Did Iran Use Chemical Weapons Against Iraq? Unpacking A Lingering Debate

Clarissa Swaniawski III 18 Jun 2025

The Iran-Iraq War, a brutal conflict spanning much of the 1980s, remains etched in history as one of the 20th century's most devastating conventional wars. Beyond the sheer scale of human loss and destruction, it is also tragically remembered for the widespread and horrific use of chemical weapons. While the vast majority of documented evidence points to Iraq as the primary perpetrator of chemical attacks, a persistent and complex question continues to surface: did Iran use chemical weapons against Iraq? This question is not merely historical; it touches upon international law, the ethics of warfare, and the enduring quest for accountability in conflicts where such heinous weapons are deployed.

Understanding this multifaceted issue requires a deep dive into the historical context, the geopolitical realities of the time, the documented actions of both sides, and the often-conflicting narratives that emerged from the conflict. This article aims to explore the evidence, the allegations, and the denials surrounding Iran's alleged chemical weapons program and its potential use during the war, while also acknowledging the overwhelming evidence of Iraq's chemical warfare campaign.

The Brutal Reality of Chemical Warfare in the Iran-Iraq War
International Response and Perceived Inaction
Iran's Chemical Weapons Program: Development and Denial
- Motivations for Iran's Chemical Weapons Program
- Allegations of Limited Battlefield Use by Iran
The Legal and Ethical Landscape of Chemical Weapons
The Halabja Massacre: A Grim Precedent
Unanswered Questions and Lingering Debates
The Post-War Legacy and Future Implications

The Brutal Reality of Chemical Warfare in the Iran-Iraq War

The Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) stands as a stark reminder of the devastating consequences when international norms against chemical weapons are violated. From the early 1980s, Iraq, under Saddam Hussein's regime, systematically deployed chemical agents, including mustard gas and nerve agents like Sarin and Tabun, against Iranian troops and civilians. The scale of these attacks was unprecedented since World War I, marking a dark chapter in modern warfare. While Iran registered over 50,000 victims of Iraqi chemical attacks requiring medical care, an estimated one million Iranians were exposed to nerve agents or mustard gas throughout the war. The long-term health consequences for these survivors, many of whom still suffer from respiratory, neurological, and psychological ailments, are a testament to the enduring horror of chemical warfare.

The human toll is perhaps best encapsulated by the words of Ebrahim Mirmalek, a docent at the Tehran Peace Museum and a survivor himself, who calls the repeated use of chemical weapons against his nation "Iran's Hiroshima." This sentiment underscores the profound trauma inflicted upon the Iranian population, a trauma that resonates deeply within the national consciousness. The sheer volume and sophistication of Iraq's chemical arsenal were a significant factor in the conflict. Experts like Francona, an experienced Middle East hand and Arabic linguist who served in the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, noted his early awareness of Iraq’s widespread use of chemical weapons, highlighting the blatant nature of these violations. The Iraqis at the time were indeed in an advantageous position because they had more robust and sophisticated chemical weapons capabilities than their Iranian foes, a disparity that significantly impacted the battlefield dynamics.

The international community was not entirely unaware of these atrocities. Because of reports implying the use of chemical weapons by the Iraqi army, a presidential directive was issued by the U.S. government, indicating a level of concern at the highest levels. However, despite these acknowledgments, concrete actions to halt Iraq's chemical warfare program remained largely insufficient. This period was also characterized by a complex geopolitical alignment, where Iraq was then allied with the U.S. against Iran, a factor that many argue contributed to the muted international response to Iraq's chemical weapons use.

International Response and Perceived Inaction

As Iraq escalated its chemical attacks, Iran repeatedly appealed to the international community for intervention. Iran asked the UN to engage in preventing Iraq from using chemical weapon agents, highlighting the urgent need for a robust response to stop the proliferation and use of these banned substances. Despite these pleas, there were no strong actions by the UN or other international organizations that effectively curbed Iraq's chemical warfare campaign. While UN specialist teams were dispatched to Iran to investigate the attacks and verify the use of chemical weapons, their findings often led to condemnations that lacked the necessary enforcement mechanisms to deter further use.

The perceived inaction or insufficient response from the international community during the height of Iraq's chemical attacks has been a source of deep resentment and disillusionment for Iran. Critics argue that geopolitical considerations overshadowed humanitarian concerns, allowing Iraq to continue its chemical warfare with relative impunity. This period saw a significant failure of the international system to uphold the existing legal framework against chemical weapons, which had been in place since World War I and included some of the most extensive prohibitions against such armaments. The UN Security Council did eventually issue statements condemning the use of chemical weapons, particularly during the later stages of the Gulf War, but for many, these condemnations came too late to prevent the immense suffering endured by the Iranian people.

The lack of decisive international action created a dangerous precedent, suggesting that the use of chemical weapons might not incur severe enough consequences to deter future aggressors. This historical context is crucial when examining the question of did Iran use chemical weapons against Iraq, as it informs the defensive postures and strategic calculations Iran might have made in response to an existential threat coupled with a perceived lack of international protection.

Iran's Chemical Weapons Program: Development and Denial

The core of the lingering debate revolves around Iran's own chemical weapons program and allegations of its limited battlefield use. While Iran has consistently and vehemently denied ever weaponizing or using chemical weapons, acknowledging only the development of a limited chemical weapons capability in the 1980s for defensive purposes, the debate persists. The article focuses on the history of and lingering debate about Iran’s chemical weapons program and allegations of limited battlefield use, reflecting the ongoing scrutiny from various international bodies and researchers.

Despite Iran's official stance, some reports and analyses have pointed to the possibility of Iran developing or even using chemical agents, albeit on a much smaller scale and with less sophistication than Iraq. For instance, Part one of an unnamed article focused on the discovery of two caches of chemical munitions inadvertently, which could potentially relate to Iran's program. However, the origin and nature of such findings are often debated, and definitive proof linking them to Iranian battlefield use remains elusive. It remains uncertain whether the sources of supply for any alleged Iranian chemical weapons were indigenous or external, further complicating the picture.

Motivations for Iran's Chemical Weapons Program

To understand why Iran might have pursued a chemical weapons capability, one must consider the dire circumstances it faced during the war. Iran was under immense pressure, facing a technologically superior and chemically armed adversary. These pressures included dwindling human resources and volunteers, growing economic challenges, enhanced Iraqi military capabilities that shifted the balance of power, and an increasing U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf, which was perceived by Iran, at the time, as support for Iraq. In such a desperate situation, the temptation to develop a deterrent or retaliatory capability, even if not fully weaponized or deployed, would have been immense.

The principle of deterrence, often cited in nuclear proliferation debates, could similarly apply to chemical weapons in a context where one side is being subjected to repeated chemical attacks. If Iran did indeed develop a limited capability, it would likely have been viewed as a necessary measure to protect its population and forces from Iraq's relentless chemical assaults, rather than an offensive tool. This defensive motivation is central to Iran's narrative regarding its chemical program.

Allegations of Limited Battlefield Use by Iran

While Iran has failed to acknowledge that it used chemical weapons, allegations of limited battlefield use have surfaced from various sources over the years. These claims often lack the overwhelming corroborating evidence, such as widespread casualties or detailed international investigations, that characterized the documentation of Iraq's chemical attacks. Some reports suggest isolated incidents or the use of less lethal riot control agents, but not the systematic, large-scale deployment of nerve or blister agents seen from Iraq.

Furthermore, there have been claims that Iran supplied Libya with chemical munitions in the 1980s, an allegation that, if true, would suggest a more advanced and export-oriented chemical weapons program than Iran publicly admits. However, like the claims of battlefield use, these allegations are often difficult to substantiate definitively and are part of the broader, complex narrative surrounding Iran's past chemical activities. The debate around did Iran use chemical weapons against Iraq remains contentious precisely because of the lack of conclusive, universally accepted evidence, contrasted with Iran's firm denials.

The Legal and Ethical Landscape of Chemical Weapons

The prohibition against chemical weapons has a long history, dating back to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, and reinforced by the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which banned the use of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices. The legal framework against chemical weapons post-World War I included the most extensive prohibitions to date, driven by the horrific experiences of gas warfare on the Western Front. Despite these international agreements, the Iran-Iraq War demonstrated the fragility of such prohibitions when states are determined to use these weapons, particularly when geopolitical interests overshadow adherence to international law.

The use of chemical weapons against civilians, as tragically demonstrated in Halabja, represents a clear violation of international humanitarian law and constitutes a war crime, and in some cases, genocide. The ethical line is unequivocally crossed when such indiscriminate weapons are deployed against non-combatants, or even against combatants in a manner that causes unnecessary suffering and long-term harm. The international community has since strengthened its resolve against chemical weapons, culminating in the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which bans the development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and mandates their destruction. This convention is a direct response to the lessons learned from conflicts like the Iran-Iraq War.

Beyond direct prohibitions, export controls have been placed on certain chemicals that could be used in the production of mustard and nerve gases, aiming to prevent states and non-state actors from acquiring the precursors necessary for chemical weapon development. These controls, however, are only as effective as the political will and enforcement mechanisms behind them, as the history of proliferation demonstrates.

The Halabja Massacre: A Grim Precedent

While the question of did Iran use chemical weapons against Iraq remains debated, there is no ambiguity regarding Iraq's culpability in the Halabja massacre. In March 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons in Halabja, a town in Iraqi Kurdistan, home to Iraqi Kurds who had joined with Iran in fighting Saddam Hussein's regime. This horrific attack, which killed an estimated 5,000 civilians and injured thousands more, stands as one of the most egregious acts of chemical warfare against a civilian population in modern history. The images and testimonies from Halabja shocked the world, providing undeniable proof of Iraq's willingness to use chemical weapons against its own people, in addition to its Iranian adversaries.

The Halabja massacre was part of Saddam Hussein's broader Anfal campaign against the Kurds, a genocidal operation that combined conventional warfare with chemical attacks. The perpetrator, Saddam Hussein, was eventually brought to justice for his crimes. He was convicted of genocide and crimes against humanity in 2007, and was executed by hanging in 2010. While his conviction encompassed a range of atrocities, the chemical attacks, including Halabja, were a significant part of the charges against him. The memory of Halabja serves as a powerful reminder of the consequences of allowing chemical weapons to be used and the imperative of holding perpetrators accountable.

Unanswered Questions and Lingering Debates

Despite decades passing since the end of the Iran-Iraq War, certain questions surrounding chemical weapons use and proliferation continue to linger. For instance, while much is known about Iraq's chemical arsenal, detailed questions like "How much did they really have, and what was it?" (Gee, J., ‘Iraqi declarations on chemical weapons, paper prepared for an informal meeting on Iraq’s chemical arsenal, Stockholm, 8 June 1992) still prompt ongoing research and analysis. The full extent of Iraq's capabilities and its suppliers remains a subject of historical inquiry, even after the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the subsequent discovery of remnants of its chemical program.

Regarding Iran, the debate about its chemical weapons program is often fueled by a lack of complete transparency and the inherent difficulties in verifying claims from a conflict that occurred decades ago. While Iran maintains its stance of non-use, some observers continue to point to anecdotal evidence or intelligence reports that suggest otherwise. The Iranian veterans, who bore the brunt of Iraq's chemical attacks, could potentially yield a more definitive picture, as their experiences and testimonies might offer further insights into the dynamics of chemical warfare during the conflict, including any defensive or retaliatory measures taken by Iran. However, such information would need to be rigorously verified.

The allegations that Iran supplied Libya with chemical munitions in the 1980s also contribute to the complexity of the debate, suggesting a broader involvement in chemical weapons proliferation that goes beyond defensive development. These claims, if substantiated, would challenge Iran's consistent denials and raise further questions about its historical role in chemical weapons issues. The absence of a definitive, internationally accepted answer to did Iran use chemical weapons against Iraq underscores the challenges of historical reconstruction, especially when national narratives and geopolitical interests are at play.

The Post-War Legacy and Future Implications

The legacy of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq War extends far beyond the battlefield. It has shaped Iran's national memory, its foreign policy, and its stance on weapons of mass destruction. The profound suffering endured by Iranian chemical victims has instilled a deep-seated aversion to such weapons, making Iran a strong advocate for their global abolition. Iran has been a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention since its inception, actively participating in international efforts to prevent the proliferation and use of chemical agents.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq, during which U.S. forces discovered remnants of Iraq's former chemical weapons program, served as a stark reminder that the threat of chemical weapons can linger for decades after a conflict. While no large stockpiles were found, the discovery of degraded chemical munitions reinforced the importance of thorough disarmament and verification. The experience of the Iran-Iraq War, particularly the international community's initial reluctance to act decisively against Iraq's chemical attacks, has also influenced discussions on intervention and accountability in subsequent conflicts where chemical weapons have been used, such as in Syria.

The ongoing debate about did Iran use chemical weapons against Iraq highlights the need for continued vigilance and transparency regarding all states' chemical weapons programs, past and present. It underscores the importance of robust international verification mechanisms and the imperative of holding all perpetrators of chemical warfare accountable, regardless of political alliances or historical context. The lessons from the Iran-Iraq War serve as a grim but vital reminder of the catastrophic human cost of chemical warfare and the enduring global responsibility to ensure that such atrocities are never repeated.

Conclusion

The question of whether Iran used chemical weapons against Iraq is a complex one, steeped in the brutal realities of the Iran-Iraq War and decades of geopolitical maneuvering. While the evidence overwhelmingly points to Iraq as the primary and systematic user of chemical weapons, inflicting immense suffering on Iranian soldiers and civilians, allegations regarding Iran's own program and limited use persist. Iran has consistently denied weaponizing or using chemical agents, acknowledging only the development of a limited defensive capability in response to Iraq's widespread chemical attacks.

The tragic legacy of the Iran-Iraq War underscores the critical importance of international law against chemical weapons and the devastating consequences when these prohibitions are violated. The Halabja massacre stands as a chilling testament to Iraq's atrocities, leading to the eventual conviction of Saddam Hussein. For Iran, the war left a deep scar, with hundreds of thousands still suffering from the effects of chemical exposure, solidifying its position as a vocal advocate for the global abolition of these horrific weapons. As we reflect on this dark chapter, it is crucial to continue supporting survivors, pursuing accountability, and strengthening international mechanisms to ensure that the world never again witnesses such widespread chemical warfare.

What are your thoughts on the lingering questions surrounding chemical weapons use in the Iran-Iraq War? Share your perspectives in the comments below, and consider exploring other articles on our site that delve into the history of warfare and international relations.

Sunni Extremists in Iraq Occupy Saddam Hussein's Chemical Weapons

An ally of Syria, Iran also bears scars from chemical weapons attacks

The real question about chemical weapons in Iraq: Did the U.S. take

RealTime Reports

Did Iran Use Chemical Weapons Against Iraq? Unpacking A Lingering Debate

Table of Contents