Talk:Iran–Iraq War

no "tactical Iranian failure"

Hi my name is Robert

I've been following recent changes made by a few individuals to this article. There are several individuals wishing to remove the phrase "tactical Iranian failure" in the summary results box. However, an individual signing in as Uirauna, seems to insist on inserting that phrase. The below is my explanation as to why that assertion should not be included to describe "the Results" of the war.

When it comes to this war, one cannot insist on the phrase "tactical failure" when it comes to the Iranian offensives, at least in its traditional sense. This is better understood, if the Iranian objectives are studied and observed for what they actuality were. The Iranian actions throughout the war were mostly constituted as defensive manoeuvres and not intended as a major offensive and or to capture/destroy new targets. To that end Iran was very successful.

My understanding also is that the war needs to be looked at objectively throughout the period which it lasted 1980-1988. The main objective of the Iraqi armed forces, under Saddam Hussein, was to invade and annex the oil rich state of Khuzestan in South West Iran. That objective failed shortly after the invasion and the war was in-fact fought for the rest of the war in Iraq until its end in 1988.

I also note that once the UN resolution of cease fire was accepted by both warring sides, Iran had to pull its troops back and evacuate Iraqi territory. To that end, I am not sure how one can argue a "tactical Iranian failure"? In any event, that assertion should not be placed in the summary results box, but rather, incorporated in the main article with the relevant specifics of the facts.

I will also, edit this section out in the article to reflect the above facts, and invite the active member to follow the above. I will, also send a copy of this correspondence to WP.

Hope this was helpful

Thanks

Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.25.192.146 (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Robert. If the removal of such content is objected (as per WP:BRD), such people should take the issue to the talk page BEFORE making more changes (such as you did). That is edit warring and POV pushing. That content on the page has been a long standing consensus, so it would take a new discussed consensus to remove it, not a bunch of IPs randomly removing it. I welcome your decision to take it to the talk page, but I have reverted your changes as the issue is not yet settled. If we reach a new consensus (or something like it), I´ll gladly remove that content myself. Until then PLEASE STOP REMOVING IT. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi

As it stands, it's your word against the word of several. I have written a detailed explanation based on facts. You provide no facts and point to so called past "consensus". There is no consensus on that issue, since it never occurred.

So, unless you can provide a logical reason as to why it (the fictitious phrase "tactical Iranian failure") should stand, please STOP accusing people of Vandalism. If you resort to this word so liberally, you need to read up on what constitutes 'vandalism' in WP. I have read it several times; it certainly does not describe what has occurred here.

Unless someone else objects to the entry "Tactical Iranian Failure", I think what you are doing is in fact vandalism..!? The assertion that there was a "tactical Iranian failure" is actually wrong. What does it actualy mean? Once you explain it, you will note that it can not apply to a side defending itself from several fronts.

Regards

Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.25.192.146 (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi again

FYI my account.

Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robvanden (talk • contribs) 02:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The war was a disaster for both countries. Although Iran managed to repell the Iraqi invasion of Khuzestan, they did not actually defeat their enemy. The subsequent Iranian invasion of Iraq was a complete disaster, and in the end of the war Iraq pushed into Iran again and stroke a sereve blow against the Iranians, thought with high casualties on their own as well. The war ended in a stalemate, not an Iranian victory. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a victory, since Iran simply defended her territory against an invading army, armed and trained by US and British governments. To that end Iran was victorious in its defence. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by Stalemate, since the objectives of the war were quite different. One failed in its objective to invade and to take lands away and the other succeeded in repelling and defending. Cheers. Rob (RobVanden 02:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC))

Stalemate does not mean reaching (or not reaching) objectives, but coming to a standoff where neither party cannot gain an advantage over the other and win the war. Another such example is the Korean War. Do you agree that despite local victories neither Iran nor Iraq were able to obtain a decisive advantage over the other allowing them to win the war? From 1983 on there was no significant gain for wither side, turning into an war of attrition that eventually lead to a cease fire. Also, Iran´s objective in the second phase of the war was to invade and dominate Iraq (as can be seen in the article itself, Iran used the mottos "War, War until Victory" and "The Road to Jerusalem Goes through Karbala" during the invasion). Also(2), I suggest that we remove some content from the results section, it is getting too crowded. Maybe keep just "Stalemate" and " Iraq invasion of Iran repelled" for simplicity. The rest of the information is detailed in the article. Also(3), please try to be civil, something you seem unable to do. Do not make false accusations. If you think I have a puppet, feel free to denounce me to the administrators, or else keep yourself quiet about such useless nonsense, there is no place for such behaviour here. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

First, I was and have been civil towards you. You just got used to getting your own way on everything thus-far. I'm here to tell you, that has come to an end.

Second, you sound exactly the same as your other alias (Mikrobølgeovn). I know you have your own agenda for this article. You won’t be successful; I can assure you of that.

Third, Iran never tried to gain an advantage over Iraq. It never invaded. Iran did however, seek to push back a relentless attack by US/UK armed and trained Iraq. To that end it was victorious. Even if Iran entered Iraqi territory, it was never to capture but rather as a defensive objective. Iraq repeatedly used Chemical and Biological weapons on Iranian soldiers and civilians, everytime Iran made rapid progress. These weapons were supplied to it by the US and UK.

Fourth, Just like the word Vandalism which you threw around so liberally in order to achieve your ends, the word stalemate should not be so liberally used here either. There are articles and published books available that specify why this war did not end in a stalemate. For instance, I'm not sure why you keep getting personal on this issue and failing to understand this simple concept: Here it is again: If Iraq invaded Iran and the war ended with Iran having to spend several weeks evacuating Iraqi territory, how is it that the war ended in a loss or a stalemate..!? Just leave it alone, my friend. (RobVanden 03:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)).

Hello, the result should be a stalemate. Had Iran accepted calls for a ceasefie by Saddam after his failed invasion, then it would have been a successful Iranian defence, hence an Iranian victory. However Ayatollah Khomeini decided to carry on the war with the objective of overthrowing the despicable, thuggish and brutal Saddam Hussein. Since Iran failed in this regard, one can argue that both countries failed their respective war objectives; therefore there was no victor. In the end, both countries had massive losses, with such an indecisive outcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mblur (talk • contribs) 12:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, the result can not be a stalemate since Iran ended in a superior position than at the start of the war. Also, look at the 2003 bilateral agreement between the two countries, regarding causes of the war, the reparation payments by Iraq to Iran and the outcomes. Iraq has agreed to all Iran terms. (RobVanden 23:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)).

Hello, it is actually a stalemate as neither country gained a significant advantage over the other by the end of the war and both ultimately failed in their objectives. True Iran defended itself and this would have been a victory if Khomeini did not decide to continue the war for another 6 years with the intentions of overthrowing the Baathist regime and establishing an Islamic republic. Wars are won by achieving objectives; Saddam's objectives failed within two years and Khomeini's failed by 1988, after a string of Iraqi victories from April-August 1988. Also, as of yet Iraq has not paid reparations to Iran, although you are correct regarding the head of the Iraqi Interim governing council saying that Iraq should pay reparations. Bear in mind that he was the head of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and has close ties with Tehran, having supported them during the war. Anyway,any clear-minded individual can see the war was undeniably a stalemate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mblur (talk • contribs) 16:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, it is actually NOT a stalemate, and stop pushing this POV on the article under IP: 2.121.99.104. It's been recorded. First,The objective of the Iranian army was to defend its territory and it did that. There were some minor setbacks, but by war's end Iran had to evacuate Iraqi territory, not the other way round [Iraq invaded Iran remember?]. This has been said in numerous articles and published texts, a quick search on the internet will show you same.

Second, the agreement between the Iraqi government and Iran was SIGNED in 2003. Iraq agreed to all Iranian terms including but not limited to; the causes and invading party, agreement with UN announcement of Iraq as the invading party; the reparations payments of close to $700 Billion USD; and the exchange of POW's.

It is now clear that Iran was not simply fighting an isolated Iraqi army, but a vast mercenary force at the bequest of Western powers, which armed and trained all of Iraq's armed forces, supplied it with satellite intel, supplied it with chemical and biological weapons and an open ended credit line (courtesy of Persian Gulf Arab States) and the supply of other state of the art conventional weaponry. In the face of huge economic and military sanctions the Iranian army was able to push this huge mercenary Iraqi force deep into Iraqi territory for much of the war. (RobVanden 03:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robvanden (talk • contribs)

Hello, in contrast to your comment, it actually was a stalemate. Iran's initial objectives in defending its territory were successful by 1982, however as I have repeatedly emphasized to you, Khomeini's objectives for the next six years of the war were not met and by 1988 he himself acknowledged that Iran could not continue. Iran's failure in this regard therefore constitutes a stalemate.

Also, I'd like to add: do not take my editing of this article an attack against your personal opinion or me trying to push my own opinion. I'm only trying to give an unbiased account of what happened throughout the war and not only Iran's defence by 1982. The result that you endorse does not convey Iran's failure in its objectives after 1982 to remove the ba'athist regime and establish an Islamic republic; let us be fair my friend- it was undoubtedly a stalemate. The vast amount of sources on the internet agree with this result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mblur (talk • contribs) 12:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have read the comments also. The war between the two countries did not end in a stalemate. Iranian military objectives were purely defensive in nature. To that end Iran came out on top. Testament to that was the fact that at war's end it took several weeks for Iranian military to leave Iraqi soil - not the other way round. I agree with Rob vanden's points.

Hello, conversely, it indeed did end in a stalemate. However, firstly, I'd like to point out that you have contradicted yourself by saying, "Iranian military objectives were purely defensive" before going on to say, "it took several weeks for Iranian military to leave Iraqi soil". If their objectives were 'defensive in nature', then why did they end up leaving Iraqi soil? The answer, of course, is that Iranian objectives were only defensive for the first two years of the war and the last six years were composed of Iranian offensive objectives by invading Iraq. An invasion is not a defensive response by Iran. Their objectives in toppling Saddam and setting up an Islamic Republic in Iraq failed. In fact if you search up the various battles of the Iran-Iraq war, you will see that after 1982, the bulk of battles consisted of Iranian attacks against the intrenched Iraqis. It was only the last battles from April-August 1988 that Iraq attacked Iran back, which culminated in Khomeini's decision to accept the ceasefire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mblur (talk • contribs) 15:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I do agree that it's a little confusing, but you have to think of it in the way the USSR fought Nazi Germany back in WWII, following the collapse of 'Operation Barbarossa'. The objectives of the USSR were purely defensive in nature. When the war ended the USSR was deep inside German territory. Instead of retreating back to the borders prior to the outbreak of the war, Stalin directed the Communist army of the USSR to remain and chose to stay back and carve up the territory with the United State and her allies (ie Eastern vs West Germany, Eastern vs Western Europe). In the Iran - Iraq war, apparently, by the war's end Iran's three (3) main divisions of Iran's armed forces were stationed deep in Iraqi territory. After the acceptance by both sides of Resolution 598 - effecting Res. 619, Iran withdrew all its droops back to the borders in place prior to the outbreak of the war (per the 1975 Algiers Agreement ). It's as simple as that. Khomeini's main objective after 1982, knowing that Saddam was quite capable of a quick counter attack, was to charge up the spirit of the nation and to boost morale so that the resistance would be fierce, and to resist and bush back the Iraqi army as deep as possible into Iraqi territory. That's why the rest of the war was in deed fought on Iraqi soil. In fact the entire war is termed as the "Sacred Defense" in Iran (today) and is in fact marked by many commemorative national days and holidays (eg Iranian Sacred Defence Week). That's why it is recognized (on the part of Iran) as being a purely defensive war, as opposed to the objectives of Saddam Hussein's Iraq and his western and Arab allies, which was to annex and incorporate into Iraq the state of Khūzestān (South Western Iranian province) containing some 10 t0 15% of the world's known crude oil reserves. I hope this was clearer, thanks for your input. Cheers, (RobVanden 00:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)).

Hello, while I take your point about how Iranian objectives and Soviet objectives were initially defensive, one cannot compare the outcomes of both. The Soviet army eventually captured Berlin and forced the Germans into surrender, hence a Soviet victory; this was not not the case in the Iran-Iraq War, where one side was not able to gain a significant advantage over the other, hence a stalemate. The fact that Iranian troops evacuated Iraqi territory is effectively meaningless if their objectives in launching their own invasion failed. Saddam offered Khomeini a ceasefire in 1982 and offered to pay reparations (practically acknowledged his disastrous miscalculation and defeat). Khomeini refused this, choosing to continue the war for another 6 years in the hope of toppling Saddam's regime and turning Iraq into an Islamic Republic; he failed his objectives as well. Remember that Khomeini had always been a critic of Saddam's regime and rejected it as un-Islamic, hoping one day that it would follow the example of Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mblur (talk • contribs) 08:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, it's not as simple as that. In fact Iraq under Saddam Hussein offered Iran two formal offers of surrender and one informal. They were rejected all three times by Iran, because none had UNSC backing. Meaning that the power-players instigating the war and making billions in the process had yet some ways to go before sitting at the negotiating table (these included Israeli arms dealers etc). The only time Iran took an offer of ceasefire seriously was when the UNSC was formally involved in 1987. Saddam could never be trusted to honor his words, as the world found out with his invasion of Kuwait a couple of years later. Iran did in fact end with the upper hand at the end of the war as discussed repeatedly here, and the subsequent signing of the 2003 agreements in Tehran solidified and formalized all the Iranian claims. No written documents were agreed to following the wars end apart from UNSC Res 598. Saddam was a genocidal maniac, whom committed mass murders and rapes and there was no way the Iranian nation was going to allow any of its political leaders be seen at the same table, particularly an individual perceived as responsible for such heinous crimes against the innocent Iranian people. It's not as black and white as, "oh so if Iran didn't topple the Baathist regime therefore it was a stalemate". No. The Iranian objective was to push Saddam's genocidal army back as deep as possible into Iraqi territory, until a formal agreement could be reached with UNSC. UNSC (many of its members where selling arms and intel to Iraq) did not formalize a ceasefire agreement until they had complete terms of ceasefire from Iraq. The result if the war could not have been a stalemate, but a ceasefire accepted by both sides to end fighting (end of round 12). Kind of like when the fighting in a boxing match ends at the end of round 12 and both fighters are still standing. However, one fighter always has his hands up. That was Iran, after being invaded, it had to spend several weeks just to evacuate Iraqi territory. The 2003 agrrements between the two nations also supplement that fact. So you can't keep saying stalemate, because it doesn't apply to this conflict.(RobVanden 14:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)).

Hello, even when the Resolution was passed, it took Iran a year to sign it because it was attacking Iraq throughout 1987 and Khomeini only accepted it after a string of Iraqi victories in 1988; so I'm not sure about your analogy of a boxer winning on decision representing Iran since Khomeini concluded that Iran could not continue and so the result was clearly a stalemate. In addition, Khomeini definitely wanted to turn Iraq into an Islamic Republic (even before the War he had wanted this) and so this objective, after 6 years of Iranian attacks, failed. Also, i agree 100% with your description of Saddam; he was a genocidal maniac and he ruined Iraq- no question about that. In fact I am an Assyrian and we took up armed resistance against his regime throughout the 1980s in the name of democracy. Anyway, I'd just like to say a final thing, because this argument is getting long and drawn out- if there is a consensus among editors then fair enough, I will stop editing it, however I don't appreciate people accusing me of being someone else or trying to push my own opinion. That is completely arrogant and out of order for people to do that as I'm only trying to improve the accuracy of the article and there are various sources on the internet which confirm that the war was a stalemate. Mblur (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought Iran won the war?! No way they didn't win (Shpoolky (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)).

I'm glad someone has put an end to these petty accusations. I am new to editing and so I do not know much about the procedures- but I do know that as an editor, one must endeavour to convey accurate and un-biased information to the reader. I am suggesting here that the current version of the article, albeit reliable and accurate up to 1982, does not illustrate the entire scope of the result by 1988 and therefore is effectively keeping the whole truth of the result from people who read the article. I have seen a few editors on this talk page agreeing with the general result being a stalemate and this is widely reflected through numerous sources across the internet. Anyway, I will not re-edit the article if that is not the correct procedure to follow, although i wish to pursue this matter.Mblur (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The new version of the article has a more credible section for the result, with the insertion of the phrase: "Tactical Iranian failure"; however the word 'Stalemate' should be added as a general sum-up and I am under the impression that this would not violate the long-standing consensus. I am considering editing the result with the intention of inserting the word, 'Stalemate', although I am still unsure whether this action would constitute any serious breach of Wikepedia rules and regulations. Therefore, if anyone objects, I would be grateful if they could indicate that, thanks.Mblur (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mblur, and welcome again to wikipedia. No, you would not be breaking any rules by doing that. Actually, that´s what most editors should do, make contributions. The important part is what happens if someone disagrees with you, and revert your change. Then you should talke the issue to the talk page and explain the reasons for your change, trying to reach a consensus with other editors. If you go back and revert the reversion of your edit, you are engagin in and WP:edit war, which is against WP rules as well as counter productive. If an editor tries to push a POV, there are formal tools to deal with it, such as administrator intervention, mediation, request for comment, etc. The user who started this edit war (User talk:Robvanden) was blocked indefinitely, due to WP:sock (using multiple accounts) and personal attacks, so the issue is pretty much over. In short, keep a good attitude (and some humor), read some of WP:rules and you´ll be doing a good job as an editor. Most inportant, read the WP:pillars. Don´t worry about doing something wrong, WP is quite easy on newbies, and do not be offended if you receive a warning for something you did. If you have any questions, feel free to post them on my talk page. Take care and good editing. Uirauna (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Uirauna, thanks for the explanation and advice.Mblur (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

---

No you haven´t, you used plenty of name calling before creating your user account, just look at the page history. I am not "used to getting it my way", and and have no idea what you mean by "that has come to an end". You clearly do not know how to be civil toward others, but no problem, eventualy you will be punished for that. Also, once again please make no baseless accusations. You sound like a whole bunch of fanatical trolls who come here to push POVs, but still I respect you and do not accuse you of anything you didn´t do. You engange in edit wars, direct offenses to other people and still claim to be civil. You are not worth my time. The best thing about wikipedia is that in the long term, all POV-pushing, trolling and vandalism is reverted. I do not have an agenda in this article (once again, you can´t contain yourself on being uncivil and making baseless accusations), I couldn´t care less who got most destroyed in the war, or whose children were sent on stupid suicidal missions to clear minefields. I´m just here on my own time to try to keep the page away from trolls and vandals. I´ll let this issue rest, it means nothing to me. Just like many other issues it will eventually be resurfaced by other editors and then we shall talk again. Uirauna (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You sound like a 5 year old kid who starts sulking if he doesn't get his way. First, stop pushing your agenda on the article with different aliases. Second, don't use words so liberally which you have no idea what they really mean. I noticed that you were told this by other users in the past. Third, you sure are a stubborn person, just let it go man. You don't really know what you are talking about when it comes to this war. (RobVanden 23:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)).

Given the rather intense debate about this, I'll thought I run this by here first about changing anything on the page. I think it best to the Iranian failure was stragetic in the sense that Iranians failed in their goal to export their revolution to Iran. It is true that Iran did successfully defend its land, but since the attempt to achieve regime change in Iraq was an abject failure, what can argue that Iran failed to achieve its war aims after 1982. It is true that Hussein started the war in 1980, but 1982, it was Khomenini who kept the war going by rejecting the ceasefire offers and demanding that an Islamic republic be set up in Iraq. Both governments were successful in their defensive war aims, but were unsuccessful in their offensive war aims. Statement is probably the best term, but I think the phrase tactical Iranian failure ignores the extent that Iran was committed to exporting its revolution in the 1980s.--A.S. Brown (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)--A.S. Brown (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Shia majority vs minority

In the article it names the Shias as a minority, while the very source it uses for that sentence is a BBC article that claims a 55-60 % majority of Shias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.100.78 (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done - removed the sentence as not backed up by the source. --M4gnum0n (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Sciri logo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Sciri logo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Chemical warfare warningboard iran.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Chemical warfare warningboard iran.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Flag of PUK.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Flag of PUK.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files missing permission as of 13 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)