US Policy In The Gulf: Did America Support Iraq Or Iran?
The intricate web of Middle Eastern geopolitics has long been a source of fascination and confusion, particularly when examining the historical stance of global superpowers. One question that frequently arises, sparking considerable debate and revealing the complex nature of international relations, is: did the US support Iraq or Iran during their protracted and brutal conflict? The answer, as we shall explore, is far from simple, reflecting a pragmatic, often paradoxical, approach driven by America's shifting strategic interests in the region.
Understanding the United States' involvement in the Iran-Iraq War and its subsequent interactions with both nations requires peeling back layers of covert operations, diplomatic maneuvering, and evolving threat perceptions. It's a narrative that challenges conventional notions of alliance and enmity, demonstrating how a nation's foreign policy can pivot dramatically based on perceived immediate threats and long-term objectives. This article delves into the nuances of this historical period, dissecting the true nature of US engagement with both Baghdad and Tehran.
Table of Contents
- The Shifting Sands of US Middle East Policy
- The Iran-Iraq War: A Crucible of US Ambiguity
- The "Misnomer" of US Support for Iraq
- The Covert Hand: US Dealings with Iran
- Geopolitical Chessboard: Beyond Bilateral Relations
- Enduring Legacies: US-Iran Relations Post-War
- Understanding US Foreign Policy: A Complex Web
- Conclusion: A Nuanced History
The Shifting Sands of US Middle East Policy
To truly grasp the complexities of whether the US supported Iraq or Iran, one must first rewind to the late 1970s. Prior to the Iranian Revolution, the United States maintained a strong alliance with the Shah of Iran, viewing his regime as a bulwark against Soviet influence and a stable partner in a volatile region. However, this dynamic was irrevocably altered by the seismic events of 1979. The Iranian Revolution, which culminated in the establishment of an Islamic Republic, fundamentally reshaped the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. This new, revolutionary government was perceived by the U.S. as a potential threat to its extensive interests in the region, including oil supplies and the stability of pro-Western Gulf states. The revolutionary fervor emanating from Tehran, coupled with the hostage crisis at the U.S. embassy, solidified a new adversarial relationship.
At its core, American foreign policy in the Middle East has always been, and continues to be, dictated by its own material interests. These interests encompass securing oil flows, maintaining regional stability, countering perceived threats to its allies, and preventing any single power from dominating the strategically vital area. The emergence of a revolutionary Iran, fiercely anti-American and intent on exporting its ideology, immediately presented a significant challenge to these long-held objectives. This foundational shift in perception laid the groundwork for the intricate and often contradictory policies that would unfold in the subsequent years, particularly during the devastating Iran-Iraq War.
The Iran-Iraq War: A Crucible of US Ambiguity
The Iran-Iraq War, which erupted in September 1980, was one of the longest and deadliest conventional wars of the 20th century. While often framed simplistically, the conflict became a complex arena where the question of "did the US support Iraq or Iran" became acutely relevant. Initially, the United States found itself in a precarious position. The new Islamic Republic of Iran was an adversary, yet Saddam Hussein's Iraq was also not a natural ally. However, as the war progressed, and particularly after 1982, a discernible shift in U.S. policy became apparent. Until Iran brought war to Iraq in 1982, the U.S. was arguably more in favor of Iran, largely due to lingering ties and the sheer uncertainty surrounding Saddam Hussein's intentions.
But as Iran gained momentum on the battlefield, the strategic calculus in Washington changed dramatically. When that happened, Iran seemed to be capable of toppling Saddam and then potentially doing that to Gulf states. The prospect of a victorious, revolutionary Iran dominating the Persian Gulf, potentially destabilizing oil-rich monarchies allied with the U.S., was a nightmare scenario for American policymakers. This fear of Iranian regional hegemony became the primary driver behind the U.S. decision to lean towards supporting Iraq, albeit in a highly qualified and often indirect manner. The objective was not to see Iraq win decisively, but rather to prevent Iran from achieving a decisive victory that could fundamentally alter the regional balance of power in a way detrimental to U.S. interests.
The "Misnomer" of US Support for Iraq
When discussing the question of "did the US support Iraq or Iran," it's crucial to understand that US support for Iraq is kind of a misnomer and exaggerated. Unlike popular perception, the United States did not engage in a straightforward military alliance with Saddam Hussein's regime, nor did it directly supply weapons to Iraq. The nature of this "support" was far more subtle and indirect, designed to prevent an Iranian victory without empowering Saddam excessively. The U.S. extended some agricultural loans to Iraq, which, while seemingly innocuous, provided Baghdad with economic lifelines that indirectly freed up resources for its war effort. More significantly, the U.S. provided diplomatic cover, notably when Iraq used chemical weapons. This diplomatic protection allowed Iraq to get away with gassing Kurdish civilians and Iranian soldiers, effectively signaling to Saddam that the international community, led by the U.S., would not impose severe consequences for such heinous acts.
The primary motivation behind this nuanced approach remained the containment of revolutionary Iran. As noted, when Iran seemed to be capable of toppling Saddam and then potentially doing that to Gulf states, the U.S. prioritized preventing this outcome. In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. This intelligence prompted further U.S. actions, including sharing information with Iraq, which helped Baghdad avert a potentially catastrophic defeat. This episode clearly illustrates that U.S. policy was less about supporting Iraq for its own sake and more about using Iraq as a counterweight to a perceived greater threat from Iran, ensuring neither side achieved total dominance.
The Covert Hand: US Dealings with Iran
Adding another layer of complexity to the question of "did the US support Iraq or Iran" is the revelation of covert U.S. dealings with Tehran, most famously known as the Iran-Contra Affair. This clandestine operation revealed a paradoxical aspect of U.S. foreign policy, demonstrating that even while ostensibly leaning towards Iraq, elements within the U.S. government were simultaneously engaging with Iran.
The Iran-Contra Affair: A Paradoxical Alliance
In an exception to the United States' support for Iraq, and in a stunning display of realpolitik, the U.S. secretly sold Iran some limited supplies of weapons. This was not an act of genuine support for Iran's war effort, but rather a transactional arrangement. The primary motivation was an exchange for Iran using its influence to help free Western hostages held by Hezbollah in Lebanon. The scandal, which broke in 1986, revealed that President Ronald Reagan ordered the sale of weapons to Iran, despite an official arms embargo. This decision was highly controversial and led to a major political crisis in the U.S., as it directly contradicted the stated policy of not negotiating with terrorists and not selling arms to a designated state sponsor of terrorism.
Furthermore, it was revealed that the United States also provided covert support for Iran through Israel. While the extent and specifics of this support remain debated, particularly as to whether U.S. President Ronald Reagan directly ordered all aspects of the weapons sales to Iran, it undeniably occurred. This clandestine channel underscores the incredibly complex and often contradictory nature of U.S. foreign policy during this period. It was a strategy of balancing acts, where the desire to contain Iran was sometimes superseded by other pressing concerns, such as the release of hostages or the pursuit of alternative geopolitical objectives.
Rafsanjani's Revelation: A Glimpse into Covert Ties
Further evidence of the U.S.'s intricate and often duplicitous engagement comes from Iranian sources. In Akbar Rafsanjani's postwar interview, a prominent Iranian political figure, he stated that during the period when Iran was succeeding, for a short time the United States supported Iran. While this claim needs to be contextualized within the broader narrative of the Iran-Contra affair, it highlights the perception from the Iranian side that U.S. policy was not monolithically anti-Iran throughout the war. It suggests moments when U.S. actions, even if driven by self-interest (like the hostage situation), could be interpreted as beneficial to Iran's position, however fleetingly. This reinforces the idea that the U.S. was playing a multi-faceted game, seeking to manipulate the conflict to its advantage rather than simply backing one side unconditionally.
Geopolitical Chessboard: Beyond Bilateral Relations
The question of "did the US support Iraq or Iran" cannot be fully answered without acknowledging the broader international context. The Iran-Iraq War was not merely a bilateral conflict; it was a proxy battleground for various regional and global powers, each with their own agendas. Iran's foreign supporters gradually came to include Syria and Libya, both of whom had their own complex relationships with the Arab world and the West. These alliances further complicated the regional dynamic, preventing a clear-cut alignment of forces.
The Soviet Union, a superpower rival to the U.S., also played its hand. Nevertheless, the Soviets hoped not to lose influence in the region and supplied both sides at different points, though primarily Iraq. This intricate dance of global powers using regional conflicts to advance their own interests often left the local populations feeling like pawns in an international game of politics and that their lives did not matter. The human cost of these geopolitical maneuvers was immense, with millions killed or displaced, underscoring the tragic consequences when national interests overshadow human welfare.
Enduring Legacies: US-Iran Relations Post-War
The end of the Iran-Iraq War did not bring an end to the complexities of U.S. policy in the Middle East, nor did it definitively resolve the question of "did the US support Iraq or Iran." Instead, it ushered in a new era where the U.S. found itself increasingly at odds with both nations at different times. The focus of U.S. concerns shifted from containing revolutionary Iran's expansionism to dealing with Saddam Hussein's post-war aggression, leading to the Gulf War in 1990-91. After Saddam's eventual downfall in 2003, Iran re-emerged as the primary strategic challenge for the U.S. in the region.
In recent years, the spotlight has been firmly on Iran's nuclear program and its regional influence. As Trump considers the role of the U.S. in Israel’s efforts to take out Iran’s nuclear capabilities, our readers sent us questions about the federal government’s past efforts to stop Iran. This continuous focus highlights that while the context changes, the underlying tension between the U.S. and Iran persists. Recent events, such as the IDF launching ‘Operation Rising Lion’ on Friday with the largest attack on Iran since the 1980s Iraq War, underscore the ongoing adversarial relationship. This demonstrates a consistent U.S. objective to curb Iran's strategic capabilities and influence, a goal that has been a through-line in its policy since the 1979 revolution, regardless of the tactical shifts and covert dealings that occurred during the Iran-Iraq War.
Understanding US Foreign Policy: A Complex Web
The narrative surrounding whether the US supported Iraq or Iran is a testament to the intricate and often contradictory nature of foreign policy. It was never a simple case of choosing one side over the other in a clear-cut alliance. Instead, U.S. policy was a pragmatic response to evolving threats and opportunities, driven by a consistent pursuit of its national interests in a volatile region. This meant that at different times, and through different channels, the U.S. engaged with both nations in ways that served its broader strategic goals.
The primary objective was to prevent either Iran or Iraq from emerging as a dominant regional power capable of threatening U.S. allies or its access to vital resources. This balancing act led to actions that might appear inconsistent on the surface: providing diplomatic cover and agricultural loans to Iraq while simultaneously engaging in secret arms sales to Iran. These were not signs of indecision, but rather calculated moves within a complex geopolitical chess game, where short-term tactics served long-term strategic objectives. Understanding this complexity is crucial to appreciating the historical context of U.S. involvement in the Middle East.
Conclusion: A Nuanced History
In conclusion, the question of "did the US support Iraq or Iran" during their devastating war and the years surrounding it reveals a deeply nuanced and pragmatic U.S. foreign policy. It was not a matter of unequivocal support for either nation, but rather a strategic balancing act aimed at containing perceived threats and safeguarding American interests in the Middle East. The U.S. provided indirect support to Iraq, primarily through diplomatic cover and economic aid, to prevent a decisive Iranian victory that could have destabilized the entire region. Simultaneously, it engaged in covert dealings with Iran, driven by specific, often transactional, objectives like hostage releases, which further complicated the narrative.
This period serves as a powerful reminder that international relations are rarely black and white. They are a tapestry woven with threads of national interest, shifting alliances, and the constant re-evaluation of threats. The legacy of this era continues to shape U.S. policy in the Middle East, with Iran remaining a central focus of strategic concern. We hope this exploration has provided a clearer, more comprehensive understanding of this complex historical chapter. What are your thoughts on this intricate period of U.S. foreign policy? Share your insights in the comments below, or explore our other articles for more deep dives into geopolitical history.
U.S. Support for the Shah of Iran: Pros and Cons | Taken Hostage | PBS
The Iran-Iraq War Explained | Britannica
US-Iran Conflict in Iraq, Infographic | SETA
