq. Rather it was the Iraqi regime that deceived the shah and imposed the treaty on him. In an interview with the Al Mustaqbal magazine dated 15/11/1980 (24/8/1359) he (Tariq Aziz) has said:
"The former shah had doubts regarding signing the treaty. We informed him that if this pact was not concluded, Iraq would be impelled to grant freedom of action to the communists on Iranian borders. In less than a week the treaty was signed but I must say that this treaty was buried with the death of the late Algerian President Houari Boumedienne in 1978 (1359)."[16]
These words were being uttered for the first time. The Iraqi regime had never mentioned these things which Tariq Aziz had enunciated. Also, no negotiations were held on the cancellation of the 1975 agreement from 1975 thru the end of May 1980 when Naeem Haddad asked for its annulment. [17]
There is contradiction between what other Iraqi authorities have said and the words of Tariq Aziz. It is so because the Iraqi authorities, with Saddam at the apex, had expressed delight at the conclusion of this agreement and regarded it as their outstanding historical victory. The contention that the 1975 Treaty made at Algeria has been dead since the death of Boumedienne, the late president of Algeria in 1978 is another proof that the annulment of the treaty had preoccupied the minds of Iraqi authorities and was dead as far as they were concerned.
Moreover, the unilateral annulment of the Algerian agreement or treaty, did not take place on 17/9/1980 (26/6/1359) per notice by the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council. Rather, the Iraqi regime, per demands of its authorities and per statement of minister of Information (Latif Nassim Jassem) had cancelled the treaty on 21/5/1980 (19/2/1359), that is, four months prior to serving the above mentioned notice:
"Iraq considers its agreements and treaties on the Shatt al Arab with Iran null and void particularly after the Iran of Khomeini dishonored these pacts. We shall take them (the Islands) back by any possible means."[18]
On 17/9/1980 (26/6/1359). the Iraqi regime unilaterally annulled this treaty. Shahid (Martyr) Muhammad Ali Rajai, the then prime minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran, announced:
"Saddam Hussein's excuses concern the disputes he has with Iran about the 1975 Algerian Treaty. We have announced before that no political action, whether bilateral or international, has been taken to settle the dispute."[19]
Saddam interprets Iran's non-recognition of Iraq's annulment in thinking that Iran enjoys navigation rights in the Shatt al Arab because of this treaty:
"They have now used the 1975 Treaty as an excuse because it insures their usurpation of navigation rights in one half of the Shatt al Arab. This and other problems made us shed considerable blood in a war that was started fifteen months ago."[20]

Iraqi Regime's Excuses for Annulling the Treaty
Iraq's notice of annulment of the treaty:
"In view of the Iranian actions sabotaging the March 6, 1975 (15 Esfand, 1353 A.H.). Treaty and the protocols annexed thereto, and in view of Iran's violation of the contents and the spirit of the treaty by showing disrespect toward good neighborly relations, and open and intentional interferences in the internal affairs of Iraq, and refusal to return the Iraqi usurped lands which, according to the herein mentioned treaty, agreement for their return to Iraq had been reached, and as this matter made Iran, a party to the agreement of March, 1975 regard the treaty as if it had not existed, therefore, the Revolutionary Command Council, in its meeting of 17/9/1980 (26/6/1359), resolved to cancel the treaty and take back Iraq's lawful rights to the Shatt al Arab and act according to this resolution."[21]
Thus, the cancellation of the Treaty of 1975 was based on two claims:
1. Open and intentional interference in the internal affairs of Iraq by Iran.
2. Refusal of Iran to return to Iraq the lands that were stipulated in the treaty .Before analyzing these two causes separately, we must point out that before entering Iranian territory on 7/9/1980 (16/6/1359 A.H.) Iraq had voiced no problem between itself and Iran. Rather, in its last message to Mr. Waldheim, U.N. Secretary General, before the war dated 7/4/1980 (18/1/1359), Iraq had asked for Iran's withdrawal from the islands of Abu Musa, the Smaller and the Bigger Thumbs. [22]
If Iraq had such a problem, as the usurped lands, with Iran, surely it would have raised it in the media or posed it at the level of international assemblies or associations. The Iraqi action is proof of hidden, and previously existing intentions and claims with respect to the 1975 Algerian Accord. These were under bilateral consideration in negotiations at Tehran which Iraq cut them short all of a sudden on 1/6/1978 (11/4/1357). At that time the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued the following notice:

MEMORANDUM
No. 3471/18 date 17/3/1357 (June 1978)
The Foreign Ministry of Iran presents its compliments to the Embassy of the Republic of Iraq and refers respectfully to the notice No. 5/2/820 dated May 27, 1978 (6/3/1357) and begs to state:
1. As you already know the matter of transfer of public and private lands and buildings whose national ownership has changed following the recent border demarcation between Iran and Iraq, were discussed by the Iraqi delegation accompanying the Iraqi vice : president, in the negotiations held at Tehran on December 3,1977 : (12/9/1356). The Iranian delegation to this meeting proposed that, in view of seasonal conditions, the negotiations of the joint committee about the transfer be held after March 1978. This proposal was accepted by concerned Iraqi authorities and their acceptance was advised in the embassy's memo No. 5/2/195 dated 9/2/1978 (20/11/1356) to this ministry. Consequently, the above mentioned committee began its work in Tehran on May 14, 1978.
2. The Iranian delegation had repeatedly and emphatically advised during the negotiations of the joint committee held in Tehran from May 14 to 31, 1978 (24/2 to 10/3/1957) that the government of Iran is ready to carry out the work relating to the transfer of that portion of the private and public lands and buildings whose national ownership has been decided in the redemarcation of the borders and this statement is reflected in the latter part of paragraph 2 of the proces-verbal dated May 31, 1978 (Khordad 10, 1357).
However, the Iraqi delegation, without due regard to the duties delegated in the memos exchanged between the foreign affairs ministers of the two countries dated June 22, 1975, suddenly cut short the negotiations and returned to Baghdad. It is therefore clear that responsibility for the delay in the transfer is no fault of the Iranian side. We herewith emphasize again the readiness of the government of Iran to execute the task of the transfer mentioned heretofore.
3. The Joint Committee which was called for in the memos dated June 22, 1975, exchanged between the foreign ministers of the two countries, and who met at Tehran from 24/2/1357 (May 14, 1978), has had the limited duty of effecting the transfer of the lands and buildings of the boundary and the request of that embassy to change the border demarcation lines not only is not related to the duties of this committee, rather, as per part A, Article one of the land border demarcation dated June 13, 1975 which specifies (the parties to this treaty confirm and emphasize that the border demarcation between Iran and Iraq has been achieved by a joint committee made up of representatives of Iran, Iraq and Algeria on the basis of the following points including (the Protocol of 1913; the proces-verbal of 1914 and the detailed proces-verbals about redemarcation of ground borders, identification maps, the indexes of recognition of old and new border lines and aerial photos of the border lines, the redemarcation is not called for. Furthermore, according to Article 5 of the Treaty covering states borders and good-neighborly policies between Iran and Iraq which stipulates: 'within the framework of inalterable borders and absolute respect for territorial integrity of both sides, it is hereby confirmed by both parties to this agreement that land border lines and river borders are definitely and permanently decided and settled." It is therefore a foregone conclusion. With renewed respect. [23]
Below is the complete text of Article 6 of the Treaty: "Both parties to this treaty, agree that the contents of this protocol, which has been signed unconditionally, solves any future border problems between Iran and Iraq. In view of this, they officially undertake to honor the already decided common border lines." [24]
The Iraqi regime, after a series of propaganda tactics in challenging Iran, it finally ruled that the treaty and its attached agreements or protocols are null and void for the following two baseless and imaginary reasons:
Reason one: The claim of interference in Iraq's domestic affairs: Here, we will quote all that the Iraqi regime's mass media has broadcast or published:
Iraq's news agency announced on 1/4/1980 (12/1/59) that an Iranian by the name of Samir Nour-A1i has exploded a bomb at a meeting of Al Mustansariah University students. The meeting was attended by Tariq Aziz, deputy prime minister and member of the Revolutionary Command Council who suffered minor injuries in the blast. Also, a number of Arab and Iraqi students were wounded.
This agency said in the first Part of its news broad that Nour-Ali was seized by Iraqi security forces but later announced that he had been killed in a confrontation with security agents. It also said that Tariq Aziz had been taken to a hospital which he left after a short period of treatment.
The Iraqi regime had announced, one month before the above incident that it had executed an Iraqi Person accused of creating disturbances attributed to Iran. At the same time Iraq's news agency announced that this person, after being convicted of opening fire on a delegation of Karbala Shi'a Muslims [25] last November, killing four persons was sent to the gallows [26] That is all the proof and evidence that Iraqi authorities could present of the events claimed to have had something to do with Iran.
As you see, the Iraqi news agency's statements about the connection of these two men with Iran, or Iran's plan to help or to provoke them, are too vague and nonsensical. The first one of these men, that is, (Samir Nour-Ali) gets killed during the incident and the second (Talib Al-Alili) is executed and no evidence whatsoever, is produced regarding his connection with Iran. Even the Iraqi authorities do not say that the second man has had contacts with Iran. Besides, the mere claim of their connection does not prove it from a legal point of view.
The second incident which is attributed to Iran, is as follows: The Iraq news agency has stated that a bomb was exploded in the funeral procession of two persons who had been wounded in the explosion of the Tuesday before. As a result, a girl and an Iraqi student were killed and several others wounded. This explosion took place in the neighborhood of the Iranian School in the Vaziriah Borough of Baghdad.[27]
The third incident as stated by Baghdad Radio concerned an explosion that had occurred in front of Iraq's Ministry of Education and Information killing one policeman and wounding several, people. This radio added that another policeman who was in the vicinity was able to capture the culprit who was an Iranian hireling. The Iraqi Radio gave no date for the alleged incident. [28]
Later on, on July 11, 1984 (20/4/1363) Saddam Hussein summed up such incidents in the following terms:
"They began by an attempt on the life of our foreign minister; then on a member of our National Council. After that they tried to do away with our minister of information, then they killed and wounded Some People attending a students gathering by tossing bombs among them. Those participating in these incidents came from the Iranian School and Iranian agencies in Iraq. Their hands and cooperation can be seen in such things. It is all too clear!'[29]
It is as though the mere words of Saddam, saying, "It is all to clear" is enough to convince the listeners and satisfy them and they would not ask for further explanation. This is the first time Saddam claims that persons belonging to Iranian agencies in Iraq participate in such incidents by supplying arms to those who perform such acts. Also, it is the first time that such a claim is reflected in world publicity mass media. Saddam added a new para to this story which was voiced for the first time and that is his claim that these bomb explosions occurred one week after the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran:
"During the first few weeks after Khomeini (the Imam) assumed power in Iran, such bombings and explosions started everywhere in Iraq."
With respect to the three incidents mentioned above, the following comments can be made:
1. The Al Mustansariah University incident cannot be attributed to Iran. This is the view expressed by impartial lawyers. The claim that the individual involved is Persian has not been established because of lack of proof for the man has been killed in that incident and radio and press references made to it are vague and inadequate. The funeral procession incident, announced three days after its occurrence is even more vague.
2. Concerning the incident that had taken place before the first and its agent had been hanged, the Iraqi authorities didn't even bother to say that his forefathers were Iranian. The Iraqi regime, as a rule, makes such accusations with respect to its enemies.
3. The Ministry of Information incident is even more confusing and vague than the others because the Baghdad Radio didn't give a date for its occurrence nor the name of the agent of terror.
Surely, in incidents such as those mentioned herein with important outcomes, there is need for impartial court trials and presentation of convincing proof, there should be just witnesses and impartial prosecutors to prove the claim. The mere words of Iraqi authorities or statements by news agencies do not establish the truth of the claims which are then used as an excuse to regard Iran as the perpetrator of these bomb explosions or say the agents of these incidents have been hired by Iran and, as a result, say that Iran has interfered in internal affairs of Iraq and this gives Iraq the right to unilateral cancellation of the Algerian accord.

Second Reason: Iran's Refusal to Return Lands Claimed by Iraq
Iraq has used as its second excuse for canceling the 1975 Agreement, its claim that Iran has refused to return to Iraq of the lands stipulated in the said agreement, whereas the 1975 Algerian Treaty and its attached protocols have assumed to have settled this problem. The border demarcations have had their final settlement and any subsequent dispute regarding the test of the treaty or its annexes should be referred to an international court after extensive efforts are made by both sides (direct negotiation, mediation, etc.) and this takes considerable time. However, the Iraqi regime chose an alternative so as to be able to make manifest its hidden aggressive intentions against Iran. This regime made no indication concerning the existing question of the return of "mutually agreed lands" either in its mass media or by its authorities. In his first speech about existing disputes between the two countries, Saddam Hussein only referred to the three islands. [30]
It is interesting to hear the words of Ahmad Zafir Aljilan, Iraqi ambassador in Islamabad, at the end of May 1980 (end of Ordibehesht 1359). He has said:
"Iraq assumes the responsibility for demanding the three islands of Abu Musa, Smaller and Bigger Thumbs which belong to the United Arab Emirates. Iraq demands these islands from a national and Nationalistic Position."[31]
The above statements convey one of two possibilities, the first is that the Iraqi regime, has not been contemplating about its land disputes with Iran at all and the question had occurred to them later. The second possibility is that this regime, by not posing the above question earlier, had meant to wait until it has made full military preparations to attack Iran and then to pose the questions ! and so the announcement would have coincided with Iraq's occupation of Iranian territory and Iran would face a fait accompli and thus be forced to come to terms.
But, the objective in raising the issue of the three islands has been to throw up a smoke screen to fool and deceive world public opinion. Iraq's performance affirms the second possibility.
The Iraqi regime quit the bilateral talks that were being held on the land question at Tehran from 14th to 31st of May 1978 (24th of Ordibehesht to 10th of Khordad, 1357 A.H.). For no apparent reason, without any explanation or reply to the memorandum of the Iranian government. This regime invaded Iran without any advance notice and occupied parts of Iranian territory so that later on they could say these lands are Iraqi lands usurped by Iran. The occupation of Iranian territory has followed the pattern given below, as indicated in the book entitled: "The Qadessiah of Saddam published by the official state newspaper Al Jomhurriah [32]:
7/9/1980 (16/6/1359): Our victorious army captured the Zein- al Ghoas Heights.
10/9/1980: Iraq's Zein-al Ghoas operation zone was cleared of Iranian aggressors and the Iraqi flag was hoisted atop its base!
11/9/1980: Saddam Hussein declared at a cabinet meeting: "We have decided to retake territories usurped by Iran!"
11/9/1980: Our brave army continues to liberate the usurped lands and has reached the international borders at "Diali" operation area.
14/9/1980: Our brave forces demolished Iranian facilities and arsenals.
15/9/1980: Many facilities and installations and observation posts were hit and destroyed. Artillery and border stations were bombarded.
16/9/1980: Our brave forces destroyed two Farsi enemy posts in Basra operations zone.
17/9/1980: Our armed forces go on liberating more usurped land.
18/9/1980: Our forces liberated another post in the Mandalay operations area. When taking the Hanjiriah Base, they took a great deal of Iranian weapons as booty.
20/9/1980: The "Johfatulmoat" border base located in the Man- dalay operation area was liberated.
All the above moves were made before the all out, massive Iraqi invasion of Iran on 31/6/1359 (22/10/1980). After complete silence, the Iraqi regime commented on its occupation of what it called usurped lands. At the Islamic Conference held at Taef on 26/1/1981 (6/11/59), the following story was told:
"When Iraq is compelled to terminate the unlawful occupation by Iran of the areas of Zein-a1 Ghoas, Seif Saad, Meimak and other Iraqi territories, it can't be called aggression against Iran or its rights."[33]
In this same address, Saddam has said that the shah declined to release the lands agreed to be returned to Iraq. He made no mention of the memorandum of protest submitted by Iran:
"With regard to territories that have been occupied by Iran, I must say that these land areas were not relinquished before the fall of the shah. We were trying to get them when the Iranian Revolution went off and this matter delayed their transfer. The new rulers of Iran declined to return those lands and so these beloved areas of Iraq remained in Iran's occupation."[34]
As to the notes that Iraq claims to have served Iran, the Iraqi authorities have made contradictory statements. The reality of these claims became known upon entry of Iraqi troops in Iran.
Former Iraqi foreign minister, Saadoon Hamadi, in a press conference on 10/9/1980 (19/6/1359) said:
"Last Monday the Foreign Ministry of Iraq delivered a handwritten note to the charge d' affaires of the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad. The note was a message to the effect that Iraqi troops were compelled to clear the Zein-al Ghoas area of Iranian forces as to confront their positioning at that point. [35]
Thus the Iraqi Foreign Ministry, after Iraq's entry into Iran, in a formal note to the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs advised that Iraqi troops had entered Iran. But Saddam announced that more than one notice was served to the Iranian government.
At a meeting of the National Assembly held 14/11/1980, Saddam said:
"This is how we worked: After the Zein-al Ghoas operation we sent them a notice one hour before sunrise. We had moved to Seif Saad area and sent another notice. Before reaching the Seif Saad we waited three days for their answer. Our troops were asking how we could inform them (the Iranians) where we would be two or three days later. We (Saddam) replied: "It doesn't matter, in this case our consciences will not bother us. After Seif Saad we sent another communiqué and guided them with these words: Brother! we assume you have not read the agreements between the two countries. I suggest you read them."[38]
From what is said above we note that the time span between communiqués had been short and it seems that these lapses have been a matter of hours, one or two, or at most three days after the entry of Iraqi troops into some point in Iran. That is to say, Iraqi troops would enter, say, Zein-al Ghoas and then send a notice to Iran advising that the occupied territory has not been Iranian territory, rather it is a part of Iraq that has been usurped and Iran should now face the facts. A few hours or a couple of days later, Iraqi forces would occupy another point in Iran and send its government another such notice and ask that the sovereignty of Iraq over the occupied land be recognized.
These methods indicate the camouflaged aggressive intentions of Iraq. Otherwise, how can last rights -if there were any -have been redeemed by serving notices, one after another within a few hours of each other and ask the other side to recognize occupation of a territory on the mere assumption that it might have been a disputed territory?
In order to get some idea of the area of Iranian territory occupied by Iraq before its all out invasion of Iran on 31/6/1359, we should consult the Iraqi notices embodied in the Iraq-Iran war file produced by the Central Archives of Records and Information of the P.L.O:.
10/9/1980: While Saddam advises his own government: "We have decided to take back our lands usurped by Iran, the talk of liberating 120 kilometers.
11/9/1980: Iraq notifies of the occupation of 76 kilometers of land, 17 kilometers long and 5 kilometers wide.
12/9/1980: Baghdad announces Iraqi troops have been able to liberate all lands occupied by Iran and moreover, Saadoon Hamadi states: "The Iraqi government has no intention of entering into a major war with Iran. Rather, it wants peace in the area.
15/9/1980: Although Iraq has announced the liberation of the usurped lands, heavy fighting on the Iraq-Iran border. [37]
In the following pages we shall see how the forged and non-sensical claims about "usurped lands" have been used as an excuse for occupying Iranian territory and how the areas of usurped lands increased with the advancement of Iraqi troops inside Iran and the Iraqi regime, as we noted in the Iraq-Iran war file, has openly affirmed that it has occupied "other territories" in Iran since 12/9/1980 (21/6/1353 A.H.).
If this is true that Iraq has taken all its claimed territory, as it has, and on 12/9/1980, it has occupied "other" lands, what impelled this country to launch such a massive attack on Iran 31/6/1359 (22/9/1980) in Khuzestan?
The notice of the Iraqi Council of Leadership dated 22/9/1980 states: "We figured that the ruling group in Iran would have learnt a lesson from the last few days operations, from the liberation of our usurped land on our eastern borders and after the return of our national sovereign rule. Indeed, the Khomeini group (...), in addition to sabotage actions threatening Iraq's security, has ignored our sovereign rule over our lands and the Shatt al Arab, and has violated the security of the Arab ummat (nation). Furthermore, Iran has attempted, by resorting to military aggression to deliver a blow on Iraq in the past one or two days. Realizing all this, we had no choice but to undertake a series of military actions to respond to these aggressive acts."[38]
Thus, the Iraqi government's notice clearly reveals that Iran has begun to retaliate Iraqi actions a day or two before the date 22/9/1980 (31/6/1359) whereas we know that Iraq had begun its military encroachment of Iranian territory on 7/9/1980 just as announced in the notices of the Iraqi government. This notice also indicates that Iran started its retaliatory military action after the occupation of its territory by Iraq and the instructions of this government for official recognition of the occupation of its land and, also, after the announcement that the Arvand Rud (Shatt al Arab) is wholly and completely under Iraqi domination. At this point it is necessary to explain the Arvand Rud problem which Iraq has used as one of its excuses for invading Iran.

Saddam's Arab Nationalism in the Balance
In his talk with S. Solarz member of the Foreign Relations Committee of the U.S. Congress on the subject of the rights of Palestine, Saddam has said:
"I think the existence of an independent Palestinian government, acceptable to the Palestinians is necessary, also, Israel should have peace and security."[39]
While assuming such a pacifist position with respect to the Zionist regime of Israel, Saddam had used the most degrading language which ended up in the open aggression, against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
When he was a deputy to Ahmad Hassan al Bakr, in a meeting with officers and men of the second mechanized battalion of the presidential regiment, on 6/2/1979 (17/11/1357 A.H.) Saddam, pointing out to a nation whose honor was to be defended, said:
"We do not regain the honor and prestige of the Arab ummat by defending Iraq only. Rather, it is our duty to do so to the remotest point of the Arab homeland, as far as our hands reach."[40]
These statements were coincidental with the victorious days of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. From that time until now, the honor and prestige of the Arab ummat, has frequently been degraded but Saddam has taken no action in their defense.
The occupation of Lebanon by the Zionists, aggression against Tunisia, U .S. aggression against Libya, etc. None of these cases evoked Saddam's sympathy and his Arab feelings. Only one thing could provoke the archaic zeal of the Arabs, the highway robbery, theft and criminal manslaughter in Saddam to the point of madness and that was the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. What made Saddam carry out the plan which he himself has said was intending to implement since 1977 (1356) but actually he was preparing for it since 1975, was the Islamic nature of this revolution. As Saddam himself has said he had neither forgotten it nor was he lax about it. He had to wait for military and economic readiness to launch his (bloody) plan.[41]
It is indeed strange that Saddam maintained absolute silence about the rights he has claimed throughout the period he was preparing for his attack on Iran. We shall here make mention of one of his hidden or secret intentions which Saddam revealed unexpectedly without prior intimation:
On 25/8/1980 (3rd of Shahrivar, 1359), that is; thirteen days before its military attack, at dawn of 16/6/1359, at the Zein-al Ghoas area on Iranian soil, Iraq submitted a protest note to Iran regarding the continued occupation of the three islands of Abu Musa, the Big and Little Thumbs. Toward its end, the note reads: "The position of racist Iran with respect to continuing that occupation of the three Arab islands is in open opposition to international laws which negate taking others' lands."[42]
Was it not the duty of Iraq to expose the "subject of usurped Iraqi lands by Iran" and of the difficulties, if any, that had made bilateral talks unable to solve the problem![43]
This regime, contrary to international forbidding of occupation by force of others' lands, exactly eleven days later, used force to occupy territories belonging to others.
In order to understand the baseless excuse used by Iraq in occupying others' lands we quote the words printed in the Al Sorah, the official organ of the Ba'ath Party, about the martyr General Fallahi in its issue dated 16/9/1980 (261611359), that is exactly nine days after the entry of Iraqi armies into Iran:
"General Fallahi, deputy commander-in-chief of the Iranian Army has said that he does not recognize the March 1975 (Esfand 1353) treaty signed in Algeria. Iran Radio broadcast Fallahi's words yesterday saying that the lands which our forces have liberated in Zein-al Ghoas and Seif Saad and are in our hands according to the 1975 Agreement are originally Persian lands and that Iran will not give up one inch of them.
Once more, Fallahi asserted Iran's illegitimate claim on the Shatt a1 Arab and said: "Iraq claims that what the treaty says about the Shatt al Arab gives Iran a concession whereas we regard it as Iran's definite and natural right.”
It ought to be mentioned that what Fallahi has said is a clear contradiction of the Treaty of March 1975 signed between Iran and Iraq because the contents of this agreement comprise hard and fast principles that have presaged solutions and if one of these principles is ignored its like acting against the spirit of the Algerian accord.
The following comments can be made regarding the above points:
1. General Fallahi never questioned the 1975 Algerian Treaty nor ignored its official recognition. These words are the Al Sorah newspaper's interpretation of what Fallahi has said.
2. The said newspaper had expected General Fallahi to confirm the occupation of a part of his homeland by Iraq, a homeland that has put him in command of all military units. After he (Gen. Fallahi), a man with grave responsibility entrusted to him, had said that his country will not give an inch of its lands occupied by Iraq, then that regime (Iraq) takes his words as open violation of the Algerian treaty.
3. The comment of Martyr General Fallahi concerning the text of the treaty as it affects the Arvand Rud, is valid and lawful because, Iran considers its rights in the Arvand Rud, on the basis of the Algerian accord, as its natural rights and not a concession to it from Iraq.
The interpretation by the newspaper Al Sorah of what General Fallahi has said is used as a major proof by Iraq to claim that Iran has violated the 1975 Algerian Agreement. Iraq made this claim 17/9/1980 (26/6/1359). Thus we see Adnan Khayrullah, Iraqi defense minister say at press conference;
"Through the charge d'affaires of the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad we sent a note to the Foreign Ministry of Iran and, on the basis of the words of Iran's joint chief of staffs which abrogates the 1975 Treaty, we demanded our lands which were occupied by Iran but return to Iraq was stipulated in the international treaty in which border demarcation of both sides are specified and we added that if we did not get a positive response from you, we will resort to force to retake them, and it happened this way, because our armed forces occupied the first segment of our lands near Khaneqain and then we went to Seif Saad. These parcels of land covered an area of about 8 to 10 kilometers long and 10 to 15 kilometers wide. In the Mianeh operations area in Missan Province, we took back Iranian border bases or stations located deep inside Iraqi territory spaced 4-1/2 to 5 kilometers from one another.
This was the situation with respect to land or ground borders that we re-took the area called Zein-al Ghoas on the 7th day of this month and on the 10th day of the same month the second area which is called Seif Saad and if I remember correctly, on the 12th and the 13th of the current month, we liberated 5 occupied border stations. Thus we had taken all the areas occupied by Iran and settled our ground border disputes with Iran."[45]
Although General Fallahi has not abrogated the Algerian treaty yet it is important and it must not be adduced that Iran's Joint Chief of Staff has violated or annulled it (the treaty) and regard his words as cancellation of an agreement. We must cite here the well- known saying that: "Liars have poor memories" the occupation of Iranian lands by Iraqi armies, which this country claims had been usurped by Iran, started at dawn of 16/6/1359 (7/9/1980) and the liberation of these areas, according to the Iraqi minister of defense, had continued through the 12th and 13th of the month whereas Gen. Fallahi's statements were made on 15/9/1980. How is it possible, then, to say that Gen. Fallahi has cancelled the 1975 Treaty (while it is a pure lie and Gen. Fallahi has made no such remarks), before the Iranian lands in Zein-al Ghoas and Sell Sa ad were occupied by Iraq.
The Iraqi minister of defense has recounted the incidents according to the following timetable:
7/9/1980: Iraqi forces entered the Zein-al Ghoas area. .10/9/1980: Iraqi forces entered the Seif Sa ad area
12 and 13/9/1980: Iraqi forces occupied five border station and so, as Adnan Khayrullah has said land border disputes between Iraq and Iran had ended.
15/9/1980: General Fallahi's words were broadcast from Iran Radio and Television networks and the newspaper Al Thorah concluded from those words that the 1975 Accord was cancelled. According to Gen. Fallahi, the Iraqi regime had sent a note to the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in which it had asked the return of the lands that Iraqi forces had entered since 7/9/1980. The note further asked for the positions (of these lands) to be specified and had threatened to take those parcels of land by force if a positive answer was not issued.
We don't know why and for what purpose Iraq wanted to use force, especially that Iraq had declared it had retaken all of its occupied lands and settled its land border disputes on 12th or 13th of September, 1980 (21st or 22nd of Shahrivar, 1359).
To come to a conclusion this vague and ambiguous analysis, this emphasis on specifying dates and time of occurrence of events point out that Iraq's invasion of Iran has not been meant to take lands. Rather, the aim has been to overthrow the Islamic Republic regime for Saddam is far removed from Arab problems, their ethnic mettle and honor and his war against an Islamic Republic is an outstanding instance of this reality. The terms: "progressive", "pioneer", "Arab honor and greatness", "destiny making problems", etc. with which the Baghdad propaganda media are replete, are merely to conceal the real Saddam who roams around in Western circles.
Saddam and his right-hand party, the Ba'ath claim that the war against the Islamic Republic is a war between Arabs and Iranians and participation in it against Iran is a sure way leading to the liberation of Palestine. [48]
Here we quote from President Hafez Assad's speech dated November 7, 1980 (16/8/1359), passages that have bearing on the Iraq-Iran war. The Syrian president has said in this speech: "Iraq is an Arab country, its nation and army is our nation and our army, its destiny, our destiny, Iran is a neighboring country of the Arab Ummah in which an Islamic Revolution has taken place and which is linked to the struggle of Arabs against the Zionist enemy. The Arab nations have regarded the victory of the Islamic Revolution as their own victory." Mr. Assad has further added: "If the problem concerned only the Iraqi lands we would not hesitate for a moment to stand hand-in-hand with our nation in Iraq but, border disputes should never be solved on the basis of struggle for survival." With regard to the Zionist enemy, he has said this fact: "The Palestine problem has lost its position of importance to the Arabs as a result of this war. Iraq has withdrawn its military and economic might from the arena of Arab war with Israel for a period which does not seem to be short. This has pleased Israel."
With respect to Iraq's claim that its war is the war of the Arabs, Hafez Assad has said: "Whosoever claims that this war is an Arab war, should explain his entire problem to all the Arabs and, by producing evidence convince them that the war is for the sake of the Arabs. Assad concluded by saying: "We shall never be drawn into a war which is waged contrary to the accepted principles of the Arabs!"
Unfortunately, we must own that many Arab states sided with Saddam and his programs of enmity which are in opposition to the destiny-making problems of the Arabs. Consequently, they deprived their nations, making them poor and miserable for, their economics were destroyed and their development projects closed down because of their economic aid to Saddam's war against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

THE ARVAND-RUD (SHATT AL ARAB)
After the start of his aggression on Iran at a meeting of Iraq's National Assembly, Saddam posed the following story with respect to the Arvand-Rud:
"When Iraq took peaceful action regarding the question of ground borders and the sovereignty over the Shatt al Arab, Iran opened fire on Iraqi and foreign ships navigating the river and directly aimed at Iraq's economic installations and other non-governmental positions in this and in the Basra areas. This attitude amounted to disruption of international navigation in the Shatt al Arab and severance of our life's jugular vein. Iran has hundreds of kilometers of coastline in the (Persian) Gulf but Iraq has only a few outlets, the major one being the Shatt al Arab. [48]
Iraq used the same method of action in the Shatt al Arab as it did in occupied lands. That is, putting into effect new actions in the river, it asked for Iran's recognition and approval.
After rejection of Iraq's actions, the Iraqi regime called Iran's attitude an aggression and extended its invasion of September 7, 1980 (16/6/1359) of Iran so that the Shatt al Arab would become entirely Iraqi domain. After this date Iraq repeatedly voiced this claim and on 26/1/1981 (6/11/1359 A.H.) it was made a topic at Islamic Conference in Taef.
"Iran began its aggression against Iraq at various points by erecting military border bases within Iraqi territory and by armed action in the Shatt al Arab at a time when it was claiming that navigational affairs of the river should be handled by a joint committee with executive, legislative and judicial powers whereas the Shatt al Arab, as its name indicates, is, of Iraqi nationality and is under absolute influence of Iraq."[49]
Such a claim as indicated above is, in a word, unacceptable because the Arvand Rud (Shatt al Arab) has never been wholly governed by Iraq. If Saddam Hussein seeks the conditions of the pre-1975 treaty days, he should know that even in those days the river was not completely in the hands of Iraq. It was precisely because of this that the Islamic Republic pointed this to Iraq so as to take no bilateral action there, and that Iraq is not entitled to take any new action with respect to the Arvand Rud. Dr. Riaz, chief of the legal bureau of the Foreign Ministry of Iran, has stated the following on this subject.
"The annulment of the 1975 Algerian Treaty means that the Shatt al Arab be totally a national river under the full dominion and rule of Iraq. [50] We have notified all the shipping and navigation companies that all ships wanting to pass through the Shatt al Arab should, in addition to paying tax to Iraq, should hoist the Iraqi flag regardless of their destination, even if they should wish to anchor at an Iranian port." [51]
As a matter of fact when Saddam Hussein succeeded in gaining dominance over some Iranian land and water, he adopted a deceitful technique because after a heated, elaborate speech on the necessity of returning the three Persian Gulf islands, he abandoned that claim and sought to occupy Iranian land and when he succeeded in gaining domination over a part of it before 17/9/1980 (26/6/1359), he took new measures in the Arvand Rud and asked Iran to recognize his actions. As the question of navigation in the Arvand Rud has been settled in the 1975 Treaty, Iran declined to recognize the actions of Iraq. Saddam called Iran's refusal a declaration of war and his forces advanced farther and farther into Iranian territory.
On 25/12/1980 (4/10/1359 A.H.), that is a short time after his seizing full control of the Arvand Rud, Saddam Hussein, declared:
"Land borders cannot insure the security of the Shatt al Arab, real domination must be acquired. If Iraq had been cheated over the Arvand Rud in the 1975 Treaty and has believed that Iraq's domination of the river must be gained and enforced, why then did Saddam express such joy when signing that treaty? And why did he remain silent about his claimed rights from 1975 until 1980 and then suddenly voice his claims to lost rights? [52]
Words uttered by Iraqi authorities, including Saddam Hussain about the 1975 Algerian Accord. indicate the falsehood claims of this regime, claims that are constantly being altered.
While Tariq Aziz, present Iraqi Foreign Minister announces that Iraq imposed the treaty on the shah of Persia by the threat of allowing communist freedom of action on Iranian borders, made the shah to sign the treaty, Saddam has said at the Islamic Conference held at Taef on 26/1/1980, that the Algerian Treaty had been imposed on Iraq!
"The Algerian Treaty was imposed on us under the conditions I mentioned."[53].
In July 1980 (Mordad 1361) the ruling Ba'ath held congress at Baghdad. In its official report it is stated that the shah’s regime had felt its schemes against Iraq will cost him too particularly because Iraq had turned into a center of political activities against the shah and "this conclusion was the shah’s real motive for accepting the agreement at that time so as to be able to achieve a common status with Iraq. The 1975 Treaty is the outcome of this struggle between Iraq and Iran."[54]
Therefore, Iraq, as is reflected in the official report of the Ba’ath Party, was able to impose the treaty on shah from a position of power and, as later claimed by Saddam, the treaty was imposed on Iraq.
Referral to Iraq's acceptance of the arrangement for half of Arvand Rud was among the points that were embodied in official report. This is in lieu of the acquisition by Iraq of a strip of land on the Iranian border line and this is the part that Saddam claimed was not ceded by the shah to Iraq and this country was therefore, impelled to use force to liberate the areas of Zein al Ghoas, Seif Saad and Maimak. As indicated in the report of the nationwide conference, for the following reasons, the Iraqi regime prevented the political activities of Imam Khomeini while he was in Iraq:
"Any political activity of this sort will place Iraq in a position of confrontation with the shah and such confrontation will jeopardize the return of Iraqi lands to its full sovereignty and thus Iraq shall have to pay for it unilaterally (that is, Iraq will have to accept Iranian sovereignty of over one half of the Shatt al Arab) without gaining what it expected from the 1975 Treaty."[55]
Thus, it appears that some deal was made between Shah and Saddam whereby Iraq would give up one half of the Arvand Rud and, in return, acquire certain border positions or points.
Central Report has summarized this point: "The cancellation of Algerian Treaty on 17/9/1980 (26/6/1359) is to regain Iraqi historical rights in the Shatt a1 Arab which, in the Algerian Accord were ceded under certain conditions."[56]
However, after some time, Saddam made another claim (or a different claim). After having said that the Algerian treaty was a deal between him and the shah, on 1/4/1982 (22/1/1361) in a speech at Iraq's National Assembly he claimed the second half of Arvand Rud was taken from him in Algeria by coercion:
"When a war occurs, it is fair that all rights acquired as a result of war be nullified. The second half of the Shatt al Arab was taken away from us by force in 1975 and as long as the war continues Shatt al Arab cannot be used."
With such statements as made at the Islamic Conference in Taef in Jan. 1982 (Dey 1361) to the effect that, "We shall never return to the Algerian agreement, while the term "never" signifies eternity, Saddam had severed every contact and relationship with that treaty. Yet, later on, at the gathering of the labor ministers of the Non-Aligned states held in Baghdad in the month of January, 1982, he, Saddam, has asked for peace with Iran on the basis of the treaties existing between the two states:
"If the Iranian authorities were able to come to decision concerning ending the war and recognize the international borders of Iraq as defined and specified in the international agreements concluded between the two countries, Iraq would be delighted." [57]
These words signify Iraq's request for return to international agreements signed by both parties in Algeria. They also imply that Saddam relinquished Iraq's rights to the second half of the Arvand Rud, that same half which he had claimed was taken from him by force. The above words further imply that Iraq has given up its claim to the lands usurped by Iran.
And, finally, the above uttered words tell of abandonment by Saddam of the opinion which he has expressed on many occasions and that is the link between the defense of the Arvand Rud and defense of Palestine. In this connection, Saddam has addressed the Goodwill Committee on March 31, 1981, (11/1/1360 S.H.):
"He who cannot defend the Shatt al Arab, cannot defend Palestine."[58]
FOOTNOTES
[1] See: The Survey of the War Imposed by Iraq on Iran, p.16
[2] Thoughts and Viewpoints No.3, p.85
[3] The Al Amal newspaper, Lebanon, issue dated 25/3/1980 (5/1/1359 A.H.)
[4] The AI Safir newspaper issue dated 14/4/1980 (25/1/1359). Here we ask why the minister did not raise the question of usurped lands at that time.
[5] The Al Nahar newspaper issue dated 22/4/1980 (2/2/1359 A.H.)
[6] The Al Watan Al Arabia magazine issue dated 25/4/1985 (5/2/1359)
[7] Al Siasah, dated 27/5/1980 (6/3/1359)
[8] Al Watan Al Arabi, dated (28/6/1980) (7/4/1353)
[9] The Al Watan, dated 13/7/1980 (22/4/59)
[10] Press conference at the National Assembly, 20/7/1980 (29/4/59)
[11] Thoughts and Viewpoints, No.7 pp. 38-40
[12] Speech at Arab Foreign Ministers Meeting, Baghdad.
[13] Central Report of the 9th Ba'ath Party Congress
[14] Complete text of this speech is printed in the pamphlet titled: Al Haqayeq Al- Tarikhiah lel Atma al Farsiah (historical truths about the greed of the Persians) About the conditions to which the said speech refers he (Saddam) said: The hard conditions of war by the Iraqi Army against the Kurds of the north of Iraq and the losses from it and the participation of Iran in some of these wars, compelled this government to sign the 1985 treaty in Algeria.
[15] Al Thora newspaper, Baghdad, issue dated 24/11/1981 (31/9/1359) has published the complete text of this speech.
[16] The Al Mustaqbal magazine, issue 195, dated 15/11/1980
[17] Al Siasah, issue dated 27/5/1980
[18] The Iraq-Iran War File, pp. 1-6.
[19] Ettela'at newspaper, issued dated 6/7/1359 (Sept. 29, 1980)
[20] Speech at National Assembly on 23/11/1981 (2/9/1360) and printed in the Al Thora of Baghdad, 24/11/1981
[21] The pamphlet "why the Algerian Treaty between Iran and Iraq Has Been Cancelled?" pp. 9 and 10
[22] The Iraq-Iran War File pp. 1-6
[23] See the survey of the War Imposed on Iran by Iran pp. 25 & 26
[24] Same source as in 23
[25] Later on we realized that this Iraqi citizen was Talib Alwan Al Alili, belonged to the Shi'a sect who has opened fire on a high-ranking security agent of the Al Ba'ath Party in Karbala the mourning processions and not groups as indicated.
[26] Al Safir, issue dated 2/4/1980 (13/1/1359)
[27] Al Safir, issue dated 6/4/1980 (17/1/1359)
[28] AI Safir, issue dated 22/4/1980 (2/2/1359)
[29] Saddam's speech at the meeting of the representatives of the Al-Wafd Party of Egypt in Baghdad on 11/7/1984 (20/4/1359)
[30] Al Mustaqbal, issue dated 13/10/1979 (21/7/59)
[31] Al Qabas, issue dated 13/5/1980 (23/2/59)
[32] Narrated incidents are taken from that book, pages 212-on.
[33] The book, "Al Haqayeq Al-Tarikhiah leI Atma el Farsiah
[34] Source same as above
[35] Al Raayalam, issue dated 11/9/1980 (26/6/1359)
[36] The Booklet "Nass Alkhatab Altarikhi LeI Rais Botel Altahrir" pp. 27- 29
[37] The File on Iraq-Iran War, p.7
[38] Statements of Commander-in-Chief of the Iraqi Armed Forces, pp.5-8.
[39] The book, "Hakeza Nakhatab Alabl Algharbi," 1,72 -Later on it became clear that by Palestinian government, it meant the creation of a government on the West Bank of the Jordan River to be affiliated with Jordan and dominated by it. We wish to remind the reader that the interview of a U.S. Congressman with Saddam took place on 25/8/1982 (3/6/1361) and was broadcast on 3/1/1983 (13/10/1361)
[40] Al Thorahz Baghdad, issue dated 7/2/1979 (18/11/1357)
[41] Al Siasat, Issue dated 22/7/1980 (31/4/1359)
[42] The Al Thorah, Baghdad, issue dated 16/9/1980 (2/6/1359)
[43] In the following pages we shall indicate how the Algerian agreement and protocols have assumed to solve any dispute that may arise later regarding the contents of this treaty.
[44] Al Thorah, Baghdad, issue dated 16/9/1980 (25/6/1359) in capital letters "THE REGIME OF IRAN DECLARES ITS NON-ACCEPTANCE OF THE ALGERIAN TREATY."
[45] A1 Anwar, 26/9/1980
[46] In his speech on 14/3/1981 (23/12/1360) Saddam Hussein said: "Undoubtedly the area of land you have liberated from Khomeini's (...) group is equal to the area of Palestine."
[47] Al Safir dated 8/11/1980 (17/8/1359). In view of the importance of the matter, we shall present that part of this speech which is related to the war
[48] A1 Lava, issue dated 29/9/1980 (7/7/1359)
[49] A1 Haqayeqal Tarikhiah lel Atma Al Farsiah
[50] Therefore the cancellation of the treaty in view of the Chief of the Legal Department, is a cause for full dominance of Iraq over the Arvand Rud and not as Saddam has said at the Conference of Taef, that is, "The cancellation of the treaty means a return to the conditions before the signing of the 1975 (1354) Treaty”, meaning that the river has come completely under Iraqi custody and sovereignty and as we said earlier the river was not under full dominance of Iraq even before the Treaty of 1975.
[51] Al Anwar and Al Nahar newspapers of 19/9/1980.
[52] We have before quoted his words from the Al Mustaqbal dated 15/11/1980
[53] A1 Haqayeq A1 Tarikhia LeI Atmaa-el Farsiah
[54] The Central Report, p.184 55. The Central Report, p. 186
[56] The Central Report, p.198
[57] He has included this point in the peace conditions that are stated in his letter dated 2/8/1986
[58] The Al Anwar issue of 1/4/1980 (12/1/1359)

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."

CHAPTER SIX

THE NUREMBAGHDAD
"The Pasdaran (guards) of Khomeini should be treated as war criminals. However, before their execution, the following information should be obtained from them:
1. The number of their forces.
2. Type of troops and their weapons.
3. Front locations they have served at.
4. Type of their communication media.
5. Location of their higher command post.
6. Amount of their rations, arsenals and the time necessary for its procurement and storage.
7. Approaches for supports.
8. The morale of Iranian enemies and Khomeini's Pasdaran.
Please obtain and relay the information. That is all!”
Staff Major Khattab Umar Najm, for commander of the Ibn Al Valid Green Berets Support Regiment, affiliated with the Army of Iraq
* This major is presently a prisoner of war in Iran. The above cable, as recounted by senior Iraqi Army officers is a personal military order of Saddam that had to be relayed through them to Iraqi officers for the information of the soldiers. This cable was found in an Iraqi military command post when it was overtaken by Islamic forces. The Pasdaran of Khomeini refers to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards.
In previous chapters we noted how Saddam paved the way for aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran between the years 1356-1359 (1977-1980). He started his aggression in 1977 by offering forged excuses, none of which has any legal, scientific basis or value. However, later on Saddam gave up his claims and settled with his peace proposal of 2/8/1986 (11/5/1365), asked for withdrawal of Iranian and Iraqi troops to international borders and the signing of a peace treaty between the two countries. His proposals were confirmed by some of the Arab and world governments. These governments regarded Saddam's proposals as a wise solution to an aggressive war which Iraq had started. Although some governments did not dare establish the aggressiveness of Iraq for the peoples of the world and ignored its outcome which was the destruction of towns and cities, occupation of vast areas of territory and sacrifice of thousands of lives.
Is there a man who will agree to the entry of a criminal into his home to kill several members of his household, burn his property and upon apprehension claims he has repented and asks forgiveness, to forgive and let him go ? In such a case if that man does not accept the false repentance of the criminal and insists on his punishment, is it fair to say to the owner of the house that "You are the wrongdoer and you should have accepted the proposal of the criminal because he had repented and asked for forgiveness?
Another instance of such an event is the assumption of power by Adolf Hitler and his invasion of European countries resulting in extensive losses of human beings and assets and misery with which the present generation will be afflicted for a long time.
When time came for the Allies to advance on Berlin, no one could tell their forces to accept Hitlerite repentance and try to make peace with him, or to afford him an Opportunity to state his positive demands, that maybe he had changed. No one dared to even suggest that the Allied Forces stop their approach on Berlin. The armies that were marching on to Berlin, comprised the armed forces to countries that were devastated in the war by the Nazi forces and their people had withstood the savage treatment of the enemy in their occupied, cities, towns and villages. The fall of Berlin at the hands of the allies gave the world an opportunity to become aware of some of the Nazi crimes, crimes such as gas chambers, prisoner camps, etc. which might not have become publicly known had the Allies decided not to enter Berlin. At the same time it was announced that one of the reasons for the Allies' entry into Berlin was to prevent the formation of another Nazi government.
Also, the Allies instituted the Nuremberg tribunal in the same town where major Nazi conferences were held so as to condemn Hitler’s policies and question the Nazi Party policies.
The Nuremberg Tribunal which lasted from Oct. 20, 1945 to Nov. 1, 1946 was composed of the following members:
1. England: Lord Lawrence (President)
2. France: Prof. Dandief Deviber (Judge) Substitute: Robert Falco
3. U.S.A.: Jackson (Judge) Substitute: John Parker
4. U.S.S.R.: General Nikchenkov (Judge) Substitute: Colonel Wolkhoff
Each of the above individuals carried his country's banner behind him upon entering the court room, the U.S.S.R. delegates, being military men, attended court sessions in uniform. The tribunal sentenced twelve (12) of the 23 accused persons to death.
Once more we point out there exists a perfect semblance between the crimes committed by the Aflaqi Ba'ath Party of Baghdad and those of the Nazi Party. Both parties have committed crimes against humanity and world peace and have used similar methods and tools. However, Saddam's tools are more modern and up to date than Hitler's.
Below we offer a few samples of the crimes perpetrated by Saddam:

1.Bombardment of Residential Districts
This crime has been established in the reports of international missions and its instances can readily be seen. Anyone can see the devastation of cities and of economic and industrial areas caused by the order of Saddam. He himself does not deny having perpetrated these acts.
However, we would like to mention Saddam's excuses for such bombardments so that the world may realize the mentality and spite of this enemy of humanity.
On 6/2/1983 (17/11/1361) following the Iraqi Air Force bombardment of Iranian cites killing several hundred innocent people, Saddam voiced the claim that the Iranians had staged air raids first. Of course his claim was not substantiated by any evidence or proof. But, certainly Iran retaliated after a relatively lengthy period of several months waiting. To justify his devastating action, Saddam stated his real reason:
"The Iranian command does not care for its nation; it wants us to retaliate in kind for the aerial attacks on Iraq's non-military objectives so as to be able to muster all the Iranian nations [1] around itself to serve its malicious and aggressive objectives. In spite of this, we are able to destroy their large cities with our air force and missiles.[2] However we ought to do something to make them lose their control of their nerves and act foolishly so that we may be able to destroy their main forces."[3]
On 23/10/1983 (2/8/1362) Saddam made other frank statements using the expression "Depth of Iranian Territory" for Iranian cities and expressed pride over the stepped up bombardment of Iranian cities in answer to "Iran's aggression" which means "the continuation of the war." Saddam had really meant to fool his listeners by suggesting that Iran has started this war of aggression.
"Therefore, anyone who inflicts injuries on Iraq shall not be immune to our blows in the defense of Iraq, even if such blows are to be meted out deep inside Iranian territory. We have acted in this manner the last couple of days and we will continue in this way. If their aggressive acts continue, we shall increase our devastating blows. "[4]
In a gathering of Iraqi pilots who had non-military and economic targets in Iran, Saddam told them:
"I say that anyone of you and your friends in the air force who deliver accurate blows to the head of this dying... and its economic targets, bring the war closer to its end.
"And when the end of war is drawn closer, it prevents the bloodshed of his military pals.[5]
But, if he misses, even slightly, the blood that is shed because of continuation of war shall be his responsibility.[6]
Saddam's insults to the bloodshed of Iranian civilians are already narrated. However, it seems strange that (in Saddam's opinion) shedding the blood of non-military Iranian people, that runs into thousands, shortens the war and as a result prevents the bloodshed of Iraqi soldiers while Saddam, the perpetrator of the war asks Iran to terminate it! ! !
On 14/6/1985 (25/3/1364) in a message to the Iranian people, Saddam asked them to pressure their government to terminate the war. With a view to his words, let us see how the bombardment of non-military targets and the killing of civilians in Saddam's logic is considered as the way to peace:
"To prove to you that bombing targets deep inside Iranian territory [7] is not aimed at hurting the Iranian nations or as insult to their lives, sovereignty or generosity. Rather it is used as a means to stop the war, and, in order that you (the Iranians) may enjoy your holidays we will stop bombing specific targets deep within Iranian cities for the period 0800 tomorrow June 15 through the 30th of this month (25/3/1364 to 9/4/1364).
"In fact our withholding of bombardments is to give authorities in Iran a new opportunity to think of peace and so that you may have another chance to pressure your government to stop the war for the sake of peace."[8]
On 22/9/1985 (31/6/1364) Saddam spoke with those Iraqi pilots who had participated in the bombardment of the Kharg Island. He told them he had given the Iranians one more chance but they had not taken advantage of it (he meant stopping the war that he himself had started and had termed it: "The National Liberation War" and had pronounced himself "National Liberation Hero" and therefore the bombardment of economic and industrial centers of Iran would continue:
"I give them a chance and when they don't take advantage of it, with God's assistance, we shall bomb all of Iran's vital economic and industrial centers."[9]
This extortion and coercion was used by Saddam to save himself from the abyss he had cast himself into:
"If they (the Iranians) are interested in saving what is left of their industrial and economic facilities, though the blood that has been shed indicates they are not, as if they have men they want to get rid of through the war, [10] I say if you don't avail yourself of the opportunity to stop the war, with the grace of God, certain destruction shall befall the sources that have enabled you so far to take up arms and continue a pointless war..."
To understand the extent of damages incurred on civilian targets in Iran, above all the martyrdom of thousands of metropolitan residents and the injury to countless numbers of people, we must point to the rest of Saddam Hussein's (the hero who is interested in Iranian blood) words in this same speech dated 22/9/1985 (21/6/64).
"The targets bombarded in the past two months equals the number of targets bombarded in this country by the air force during the entire period of war."
Thus, the Iraqi regime has made targets of economic and industrial institutions and has, from the start of the war, showered hundreds of tons of explosives upon the people. However, the amount of devastating material used during the two months of July and August is equal to the amount it has used from the start of the war until July of that year (1985).
Here we take another look at the criminally inclined mentality of Saddam in his speech of 22/9/1985:
"The more we blast the economic arteries of the enemy, the closer peace is and the prevention of further bloodshed of Iraqis as well as those Iranians who do not want war or aggression.
The above evidence quoting Saddam will suffice this point.

2.Use of Chemical Materials and Weapons
The use of chemical weapons by the Iraqi Army has been upon the direct orders of Saddam Hussein. This point is confirmed by high-ranking Iraqi Army commanders and officers who were taken prisoner. On the international level, it is an established fact without a doubt. It is also confirmed by international agencies and by the authorities in some of the countries supporting Saddam, although some other states supporting Saddam, in his war against the Islamic Republic, have not confirmed it; this includes countries that provide financial and military aid to Iraq; Countries that are friends with Saddam but have condemned the use of chemical weapons on a worldwide basis. In this way such countries have sought an excuse for removing any probable doubts that affect their relations with Iraq.
To be sure, some of these countries have condemned Saddam (for use of chemical weapons) out of fear of rival political parties. And, since condemnation is inexpensive, they announce it and at the same time they send him specialists, arms, and even chemicals that are used in manufacturing bombs.
Saddam has himself cited a reason with which he undoubtedly has meant to make fools of his listeners and deny the use of chemical weapons and poisonous gases:
"The U.S.A. has announced it is upset over Iraq's use of all that is called poisonous gas. This country is quoting a news broadcast by Iran. The U.S.A. knows quite well that such claims are baseless and that Iran resorts to them in order to cover up for up its defeats.[11]
"You saw the films and the corpses shattered by Iraqi bullets. I don't think it had been censured to eliminate victims of chemical gases. Such scheming is intended to conceal truth, honor and principles. They (the Americans) conspired with authorities in Tehran in order to establish an emotional bridge with them.[12]
It is regrettable that none of the delegates to the Arab Labor Conference raised a voice in protest to what Saddam had said in his speech at that conference. None even asked how one can decide whether corpses fallen on the ground and shown on the television were killed by bullets or by poisonous gas. Also, no one asked Saddam about the nature of the emotional bridges between the U.S.A. and Iran, nor how the scheming between these two countries had taken place?
In his last statement about the scandal over using chemical weapons by Iraq, on 30/4/1984 (10/2/1353), Saddam has said:
“The question of chemical warfare and chemical bombardment which the world mass media talks about... naturally, if we carefully observe this media, they all have considered the problem unilaterally. Whether in Europe or America the mass media is influenced by Zionist circles and have co-ordinated with Iran's news and information media. One time they say cargo shipments with Iraqi destination arriving at the Port of Aqaba are chemical gases. Another time they say that the Akkashat industrial complex is manufacturing chemicals.”
"The purpose of these statements is quite clear- it is aimed at preparing grounds for delivering blows to major Iraqi economic centers." [13]
Truly, what can one do with a speaker who wants so much to beguile his listeners?

3. Crimes Committed Against Prisoners:
The crimes committed by Iraqi soldiers against Iranian prisoners are indicated in International Red Cross reports. Some of the crimes have been reflected in Persian books and pamphlets and other crimes by anti-Iraqi wings. Here we relate a very strange incident:
Baghdad Television on 28/12/1983 (7/10/1362), in a special program, showed ceremonies for awarding medals of honor and bravery to Iraqi officers and enlisted men who had performed great and honorable feats during the war. Upon distributing the medals, each recipient was asked to tell of his brave acts at the war fronts that made him merit the related medal. When his turn came to narrate such a story that made Saddam laugh out loud, a soldier related the following incident: Saddam asked: "Did you remove the flesh of the prisoner whom you killed?" The soldier replied:
"I recall that our company lieutenant had taken an Iranian soldier as prisoner [14]. Lt. Mahmood was with us in the bunker. We stoned the prisoner to death for we did not wish to waste a bullet."
Cachinnating Saddam then asked: "Was not his flesh severed from his bones during the incident?"
The soldier replied: "Well, Sir, to tell you the truth, company heroes are all lions including Lt. Mahmood!"
They claimed that the reason for stoning the soldier to death was that they did not want to waste a bullet or hand grenade. Of course reasoning is not in tune with the immense Iraqi arsenals. Anyhow the Iranian soldier had been left in the bunker with his hand and feet tied up before his death by stoning. He would have attempted to escape if his feet and hands were not tied.
When this criminal act is recounted, the headman of the Iraqi regime, who is also, the permanent secretary of the Ba'ath Party as well as commander-in-chief of all the armed forces and president of the Revolutionary Command Council, guffaws and asks whether they had peeled the flesh off the prisoner's bones?!
It remains for us to see how the following news, broadcast by Radio Baghdad early in the war and published by the Al Safir in its issue of 4/10/1980 (12/7/1359) can be interpreted.
"Baghdad Radio announced that the Iranian pilot who meant to bomb targets in Basra was killed by local inhabitants after his plane was hit. This radio also said that one of the pilots was shot during descent and the other captured and killed by local people."
If we study the story related by the Iraqi soldier describing for Saddam the manner of killing an Iranian prisoner of war, we will recognize the people who, according to Radio Baghdad, killed the Iranian prisoner.
These "local people" included policemen, the militia or belonged to the "People's Army" and so we can doubt the manner in which the co-pilot of the aircraft, that had met with an accident, was killed.
On the other hand, we have a communiqué that has been issued by the Iraqi Armed Forces on 23/9/1980 (1/7/1359):
"At 13:30 five enemy aircraft appeared in the Kirkuk sky and attacked the city's airport. Our ground-to-air fire shot them down. Another (enemy) aircraft that appeared in our sky after those (already downed), was also hit by our ground-to-air fire. Our forces, together with the help of men from the 'People's Army' were able to capture the pilots alive. "[15]
We note, therefore, that usually the armed forces plus members of the People's Army with the help of some ordinary people capture the pilot of a downed aircraft. Ordinary people alone are forbidden to do that by themselves, otherwise, they will face harsh punishments decreed by responsible authorities of Iraq. Fear of these punishments makes it very difficult for ordinary people to undertake such arrests, if not prevent them entirely altogether, particularly in the middle of a city such as Basra with all the military personnel, the police and the People's Army who roam around in that city.
It follows then that the military personnel have killed the prisoner and it is very likely that the other pilot, too was murdered by them.
And finally, it must be said that Saddam, in his war as well as peace campaigns with Iran, has not overlooked the commitment of any action banned by international organizations. His trial, therefore, in a court of justice by fair and impartial prosecutors from neutral states and his punishment are called for. He deserves to be punished, for, one tenth of the crimes he has committed against the Iranians and the Iraqis, is enough for his prosecution and conviction. Surely Saddam's trial shall make his supporters, and all those who insist that Iran sign a peace treaty with him, blush. It is like asking a Pole who has spent time in Nazi prisons; or an Englishman who has lived through the Nazi bombardment of London; or a Parisian who has lived under Nazi occupation, to make peace with criminals like Hitler, Goering, Hess and Rosenberg and sit at the negotiation table with any of them.
We are sure that if Hit1er could come alive after 41 years, a Nuremberg Tribunal would be set up for his trial and sentence him to death while feeling sorry for not having a more fitting way to mete out his punishment.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Here Saddam admits that bombing the cities will result in mobilization of the Iranians.
[2] At that time Saddam tried to pretend his object was to bombard non-military targets, assuming perhaps that the world has forgotten the destruction he brought to the southern and border cities and towns of Iran when his armies invaded these points on Shahrivar 31, 1359 (Sept. 22, 1980).
[3] A part of Saddam's talk with the Iraqi news agency distributed 6/2/1983.
[4] Conversation with the delegates from the city of Diali.
[5] Iraqi pilots should shed the blood of the Iranian so as to prevent the shedding of Iraqi blood.
[6] Saddam's speech on 7/6/1984 at a feast arranged in appreciation of Iraqi pilots who had bombarded non-military targets.
[7] One expression used with a special meaning by Saddam and in Iraq's military communiqués is this: "Bombardment deep inside Iranian territory and by that they mean bombarding non-military targets and the phrase "bombing selected targets" also means bombing non-military targets.
"Destruction of sea targets" means the bombing of an oil tanker. The international news media will have understood these phrases.
[8] This message was broadcast in the evening of 14/6/1985. It was titled: "A message for the Iranian nations."
[9] In conferring medals to pilots, Saddam did not settle with the bombardment of economic and scientific centers. He also had cultural centers bombed. As an example, the archeological sites at Isfahan. This barbaric act was condemned by the UNESCO.
[10] Same as previous speech, in Saddam's thinking and mentality, the Iranians who defend themselves, do not value their life and blood. The destruction of non-military targets by bombs or missiles is done to prevent the bloodshed of innocent people.
[11] We wonder why the Iranians want to ascribe their defeat to the use of chemical weapons. Why doesn't Saddam talk of repeated tactical defeats at the fronts, the last of which occurred July 1, 1980 at Mehran, with excellent morale they retreated. In the words of an Iraqi Army commander, already mentioned, that is how it happened at Mehran. Truly, is it not the Iraqi regime that tried to make up for its defeats at the fronts by using chemical weapons?
[12] Saddam's speech at & gathering of the delegates to the Arab Labor Conference dated 7/3/1984.
[13] Saddam's press conference with Kuwaiti reporters broadcast on Baghdad Radio, 30/4/1984.
[14] The dotted part of the original tape broadcast from Iraq's Radio and Television had been intended to conceal the name of that lieutenant. However after a couple of words, the television had been unable to erase all of it and subsequently, it became clear that the lieutenant's name was "Mahmood" and all the military men who were accomplices to this savage crime, had been men of the 3rd and 4th battalions of the special brigade of the republic.
[15] The book entitled: "The Communiqués of the General Command, the Armed Forces of Saddam's Qadessiah," page 19.

CONCLUSIONS

APPENDICES
NOTE
The Iraqi regime has consistently claimed that its aggressive, imposed war on the Islamic Republic of Iran is the outcome of its nationalistic stance and its purpose has been to defend the rights of the Arabs. In other words, it is a war between Arabs and Iranians. Although in the Arab world, many of the regimes and forces affiliated with the arrogant world powers have confirmed and helped the Iraqi regime in its imposed war on Iran and have propagated this trend of thought in their mass media, Arab nations and so political regimes and powers have supported Iran in its just position.
In our conclusion of the discussions at the end of the book we have pointed out, as an example two points of view by two Arab wings regarding the war. What Hafez Assad has said clearly shows that the Arabs and particularly advanced Arab nations and regimes have not confirmed Saddam's crimes nor assisted him in performing them.

CONCLUSIONS
The war of aggression which Saddam Hussein has started is approaching its 8th year, a war whose outcome for the nations in the region, particularly the two Muslim nations of Iran and Iraq was devastation and ruin. The war swallowed all the wealth which could have been used for the present and future progress and development of the area.
When our dear reader takes a look at the massive pile of papers on which the slogans of Saddam's war of Qadessiah are printed, in newspapers, magazines, etc. have "Iraq starts the national war of liberation." Or, he reads: "Saddam, the National Liberation Hero." And still further: "There is no difference between the liberation of Palestine and Arabistan because territory does not differentiate between one occupier and another. But when the reader compares what he has read with what he reads in Baghdad's mass media today, he notes that the phrase "Iraq's war is a defensive war", is often repeated.
Truly, what happened that the national liberation war changed into a defensive war? What makes the peace mediators insist so much on stopping the war?
Is it true that they wish to prevent the bloodshed of Iraqi and Iranian Muslims? Where were they (the mediators) when Saddam and his propaganda apparatus were calling the Iranians magus or magian (sun or fire worshippers), while Islam has bestowed on it the honor of being its standard-bearer in whose path they readily sacrifice themselves.
To destroy the Iranian nation, Saddam made use of any weapon that Eastern and Western arsenals made available to him, even weapons that were internationally banned. But, the honorable mediators and peace enthusiasts give equal standing to him who has started the conflagration in which he is burning, with Iran who has been invaded. Now that Saddam is losing the war that he himself has started the mediators are hard at work to make Iran agree to a cease- fire and sit at the negotiating table with Iraq. They also encourage the delegations of both sides to meet each other with smiles and sign a peace treaty which Saddam may tear up any time just as he tore up the Algerian Accord of 1975.
He who, at the time of invading the Islamic Republic admitted no mediators, particularly the Arab mediators, now sees unfavorable winds blowing, that he has been beaten in trying to fulfill his aggressive aims and is eagerly seeking the assistance of anyone who might be able to do something.
We know very well that the respectable peace enthusiasts who now talk of the dangers of war and regard it as a threat to regional and international peace, are those who helped prolong this war of aggression with money and material which they unsparingly made available to Saddam. None of these people uttered a word when Saddam's armies invaded and occupied and devastated the lands and cities of the Islamic Republic of Iran. They did not seek peace then. Rather, they considered Saddam's action the natural and historical right of the Iraqi regime. Now they realize they have forfeited their popular base and their people openly demand that they explain their reasons for supporting Saddam. Their unlimited support has resulted in economic and social crises in their countries and therefore, they emphatically seek peace.
Those who started this war wanted to overthrow the Islamic Republic regime in Iran. We have ample evidence to prove this. Saddam Hussein has personally told Jacques Chirac (present French prime minister) that the Islamic Republic will fall in six days." Therefore the demand to stop the holy defense of the Islamic Republic vis-a-vis the aggression that has been launched against it, in reality, amounts to belittling the criminal plot that was implemented with the objective of overthrowing the Islamic Republic.
*This point has been revealed by Jacques Chirac in an interview with the Washington Post newspaper which printed the matter in its issue of 7/11/1986 (16/9/1365). The said newspaper has added that not only this objective was not realized but it increased the power of the Islamic Republic in the matter.
It must be said that the ruling regime in Baghdad, who has violated the valid treaty with excuses and has attacked Iran, is not competent to sign a new treaty. In addition to its disregard for and breach of contract, Saddam has committed such crimes against Iran and Iraq that cannot be ignored. The Iraqi regime must be punished for its dirty acts.
The ruin, devastation of towns, villages, cities and farms as well as the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people by the Iraqi regime can never be forgotten. It is a positive proof that the Baghdad regime lacks the honor and courage necessary to conclude a peace treaty. Anyone who does not respect humanity will surely have no respect for peace.
The Muslim nation of Iran should be proud to have been able to withstand a deaf and blind aggression supported by the spiteful enemies of Islam. The epic actions of this war should make any Muslim anywhere feel proud. These epic narrations shall be cherishing in the hearts and minds of all the men of goodwill who have repeatedly witnessed devotion and sacrifice all over Iran. We have children who have donated all their savings, given to them by their parents, for the cause of this holy defense. We have teenagers who grenade in hand, throw themselves under enemy tanks, destroying the enemy and attaining martyrdom. We have millions of faithful people who are devoted to the Holy Prophet (SAWA) and to the innocent, and infallible Imams (AS.) and their companions (Sahabah) and aids, who though few in number, effectively challenged enemies far superior to them in number and equipment. Anyone who is like that, will not lay down his arms but will continue his sacred defense until his just conditions for an honorable peace in the region are fulfilled.
The believing and faithful hands and hearts that were able to shake the palaces of the cruel oppressors and add new page to history are also capable of cutting off the hands of anyone who may seek to mar the honor and dignity of this Islamic homeland.

APPENDIX ONE
Selected portions from the statement of the "The Civil Leadership Council of the Ba'ath Party of Lebanon (supporters of Iraq);
"Our great nation!, amid the rising fire of war -by the Eastern gateway to the Arab homeland, eyes are fixed on the matchless, heroic acts and shining victories which the Arab Army scores by the revolutionary Iraq against the enemies of the homeland and its people. The grandeur and eminence of the Arabs is crystallizing in a new Qadessiah and Ziqar. Ba'athist warriors draw their sword to clean the Arab land from the impurity of occupation and to return to the Arab ummat (nation) its prestige and credibility.
The Al Amal newspaper, Lebanon 26/9/1980 (4/7/1359 A.H.).'Liberating the lands that Iran had occupied is not merely retaking Iraqi territory. Rather, it is regaining the rights of the Arabs to every square foot of their usurped lands. In fact, this move is a re- demonstration of the will of the Arabs and their right to decide their own destiny on the basis of national selection and the expediencies of the Arab nation (ummat).
In this connection it must be pointed out that the decision of the Iraqi Revolutionary Council to retake the occupied Iraqi lands is nothing but to return the right to the usurped lands and to secure natural rights acceptable by international laws and practices.
"The army of Iraqi warriors has risen with the incentive to regain the usurped rights and to hoist the Iraqi banner up high in the freed territories after the return of sovereignty to the nation and the homeland so that it may be able to stand up to the nonsense that Iranian authorities are jabbering against Iraq and the Arab ummat. This army does not need permission to carry out its national duties, especially because the Tehran regime insists on its aberrations, on ignoring all international laws and disregarding the simplest human value and good-neighborly relations.
'"It was obvious from the start that what is called the Revolution of Iran is nothing but a gathering of anarchists with a revenge program in a new form against Arab nationalism and its pioneering revolutionary forces. This political frivolity became manifest in the form of racist behavior and expansionist dreams of the new Tehran rulers, after dethroning Reza Shah (Muhammad Reza) Pahlavi who was appointed gendarme by the U.S.A. to curb all liberating Arab movements and Arab revolutionary forces.
"To be true to its nature the latent racial spite and animosity of the Iranians toward Arab nationalism showed up in the words of the new rulers of Iran. They equated Arab nationalism with Zionism. And since increased exports requires increased production, the rulers in Tehran, began to export their troubles while claiming they were exporting their revolution. To this end, they used fancy slogans and multifaceted lies which became evident in their first contact with the rights of Arabs.
"How we and all the sincere Arabs wished that authorities in Tehran would, immediately after assuming power, attend to the relations between themselves and the Arab nation which had been tarnished with malice and enmity?" How we wished they would return all that the imperial regime had clutched, whose fall we regarded as auspicious!? We wished that Iran would play its part in support of the Arabs and not against them.
'"But, none of these expectations were realized. The new regime insisted on its occupation of the three Arab islands and Iraqi territories and resumed the claim on Bahrain and questioned the Arab identity of the (Persian) Gulf and showed disregard for the treaties signed between Iran and Iraq. Such conduct is tantamount to violation of Iraq's national sovereignty and the nationalist prestige of the Arabs. Also, it is against international laws and practices.
"Therefore, Iraq's action should be regarded as a defense measure which extinguished expansionism in its embryonic stage and promised the realization of the return of lawful rights to those they really belong.
"Our great nation! The almost crusading role that Iraq performs today together with its armies of warriors and generous nation under the leadership of Saddam Hussein means acceptance of the responsibility for the war of the Arab ummat and activating the Palestine liberation movement.
"The Ba'ath banners that are hoisted in the land of Rafadain (Iraq) have projected in our heart and in the hearts of all Arabs such fighting values and mass mobilization that render the eyes anxious and draws all feelings, emotions and hearts toward Baghdad, this bastion of Arabism, the bastion that protects the Arab ummat (nation) from the spiteful and challenging breaches of law which harms the revolutionary structure of the Arabs.
"Those who still have doubts and misgivings as to the stance they should take, and we especially mean some of the Arabs, should know that their assumed position is not an effort to stay away from bloodshed. Rather, their apprehension is due to the radiating revolutionary flames of nations who can no longer stand encroachments of their rights and liberties. Iraq's war, is the war of all Arabs because, revolutionary Iraq is the manifestation of the wishes and demands of all the Arabs to obtain unity and freedom. This war is the war of all those who love peace. The purpose of all liberation wars is to secure an eventual peace, a peace based on justice and equity and the return of peoples' rights to them. Anyone who does not voice his confirmation and support of this war, which in itself is the least demand, is like a traitor who takes part in the designs for occupation of national territories. Such a party cannot be admitted under any circumstances, to securing the sovereignty of the national territory.
Just as territory does not differentiate between occupiers and as colonialism in any form is eventually the same thing, the people too, do not differentiate between occupiers. The difference between occupiers lies in their status and degree and not in their nature. I declare to all those who are silent today and think of the strategic attack against the "Camp David" agreement -that such attack cannot be launched through compromising methods. But, it can materialize with machine guns of the revolutionaries at Abadan, Shatt al Arab and Zein-al Ghoas.

APPENDIX TWO

The Report of Al Safir Newspaper Concerning the Statements of Mr. Hafez Assad, President of Syria, About the Aggression of Iraq Against Iran*
Hafez Assad pointing to the Iraq-Iran war made the following remarks: "All that goes on at the Iraq-Iran borders is most regrettable."
He (Hafez Assad) added: "Iraq is an Arab country whose nation, army and destiny are ours and Iran is a neighboring country in which an Islamic Revolution has taken place and is tied to the struggle of Arabs against Israel. The Arabs regard the victory of the Iranian Revolution as their own victory." The Syrian President continued:
Al Safir newspaper dated 8/11/1980 (Aban 17, 1359 A.H.) "Iran had a dictatorial monarchy which was opposed to the Arab ummat. The former Iranian regime was cooperating with Israel. It had established a political and military base in this strategic region that has been actively implementing the plans of world imperialism. The expansionist drives of that dictatorial monarchy was a constant and increasing threat to the Arab ummat (nation) and homeland.
"Then a national revolution with Islamic mottos took place. It dethroned the shah; called off the imperialistic foreign relations; folded up foreign military bases, removed the influence and domination of imperialism from the country; severed all relations with Israel and, with an orbital move, found its place in the body of the Non-Aligned countries. It demonstrated its all-out support for Palestine and Jerusalem (Quds) as well as occupied Arab territories. All this has had widespread, positive repercussions in all the struggles of the Arabs on both regional and worldwide scales. It (the new regime of Iran) has produced a valuable strategic balance, in the real sense, in the region as well as the world at large. It (Iran) undoubtedly stands by us in the liberation of our occupied territories and in regaining our national rights in Palestine.
"Such was the conduct of Iran then and now, it is as we said above. After such drastic changes, is it fair that we do not rejoice in the victory of this (Islamic) Revolution? Is it fair that we show no interest in the perpetuation of this revolution?
President Assad went on to say: "In the wake of this change, many Arab national personalities, parties, governments and other Arab organizations entered into relations of friendship and cooperation with the revolution. Some of these have had contacts with this revolution before it took place and had cooperation with it. Others established relations with the revolution after its triumph. After knowing all these facts, is it unfair to ask why this revolution was made the object of invasion, why such a sudden war waged against it? Why did the Iraqi regime start this uncalled for war? If the problems which spurred the war concerned that Arabs, why was no Arab country consulted in advance? We, in Syria cannot conceive of an Arab foregoing his rights but no Arab should impose a war on other Arabs unless it is a recognized enemy and we be in a defensive position.
'He (Mr. Assad) continued: "The declaration of war on Iran was as sudden and unexpected to us as it was to the Iranians... it was necessary for the Arabs to meet and analyze the matter of their rights and find a political solution before Iraq undertakes such a dangerous war. He went on to say:
“The question is clear and there is no doubt that this war is not related to the rights of the Arabs in a positive way. If the question concerned the Iraqi nation and territories, we would not hesitate to help Iraq, hand in hand with our nation there and partake in the war wherever it might be. But, a border dispute should not be solved on a struggle for survival basis.
As a result of this war, the Palestinian issue lost its importance for the Arabs as well as worldwide and assumed secondary significance. Also, Iraqi military and economic resources were deleted from the Arab-Israel scene of conflict and this delighted Israel.
'It is required of anyone who becomes involved in a war in the name of the Arabs to present his evidence and reasons thereof to all the Arabs and convinces them that such and such a war is undertaken for the sake of the Arabs.
"Cur brothers who rule in Iraq today are the ones who, in 1975, signed a treaty with Iran. They are also the ones who now annul that treaty .After the conclusion of the 1975 Treaty with the shah of Iran, they rejoiced and celebrated the occasion in many places in Iraq and termed this treaty a great success for them but now, they rescind it... that may be alight. Perhaps they were not serious about what they said then. But, have they selected a propitious time? Did they employ a proper method in doing so? Did they consult any Arab? No, none of these took place!
"In Syria, we always decide our policies and positions with a view to the aims, principles and exigencies of the Arabs and nothing else. This war is not waged on the basis of the Arabs' aims, principles and expediencies. It is, rather, in the interest of alien non-Arabs and against the interests of the Arabs.
"On this basis it was up to us to assume a stance against this war but what has deterred us from doing so is the dear Iraqi soldier and nation who have become the kindling of this war, the tinder of war that has caused the Iraqi and Iranian miserable suffering.”
Hafez Assad concluded his talk with this point: “Therefore, we shall not be drawn into the network of imperialism and will not enter a war which is against the principles and objectives of the Arabs."