Talk:Iran–Iraq War

Should the USA be listed as a combatant?

Debate as to whether USA should be listed as a combatant.

No: The military History project guidline set here says "This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding."

This was an 8 year war, the U.S military became involved only at the end, their appearence in the combatant list could lead readers to believe that U.S forces were involved from day one. Plus to add the USA because they supported Iraq, would mean you would have to add another 20 countries (see Arms sales to Iraq 1973-1990). Ryan4314 (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to comments: Us involvement was far more than arm sales. In fact, US did not sell much arms to Iraq. US helped Iraq more directly and involved in the war publically in the tanker wars in 1982 only 2 years into the war to help flow of oil for Iraq and her allies where Iraq funded war costs. Persian Magi (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No. I’m just responding to the RfC and not addressing how well the article covers the issues. As the term is normally used – to wit, as a “co-belligerent” – the U.S. was not a principal combatant in the Iran-Iraq War. It was indeed a supporter of Iraq – and an occasional (and indirect) arms supplier to Iran as well – but its combat engagements with Iran during this period were chiefly incidental to the war. For instance, if the U.S. frigate had not hit an Iranian mine while conducting a convoy escort mission in international waters, Operation Praying Mantis would never have occurred. The U.S. was, of course, a combatant in these individual incidents, but none of them had any real impact on the war itself. Accordingly, the U.S. would not be listed as a “combatant” for the Iran-Iraq War, but would be for ‘Praying Mantis’, et al. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No. In my opinion, the United States provided support, but did not serve as a "principal combatant." The participation of the United States should absolutely be mentioned in the article, however the US should not be listed as a combatant. Doing so would raise questions and create confusion, so it would be best if the US was not listed as combatant.

Comment. An effort should be made to see what has been done with other "participants", which are not necessarily major combatants, in articles about other conflicts. Spot87 (talk) 05:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No. (edited from earlier section) Ot's more than a yes-no decision. There are at least three conflicts here;

• Iran engaged with Iraq, with the US a cobelligerent coordinating its operations with Iraq. Against
• US engaged with Iran. PRAYING MANTIS, EARNEST WILL, and Airbus, which were individual incidents rather than belligerency. The US did not coordinate with Iraq.
• US opposing Iraq: US Army Special Forces assistance to Iraqi Kurds until the US decided to tilt to Iraq. Here, the US did not coordinate with Iran.

To me, being a belligerent in the Iran-Iraq war means that one's military forces, not arms sellers or advisors, joined with one side against the other. I know of no operations where US forces engaged in combat, coordinated by one side against the other.

If one wanted to call the US a belligerent against Iran in the "US-Iran" conflict, I'd agree, but I don't agree the US was a cobelligerent with Iraq against Iran. There really were two military campaigns going on, one Iraq-Iran and one US-Iran. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No: Supplying arms (which the US did to both sides) or even logistical support does not make one into a combatant. The USSR is not listed as a combatant in any of the Arab-Israeli wars. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Respond to comments: US did not sell arms to Iran, apart from Watergate incident, which was hardly of any importance in such a large scale war. I am not sure if US directly sold any arms to Iraq. However, US was actively and directly participated in the battlefield front of the Persian Gulf in Tanker wars from the 2nd year of the war in 1982. Persian Magi (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

yes of course USA was a combatant. it is not a matter of votes but of facts I am surprized how some people here push their opinion and distort facts while the information of the USA's military involvement exists even in wikipedia itself:

"[edit] The Tanker War and US military involvement The United States was wary of the Tehran regime since the Iranian Revolution, not least because of the detention of its Tehran embassy staff in the 1979–81 Iran hostage crisis. Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War), and also supplying weapons[21]

Starting in 1981, both Iran and Iraq attacked oil tankers and merchant ships, including those of neutral nations, in an effort to deprive the opponent of trade. After repeated Iraqi attacks on Iran's main exporting facility on Khark Island, Iran attacked a Kuwaiti tanker near Bahrain on May 13, 1984, and a Saudi tanker in Saudi waters on May 16(Both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia being members of GCC supported Saddam during the war). Attacks on ships of noncombatant nations in the Persian Gulf sharply increased thereafter, and this phase of the war was dubbed the "Tanker War."

Lloyd's of London, a British insurance market, estimated that the Tanker War damaged 546 commercial vessels and killed about 430 civilian mariners. The largest of attacks were directed by Iran against Kuwaiti vessels, and on November 1, 1986, Kuwait formally petitioned foreign powers to protect its shipping. The Soviet Union agreed to charter tankers starting in 1987, and the United States offered to provide protection for tankers flying the U.S. flag on March 7, 1987 (Operation Earnest Will and Operation Prime Chance). Under international law, an attack on such ships would be treated as an attack on the U.S., allowing the U.S. to retaliate militarily. This support would protect ships headed to Iraqi ports, effectively guaranteeing Iraq's revenue stream for the duration of the war.

An Iraqi plane accidentally attacked the USS Stark (FFG 31), a Perry class frigate on May 17, killing 37 and injuring 21.[2] But U.S. attention was on isolating Iran; it criticized Iran's mining of international waters, and in October 1987, the U.S. attacked Iranian oil platforms in retaliation for an Iranian attack on the U.S.-flagged tanker Sea Isle City.[22]

On April 14, 1988, the frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts was badly damaged by an Iranian mine. U.S. forces responded with Operation Praying Mantis on April 18, the United States Navy's largest engagement of surface warships since World War II. Two Iranian ships were destroyed, and an American helicopter was shot down, killing the two pilots.[23]

[edit] The USS Vincennes incident In the course of these escorts by the U.S. Navy, the cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 with the loss of all 290 passengers and crew on July 3, 1988. The American government claimed that the airliner had been mistaken for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat, and that the USS Vincennes was operating in international waters at the time and feared that it was under attack. The Iranians, however, maintain that the Vincennes was in fact in Iranian territorial waters, and that the Iranian passenger jet was turning away and increasing altitude after take-off. U.S. Admiral William J. Crowe also admitted on ABC's Nightline that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters (as defined by Iran) when it launched the missiles.[24] The U.S. eventually paid compensation for the incident but never apologized.

According to the investigation done by Ted Koppel, during the war, U.S. navy used to set decoys inside the Persian Gulf to lure out the Iranian gunboats and destroy them, and at the time USS Vincennes shot down the Iranian airline, it was performing such an operation. [25] U.S. Navy personnel have criticized the Nightline report as being a sensationalized version of the events." the facts say that USA was a combatant. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war--Babakexorramdin (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the lengthy quote, to which there could have been a link, would make this response hard to read, I'm going to make it here. There is, I believe, a problem of language here. belligerent and combatant do not mean the same thing, especially in international law. "Belligerent" applies to nations, or "High Contracting Party" in the language of the Geneva Conventions. "Combatant" applies to individuals. All the arguments about "illegal combatant" currently applying to US actions focus on individuals, not nation-states. The Conventions do have the problem of not addressing non-national actors.

Perhaps this might be more precise: The US was not a belligerent in the Iran-Iraq war. US personnel acted as combatants toward Iran. Special Forces with Kurdish fighters against Iraq might well have been considered combatants against Iraq.

The general usage of "belligerent" implies a continuing activity, although I recognize that declarations of war are passé. While the US action toward the Iranian airliner was wrong, look at the case of KAL 007. Has anyone suggested that a state of belligerency existed between the Soviet Union and the Republic of Korea? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I thimk that the incident with the Korean airliner was different. It was shoot down above the Soviet territory. In the Iran Air case the US navy has had violated the Iranian territory and was preceded by military action. The only argument is that the US direct involvement in the war was rather late but that applies to the World War II too. US personnel fought and the USA was itself in a state of war with Iran too. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sources using the word "combatant" when referring to US forces in the Persian Gulf at the time of the Tanker War:
  • International Law Reports, C. J. Greenwood, 1995, p.88
  • Consequences of China's Military Sales to Iran: Hearing Before the Committe on International Relations House of Representatives, 1996, p.33
  • The Persian Gulf War: Lessons for Strategy, Law, and Diplomacy By Christopher Joyner. p.137
  • The Clouded Lens: Persian Gulf Security and U.S. Policy James H. Noyes. p.59
• The US invades Afghanistan/Iraq, arrests their citizens, brings them to Guantanamo, and calls them "enemy combatants". And American forces shooting down and killing Iranians in the Persian Gulf is not an act of combat against Iran? That's called concealing the facts.--Zereshk (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest you are combining some separate things? I agree that the US engaged in combat against Iran. There is a case to be made that the US was a belligerent toward Iran for most of the Iran-Iraq war, although early in the war, the US supported Kurds against Iraq.

I will note again that belligerent and combatant have related but different meanings. The most basic is the first applies to states while the latter applies to individuals. In the period September 1939 to May 1940, there was a state of belligerency, a declared war, between the UK and Germany, but relatively little combat. During the Battle of France and the Battle of Britain, both belligerency and combat existed.

The original question, from which I believe the discussion is drifting, is whether the US was a belligerent in the Iran-Iraq war. As long as we speak of a war as principally between those two countries, I cannot rationalize the US as a cobelligerent, coordinating its actions with Iraq against Iran. I would not object to saying that Iran and Iraq were belligerents toward one another, or even that the US, in short incidents, was a belligerent toward Iran. I do object to suggesting the US was a cobelligerent of Iraq. The US and Iraq had quite separate agendas. If you spoke of a Iran-US war that was concurrent with part of the Iran-Iraq war, I wouldn't call that completely wrong. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Then on what grounds it is justifiable that the USA was a combatanat- belligerent in the WWII= It is a case of double standards.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand your question. In the US, the Seminole Nation independently declared war on the Axis powers, but no one considered them a cobelligerent. I am not disputing that the US engaged in combat against Iran, but I am disputing that it did so as a cobelligerent of Iraq. Doing the latter would require the two to coordinate their combat activities, and I have seen no sources that suggest any US combat action was coordinated with the Iraqis. The US provided arms and information to Iraq, as did other countries both to Iran and Iraq, which did not make them cobelligerents.

Are you rejecting the idea that belligerent and combatant are different but related ideas? I don't understand what you are suggesting is a double standard.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect to both Howard C. Berkowitz and Zereshk, the question is not "whether the US was a belligerent in the Iran-Iraq war?" The question is;

"Should the USA be listed as a combatant on the Iran-Iraq War Wikipedia article?"

This means it is not up to us to decide whether or not USA actually was a combatant, merely whether they should be listed as such on an encyclopaedia article. To decide what should be listed on an encyclopaedia we should look at it's policies, all this talk of the war, definitions of combatant, is irrelevant unfortunately. We should just be discussing the policy. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I think that wikipedia is about providing correct and true knowledge and facts. The policy should be/ is based on that purpose. As with regard to other question: I do not know personally whether USA coordinated with Iraq. As I know USA did provide Radar and sattelite information to Iraq, which indicates certain coordination. But I argue that coordination is not a criterium of being cobelligerent. Japan and Germany obviously did not coordinate their war actions either.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Germany certainly did coordinate with Japan. Why else would it have declared war on the US immediately after the Pearl Harbor attack? The sides were sufficiently geographically dispersed that they did not have to deconflict combat, but otherwise, there was significant information and technology flow. Ironically, it was their coordination that was one of the greatest intelligence benefits to the Allies: the Germans shared a great deal of their intentions with the Japanese military attache in Berlin, General (Baron) Hiroshi Ōshima. Oshima dutifully cabled this information to Tokyo, unaware that the Allies were reading the cryptosystem he used to transmit it. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes The military History project guidline says "This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding."
  Then because the US forces directly invaded Iranian oil platforms (eg.Sassan , Sirri ) and ships (Joshan , Sahand and Sabalan), then the US name should be added. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Scrap that section of the box. Boxes are only good for black and white issues. The article itself can deal perfectly well with grey/gray issues - summary boxes cannot. This is an issue of substance over style. If this was a Hollywood movie I would vote for style but this is an encyclopedia so I am voting for substance. Aatomic1 (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a good idea, I now think this is the best idea. There's obviously some controversy over that section, it does nothing to improve the article. Those of you who want to show the US's involvement in the war, have the "U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war" article, and anything we decide on still has the nasty smell of OR attached to it. What do you guys think? Ryan4314 (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, scrap. If the people focusing on the editing are that confused about the definition, how can anyone argue that the combatant part of the box improves reader understanding. Remember, there should be a discussion, at length, in the text about what the US did and did not do. As I've said, I agree there was combat between the US and Iran. Since essentially no one declares war any longer, belligerency may be an obsolescent term. Since the US did, for a time, provide Special Forces support, certainly a warlike act beyond simply providing information and equipment, to Iraqi Kurds fighting Saddam, it could be argued that the US was a belligerent/combatant with both sides. Do we really want to put the US on both sides of the box, so it could be seen as fighting itself -- not that such might not describe some US politics. :-(. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes:, although its "direct" involvement was only a couple of months, but this is more than enough for its inclusion. --Pejman47 (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes Have to agree with the sources that were brought by Zereshk. The government provided satellite photos which were crucial for Iraq. Also the denial of the Al-Anfal campaign was just wrong. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I presume you're referring to the site that illegally redistributes a number of opinion columns and links to conspiracy theorist 'documentaries' on Youtube? 'information clearing house' is a conspiracy theory website, and it doesn't even have the funny stuff about Queen Elizabeth being a reptilian alien who pushes drugs to the third world. If you think it's appropriate to draw conclusions on rubbish like that, you could always add it to the main article, to have it removed and the website shot down on WP:RSN. John Nevard (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No the government did provide satellite photos showing the formation of the Iranian army. [1]. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes Overwhelming sources brough in favor of yes above. So I vote yes here. Persian Magi (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: This whole debate seems to be descending into a case of WP:Point between “America is a bad guy” and “America is a good guy” POVs. It is also making a mountain out of a molehill over a single word in an infobox which is intended to summarize information on military conflicts ranging from small (but noteworthy) tactical engagements to world wars. As Howard C. Berkowitz has pointed out, the proper term for the participants in a war should be “belligerents” as it is the legal definition in international law. “Combatants” in this same legal sense refers to the personnel fighting in the engagements; however, the term is also used colloquially to mean this or “belligerent” as well – which is no doubt why those creating the template chose it since it offers one term to cover all circumstances. I’m sure they never envisioned this folderol developing from it, so maybe it’s time to recommend changing it. The gist of all the argumentation here is to, effectively, add America as a co-belligerent to the Iran-Iraq War – and effectively as an Iraqi ally. Two primary rationales are being offered to support this: American indirect material support for Iraq and the shootdown of Iran Air Flight 655 during the “Tanker War”.

First off, indirect support – that is, short of engagement with significant combat forces – does not in of itself make one a co-belligerent. Furthermore, both the arguments above and this article itself are one-sided in ignoring the fact that the U.S. provided the same kinds of indirect support to Iran as well. (Cf. the Iran-Contra Affair article.) The USA’s strategic purpose was not so much to keep Iraq from losing the Iran-Iraq War during the period when fortune had turned against Saddam Hussein, but rather to prevent either side from winning it. That way, they were busy killing each other rather than killing Israelis. (This well-known point is notably – and incredibly – missing from all three articles I have referred to here, a defect that needs to be corrected promptly. Furthermore, since there is no complementary article to “U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war” – which provides a fair amount of context missing here – that article should be expanded and renamed to include discussion of U.S. support for Iran, too.)

Second, the Tanker War is not properly part of the Iran-Iraq War, but rather a response to attacks by both Iran and Iraq on neutral shipping. The convoys were established as a response to operational choices that were made first by Iran and then by Iraq, and thus the escort operation was directed against both of them. Their decisions to expand the war beyond these two nations’ borders were not made out of military necessity, but rather for a hoped-for advantage. It was also contrary to international law – which also authorizes countries to protect their shipping by military means. The convoyed ships’ reflagging under the U.S. flag thereby made attacks on them an attack on the U.S. and up to that nation to decide how to respond (e.g., Operation Praying Mantis). It is really only here that the three countries are co-belligerents. Did the reflagged convoying operation provide a strategic advantage to Iraq? Definitely. Were the U.S.’ decisions on how to respond to Iran’s and Iraq’s attacks decidedly more aggressive toward Iran (the main source of attacks on said shipping)? Undoubtedly. Nonetheless, the ebb and flow of the Iran-Iraq War had no substantive effect on the conduct or tempo of the escort operation.

The one potential exception is the USS Vincennes' attack of Iran Air Flight 655. There is (or should be) no debate over the fact that the U.S. Navy was conducting an operation employing decoy targets to entice Iranian gunboats – which were Iran’s main means for attacking shipping in the Gulf – to venture out of Iranian waters into international waters where they could be legally attacked. What is not addressed above or in this article is that the shootdown was the result of a blunder – as is made fairly clear in the Iran Air Flight 655 article – and not an intentional attack by the United States. The blunder is generally accepted as a combination of Capt. William C. Rogers’ reckless aggressiveness, appallingly poor training on sophisticated new electronic systems, technical and user interface problems with the newly installed (and new-to-the-fleet) Aegis combat system, and poor command-level inter-ship communications. In short, this was an unintended “incident with grave consequences” arising from a military operation with only a single “combatant” however one chooses to define the word. Should the U.S. have accepted responsibility and apologized to Iran? IMHO, probably – that would have been the mature thing to do. However, it would have been impolitic domestically at that time, since the U.S. was still awaiting same from Iran for its (intentional) seizure of the American embassy in Tehran, which according international law is technically an “invasion” of American territory and thus an act of war. I don’t recommend anyone hold their breath awaiting an apology either way.

With respect to this article, the most reasonable and responsible thing to do – since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a court of international law – would be to not include the U.S. as a belligerent/combatant in the Iran-Iraq War (although its indirect role should indeed be discussed), and (re)create an article on the Tanker War in which all three nations are co-belligerents/combatants. (Currently the link for the Tanker War comes right back to that section in this article, which is not where it should be.) Askari Mark (Talk) 23:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow that was a long read! You're right though, this debate has just degenerated into a soapboxing, over a pretty useless part of the "conflict template", the combatant section is "optional", we don't even need it! It does nothing to prove the validity of USA's support of Iraq during the war, that's what the "U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war" article is for and it doesn't improve the article, we all know who the combatants were, the clue's in the name! What say you, shall we just remove the entire combatant section all together? That way both sides we'll be happy, coz I can't see either being satisfied with the consensus, they'll probably just carry on to change it afterwards. Plus all this talk of "international law" and "belligerants", is original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan4314 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• No per Askari Mark's convicing arguments. And the combatants section should not be removed, just because of some controversy. If it is, then the controversy will just move elsewhere. Generally this article needs a good cleanup. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea, but it should be removed if it's rubbish, which it is. It doesn't add anything to the article (it's optional), everyone knows who the combatants were... clue's in the name ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that we are having this debate proves precisely that the number and identity of the combatants are not self-evident, despite the name. And you can check the infobox, it was'nt just the state of Iran against the state of Iraq, there were several paramilitary groups fighting on each side. I would'nt say this information is superfluous. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case, we should discuss it in the article, where there is actually space to do so. The paramilitary groups should probably be trimmed out of there too, given their relatively minor role- although some of them were at least pursuing the goals of one or the other combatants, which you couldn't say of the US... or the Saudi's... or the Kuwaitis etc etc. John Nevard (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that the USA was a combatant. It attacked and bombed Iran and gave Iraq sattelite information. It is clear as hell. The anti/Iranianists here try to deter us not to mention that. OK they can forces everything but cannot win our hearts. And the guy who said that Iran and USA need no war mongerers. Ok. I agree with you 1oo%. But judge it yourself. Iran is not a real democracy and with fraude and coercion Ahmadi nejad is elected. American people, however, elected Bush two times in free and democratic elections. Even after they saw what a blood thirsty guy he was. Now guess who is discriminated against and is boycotted= yes the Iranian ordinary people. It is a shame that these anti/Iranianists have this short memory and say that eveyone should forget about their crimes and supportin Saddam. Funny. making the movie 300 forgetting that it was Xerxes who has saved the lives of their ancestors. Forgetting that It was Iran who wanted a war with taleban but the USA did not allow. Forgetting that they helped Saddam and kept silenced and in fact approved when he massacred Iranian civilizans and Iraqi kurds. You again rely on force but cannot win our hearts. USA was acombatanat and was a party of war. USA shot down the Iranian Airbus. USA killed Iranians and the ordnary americans voted for their leaders. So take responsibility.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note from someone not involved in this discussion: Babakexorramdin, your argument is full of passionate bias. You seem to be displaying clear signs of pushing your POV while accusing others of doing the same thing. It seems almost a borderline personal attack against those who don't share your POV. In the future, please keep your arguments helpful and remember to stay civil. Thanks. Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the other way around. People here seem to be pushing for an obvious POV. You cant cover up the obvious. It's quite stupid to say the US Navy was not there as a combatant. I have no idea why this POV push is even continuing. Funny thing is, every Iranian source (IRIB, academia, historical texts in Persian, etc) use words like violate, aggression, imposed war againt Iran, to describe America's involvement in the Gulf against Iran, let alone a soft word like "combatant". But I suppose, their sources dont count either.--Zereshk (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No. USA, France, Britain, Kuwait, KSA, were all indirect combatants in the war. Should the Infobox list all of them ?! Also, USA aided both Iraq and Iran in the war, so at which side should it be listed? Imad marie (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

those with indirect role or who gave suport should no be included. Only those who took up arms and engaged in direct military action should be. And USA violated Iranian territory and bomb Iran and Killed Iranian citizens. It is direct military action. Unlike France, Germany etc...--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Babakexorramdin, it's true that the US army got militarily involved in the tanker war. However, relatively to the 8-years long war, I'd say the direct US militarily involvement was minor, and it was a response to an Iranian action. It was an action-reaction involvement and it is out of context of the original motives of the 8-years long war. Imad marie (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The United States clearly killed Iranians in the Tanker War, which is separate from the Iran-Iraq War. Please document when the US bombed Iran outside the scope of the Tanker War. The US did not take direct military action in the combat between Iran and Iraq, as much as you might blame the US for direct participation in a different war. Iran attacked other nations during the Tanker War, such as Kuwait. If you can have the fiction of the US as a combat participant in the Iran-Iraq War, I can have the fiction of ignoring the nonsense of reflagging.

Much of the problems being discussed again and again and again are easily solved by having three articles:

• Iran-Iraq War
• Tanker War
• Foreign support in the Iran-Iraq War

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Howard, even if we create separate articles, is this going to solve the problem? the new articles will be sub-articles of the (Iran-Iraq war) article, and their events will still be disputed in this article. Imad marie (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Answer to 1- Coordination problem 2- marginality of US role> With all due respect there are no evidences that Japan and Germany coordinated their actions, Nor did UK with the Soviet Union. I think what is confused is having the same interets. I cannot exclude that UK did coordinate with the USSR or USA did coordinate their actions with Iraq. We do not know, we need documents which prove that, but they surely shared some interests. Pointing to the Tanker war, of course that was done in order to protect Iraqi interest. Iran hindered oil tankers which carried Iraqi or Pro-Iraqi Arab oil. So taking part was in fact in favor of Iraq. Moreover we cannot exclude other motives such as punishing Iran for their stubborn politics against the USA and forcing them to end the war. About the marginality of the role of USA I diagree: USA did only attack Iran at the end of the war. But so did the USA during the world war II and especially during the world war I. Still you cannot say that USA was not involved in those wars. And the role of USA's bombings was essential, shortly thereafter Iran accepted the armistice!--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Baba,

There are several sources showing that U.S. aided both sides with policy being to prolong a stalemate between Iran and Iraq. Nobody (do you?) disputes that U.S. transferred 2,000 TOW antitank missiles to Iran during the Iran-Contra Affair. There is additional reporting saying that US gave satellite images to both sides. Why don't we discuss/dispute these two matters of fact before coming to a conclusion about the US policy at the time?

Thanks,

Erxnmedia (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My initial response is to Imad Marie. As long as the Tanker War is considered a subset of the Iran-Iraq war, there is no chance whatsoever of producing an accurate and unbiased article. The reality is that there were two distinct wars that overlapped in time. If that can't be accepted, the discussion here -- I'm not blaming you -- is completely hopeless. There are editors that will insist on their POV, and only their POV.

To Babakexorramdin, First, there was definite coordination between Japan and Germany. The best, if unorthodox, example is that one of the best Allied sources on German intentions was cryptanalysis of the reports of the Japanese military attache in Berlin, Baron Oshima.

Second, please identify the bombings to which you refer. I am unaware of any significant attacks on the Iranian mainland, although there were certainly attacks -- not necessarily by bombing -- on offshore platforms, warships, and minelaying boats.

I do not accept that the Tanker War was done to protect the Iraqi or Arab interest. The US has a long history of enforcing its view of freedom of navigation in international waters. In the 20th century, this, for example, included the pre-WWII Neutrality patrols providing escort of shipping to a "Mid-Ocean Meeting Point", where convoy protection was handed off to the British.

If the US position was generically pro-Arab, then why were freedom-of-navigation exercises conducted in the Gulf of Sidra, challenging the claim to those waters by Libya, an Arab state? What is the Reputable Source that the US operations were deliberately pro-Iraqi, as opposed to pro-US, in the sense of realpolitik?

Another aspect of the US-Iranian conflict was the act of mining international waters. A significant part of the US military action was focused on minelayers, notably the Iran Ajr.

Do you admit to the possibility of forming any consensus position here, which might mean that the positions of some nations were less binary than a particular person might desire?

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

According to investigative journalist and award-winning author Alan Friedman, the United States combated Iranian forces on the battlefield. Here is the relevant passage...

"At times, thanks to the White House's secret backing for the intelligence-sharing, U.S. intelligence officers were actually sent to Baghdad to help interpret the satellite information. As the White House took an increasingly active role in secretly helping Saddam direct his armed forces, the United States even built an expensive high-tech annex in Baghdad to provide a direct down-link receiver for the satellite intelligence and better processing of the information...

"The American military commitment that had begun with intelligence-sharing expanded rapidly and surreptitiously throughout the Iran-Iraq war. A former White House official explained that 'by 1987, our people were actually providing tactical military advice to the Iraqis in the battlefield, and sometimes they would find themselves over the Iranian border, alongside Iraqi troops'." (Spider's Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq) smb (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't be sure that I'm looking at the same source you name, but, doing a Google search on the "Spider's Web", I indeed get the name of a book by Alan Friedman. From the interview at http://www.democracynow.org/2003/12/17/spiders_web_the_secret_history_of, Friedman speaks of several things. He speaks of dual-use technology that went into Saddam's WMD program. He also speaks, rather generally, of arms shipments -- it is not clear if he's talking about tactical or WMD -- that were sent by private dealers of which the US was aware:

And the very frightening part of it is that this group of intelligence agents outside the government, but working with the blessing of the government as it later turned out with the blessing of people like James Baker and George Herbert Walker Bush, this organization of arms dealers and transshipment specialists continued to sell a whole variety of equipment to Saddam Hussein, including U.S. military rocket cluster bombs that were transshipped from Pennsylvania through Chile to Iraq, nuclear and chemical weapons technology, and missile technology and the United States didn’t really do anything to stop this shipment because at the time the argument used by the C.I.A. and the White House was that if you allowed a limited amount of military weapons and technology to flow to Iraq, even though it was completely illegal against U.S. law, against international treaties, if you allowed this to happen, as an intelligence operation, the rationalization in the Bush administration went, then you could keep better track of what kind of weaponry Saddam was developing.

The Bob Woodward article cited in Iraq-gate (Gulf War) again appears to refer to WMD. Now, I have heard of intelligence sharing. I suspect some did happen, but I have never seen a reference to the extent of it. In particular, is there a second reliable source for Friedman's statement "they would find themselves over the Iranian border, alongside Iraqi troops"? The U.S. government historically isn't that good in keeping secrets in something this controversial. As a sincere question, are you aware of any actual documents, published reports from people who were directly involved in combat? For something this critical, I'd rather rely on something a bit more than an investigative journalists's unnamed sources. I agree about the WMD dual use, although much more critical things (I'm prepared to discuss that in detail) were sold by other countries.

If the US did actually help Iraq tactically, I certainly would like to know that, and there is no sarcasm in that statement. There is no question there were other types of assistance, but there seems to be a lack of specifics regarding tactical help, yet there are detailed shipping lists for dual-use, export-controlled items. Please -- if you can find anything more than "I'm an investigative journalist, trust me", I would really appreciate it. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"If the US did actually help Iraq tactically, I certainly would like to know that, and there is no sarcasm in that statement." No sarcasm detected. Alan Friedman's page says "He was recognized as the journalist who led the report on the Iraq-Gate scandal in 1991 that connected the CIA with the supply of non-U.S. origin weapons to Saddam Hussein." His book is cited by New Statesman, New York Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and many others. The New York Times investigated the matter separately before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. They quote administration officials denying the United States ever provided Iraq with operational intelligence, but also spoke with DIA personnel involved in the programme who say they did: "More than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq." [2] Who is telling the truth? It's not for me to decide. The point is, we have many other sources saying the United States helped direct Saddam Hussein's Army on the battlefield against Iran. [3] smb (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I've been around the US government long enough to know that it's not very good for keeping secrets; I'm always amazed that the British managed to keep their penetration into German cryptosystems fairly solidly secret for 30 years, with inferences really coming out not less than 25 years after the Third Reich was defeated. Now, there are some documents I'm going through, at the George Washington University National Security Archive, that do seem to indicate a pattern of intelligence sharing. I should be able to write and source that shortly.

What I am not yet seeing is any personal accounts, declassified documents, etc., that show the coordination went down to the tactical level. If you look through the history of both memoirs and investigative reporting of US covert action, it tends to be much more specific than anything I've yet seen about Iraq. Sending intelligence reports to a national headquarters is quite plausible. As Sherlock Holmes once commented of the clue, "The curious incident of the dog in the night-time." "The dog did nothing in the night-time," replies a befuddled Inspector Gregory. Ah, Sherlock tells us, "That was the curious incident." The fact that I've seen nothing specific about what those 60 DIA officers did is curious, in the Holmesian sense. Also, I am quite familiar with military organizations, and 60 officers simply are not enough to be a significant advisory presence in an army the size of Iraq's.

Did you mean literally your statement "the United States helped direct Saddam Hussein's Army on the battlefield against Iran", which means to me that the command authority rested with U.S. personnel? That is so diametrically opposed to everything known about the personality of Saddam that it throws doubt on the whole argument. Again, to get to the level of tactical direction would take far more than 60 officers.

I do appreciate there is much Iranian anger about U.S. actions, a good deal of which I consider justified. Unfortunately, that anger sometimes obscures the truth within a series of allegations, and the more extreme allegations that fail a plausibility test make everything suspect. As with most things, truth probably lies between the extremes. The United States is a young culture compared to the Persian one, but it may not be clear, on the Iranian side, that there really are some basic beliefs, which tend not to be mentioned by politicians and mainstream media. Most Americans, for example, know nothing about the overthrow of Mossadegh, and might have a vague understanding that the Shah was extreme but confuse the popular resistance to him with the Islamic Revolution. There are also strong American feelings about the immunity of diplomats, and also about freedom of navigation. Personally, I can understand the embassy takeover -- not agree with, but understand -- better than I can understand the release of drifting mines.

If there is ever to be convergence on an article, people of different background -- I carefully avoid saying different POV -- need to accept there is a great deal of anger that influences this discussion. Recently, I had some interaction with the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation people, who are dealing with just as strong an anger on two sides. They recognize the anger, have a strong commitment to internal mediation (guidance both on the main project page and its talk page), and do amazingly well in progressing even in heated discussion. May I recommend everyone here take at least a brief look at their effort and see if any of their approaches can work here?

What you're "not yet seeing" at the George Washington University National Security Archive is of no great interest to me. I say that calmly, without anger. Personal observations, WP:OR. I have added three reliable sources to the U.S. support page, and mean to add more, time permitting. Nowhere did I say, nor even imply, that "command authority" on the battlefield "rested with U.S. personnel" (your invention, literally). According to my first source, Alan Friedman, the Iraqis were grateful for all such assistance, which arrived not just from the Americans but also the British and French. British special forces - namely, the SAS - assisted Iraq in other fields, but since this section is about U.S. support, it's not relevant here. smb (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The infobox most everyone seems to want

Okay, here’s the infobox belligerent listing that everyone wants – according to the “justifications” used in the arguments above. Of course, those arguments were only in support of their favorite POV, but it’s only fair to take them to their logical, fair and balanced conclusion. To summarize, each main belligerent’s listing includes: 1) itself; 2) countries whose shipping was attacked or threatened by the other main belligerent (by aircraft, ships, gunboats, armed speedboats, cruise missiles, mines, etc.); 3) countries that supplied arms, funds, intelligence support, or WMD-related materiel to that belligerent; and 4) non-nation state volunteer groups fighting in support of it; and 5) international organizations monitoring ceasefires or otherwise acting as observers (with military personnel). I’m sure I’ve missed a few, but every country listed below has been fact-checked per the stated rationales; none are included by mistake under one or the other.

Iran-Iraq War
Iranian soldier with gas mask in the battlefield
Date 22 September 1980–20 August 1988 Location Persian Gulf, Iranian-Iraqi border Result Stalemate; Strategic Iraqi failure; Tactical Iranian failure Territorial changes status quo ante bellum
Belligerents
Iran United States Do Israel Libya North Korea PRC Syria USSR Argentina Austria Belgium Bulgaria Canada Ethiopia France India Italy Japan Kuwait Nicaragua Netherlands Pakistan Poland Portugal Saudi Arabia South Korea Spain Sweden Switzerland Ukraine United Kingdom Yugoslavia Kurdistan UNIIMOG	Iraq United States USSR PRC Egypt France Kuwait Saudi Arabia United Kingdom Austria Belgium Brazil Canada Czechoslovakia Denmark East Germany West Germany Greece Hungary India Italy Jordan Liberia Netherlands Panama Poland Portugal Romania Singapore South Africa Spain Switzerland United Arab Emirates Yugoslavia People's Mujahedin of Iran Arab volunteers from different Arab countries UNIIMOG

This is how ridiculous all this pointedness gets: A long, tedious list of mostly peripheral “players” – and one in which Israel ends up appearing as an “ally” of Iran. Imagine that. Feel blessed that I cut this variant infobox off at the list of "participants" and didn't make an attempt to add all the respective heads of state, foreign ministers, military chiefs, and respective armed forces. The purpose of the infobox is to briefly provide an “at-a-glance” summary of major facts. It is inherently incapable of dealing with nuances – those are to be addressed in the article itself. Reductio ad absurdum? Yes, but that's what it would take to satisfy all the stated justifications for who should be included, if taken to its logical (and fairly balanced) conclusion. So, how about we let the infobox be what it’s supposed to be and focus on developing a better article, which is what really matters. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you would substitute this for the current one, you're a braver man than I, Gunga Din.

Mark, you have given me an idea, which is probably far too NPOV for consideration. I wonder if each of the five categories you mention (well, maybe not the principal belligerents) might logically link to a related article(s) with a standardized title. For example, if the infobox refers to the "Foo-Bar War", the first set of articles could be:

• countries whose shipping was attacked or threatened by the other main belligerent (by aircraft, ships, gunboats, armed speedboats, cruise missiles, mines, etc.). I'm not sure, however, if those should be separate "Attacked by Foo", "Attacked by Bar", "Deliberately attacked by Foo and Bar", randomly attacked by either Foo or Bar" (e.g., drifting mines in international waters, begging the question of what comprises international waters in littorals).
• countries that supplied arms, funds, intelligence support, or WMD-related materiel to that belligerent;
• non-nation state volunteer groups fighting in support of it;
• international organizations

This still doesn't cleanly handle situations like the US being in combat with both Iran and Iraq; the WWII sides of Finland, the USSR, and Italy; whether the WWII Haganah counts in any category since it was non-national; constructs such as Vichy or Manchukuo in WWII or the Warsaw Pact.

Let's see...where would humanitarian NGOs fit? The Korean War infobox covers "medical only", yet, depending on the war, the primary belligerents might well give purely triage-based care to people, not worrying about their nationality. Now, "care" gets into interesting issues; some WWII US medical people told me that a young SS man had raised hell in the postoperative ward, until they told him that unless he shut up, they'd transfuse him with Jewish blood. Friends serving in Iraq have described major confrontations, sometimes with sidearms drawn, when a US surgeon decided an insurgent had a higher surgical priority.

Returning to the categories, there might be a logical matrix that could be developed for mostly bipolar wars, but I don't know how I'd set them up for something as multipolar as Balkan or Iraqi civil wars.

The best summary of all this came from the "foreign correspondent" of a small US TV station, a hairspray addict who, in a ratings war, was sent to a war zone. His unforgettable opening line -- and I am not making this up was "The former Yugoslavia is becoming balkanized!"

Is there anything we can do with these observations?

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Askari Mark,

Excellent work, I vote for your new box! Seriously. However you might want to add some sub-categories i.e. a column A for Iran and a column B for Iraq and a column C for Both. Also Korean War's box had subcategories for UN and Medical.

There is not a simple picture for the relations between Iran and Israel, by the way. There is at leaast one half-way decent book on the subject. Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Failure to be able to draw a picture of the relations between Iran and Israel, if you were provided with a canvas Klein bottle, shows a lack of imagination. You are, I trust, familiar with the fable of the frog and the scorpion, following Middle Eastern politics. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A few comments:

1. I don't think non-country actors should be excluded from infoboxes (i.e. smaller groups and not-quite-states and would-be-states and non-state actors like Al Queda), because the state lines in the Middle East were drawn by the British at the turn of the century, reflect British priorities, and do not necessarily reflect the prior 5,000 years of history in the region. You are more likely to get a clear picture of the parties in an action if you present them as they present themselves, as long as their participation is material.
2. If not an infobox then I would love to see a section with a table that lists for each country which "side" it was on -- which is simplified in the sense that there is roughly one governmnet in Iran and one in Iraq during the 1980-1988 time period -- one, the other or both or neither -- and what contributions were made in terms of men, materiel, intelligence, political support or whatever. I take the joke infobox above literally in the sense that he claimed that all of the listed countries had an involvement. This fact alone is very interesting and very important and very educational and it really does people a service to convey the idea that wars do not happen in isolation. For example, China, Iran and Israel all contributed to the Soviet-Afghanistan war in covert ways. The uninformed view would be that it was just Russians and Afghanis. It's always better to convey the whole community view. Diagrams might help in some cases, for example like this one.
3. Re US, Israel and Iran: Some of their conflict is for real and some of it is like this. It is important to distinguish posturing while commercial and political relations continue to take place in one form or another, and actual bullets flying in the air.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think it's a bit tasteless to use your arguments to support your point, but what it strikes me that what you have just described are reasons why the current infobox structure about wars is seeming, to a number of editors, to confuse rather than simplify. You may well be making a point, however, that additional infobox templates may be a useful direction. You've written some perfectly reasonable comments about why certain things should appear somewhere, and perhaps in a different infobox. Mark, others, and myself, I believe, see the problem as trying to force the existing infobox to do things it was not intended to do.

For example, you make a very reasonable point that non-national powers often define groups more meaningfully than do arbitrary boundaries set by the Ottomans, British, etc. Would you consider a new infobox (or table) specifically for non-national actors? You know more than I do about setting up templates and tables, but the non-national box might well have a flag and a group name, but information other than "side". For example, I think it would be important to have a column that defines how the group defines itself, by whatever combination of religious, ideological, ethnic and similar factors. When the group has external supporters (on the level of sanctuary and direct military support (including individual training), or at least ready-to-use weapons), those should be identified, with the understanding that such relationships may change over time. Again subject to change and perhaps better wikilinked to a text note, is alliances with national and non-national groups within the area of operations.

I'll need to study the diagrams to which you have linked, and I'd appreciate advice on how they might be used in the Wiki markup language, or need to be built with a graphics tool. Your point is well taken that there is a difference among those that shoot bullets on behalf of a side or group, those that supply bullets and advice with intent to use them in the specific conflict, and those that generically supply weapons (and perhaps have cut off supplies).

In agreeing with you that wars are complex, I might suggest supplementary boxes, of whatever type, for actors that changed affiliation during a conflict, or had support withdrawn. Good examples of the first might be Finland, Italy, and the Soviet Union during WWII, and affiliation variously with the Tripartite Pact or the Eastern Front. Good examples of the latter might be the Kurds who had US Army Special Forces support cut off in the Iran-Iraq war, or the indigenous guerillas in Indochina that either had French GCMA support cut off (or the indigenes and their GCMA detachment) were cut off completely by the French)

Are the shadows lengthening, or is there a light of consensus on the horizon? Is the dawn here? Days of old have vanished, tone and tint. They have gone glimmering through the dreams of things that were. Their memory is one of wondrous beauty, watered by tears, and coaxed and caressed by the smiles of yesterday. We listen vainly, but with thirsty ears, for the witching melody of faint bugles blowing reveille, of far drums beating the long roll. In our dreams I hear again the crash of guns, the rattle of musketry, the strange, mournful mutter of the battlefield.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I give up. Actors don't stay in fixed states of opposition long enough to define a war. So how do we talk about wars?

These specifications of diagrams end up turning into a formal representation language for states of conflict. This is an interesting topic but is definitely OR and none of us have a grant for this so....I surrender.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope you mean "surrender" in a cooperative sense. What several of us argue is really not tied to Iran-Iraq, but to some editors' desire to force certain things into the one infobox format that exists. I contend that a reasonable solution does not need a formal representation language, but some general guidance on the pupose (and limitations) of infobox(es), with perhaps some additional ones. For the more problematic information, a Wikitable would give more space for more complex issues.

In some cases, it may mean that a modern war can be described reasonably only with a set of articles starting with the "main" war (e.g., Iran-Iraq), or, in the more general case of actors Foo and Bar. As we have been discussing on MILHIST, it is then very reasonable to have a 2 or 4 articles about external actors that variously supported Foo or Bar, or engaged in combat with Foo or Bar or both. MILHIST is willing to write some guidelines for this, emphasizing that boxes and tables are indexes and supplements, not the primary place of exploring relationships. It is not the intent of MILHIST to make these guidelines specific to Iran-Iraq, but only to use Iran-Iraq examples when they illuminate. In like manner, there might be Afghan, Indochina, or WWII examples,

It would also be the intent to have balanced articles about external support. For example, there are two articles about US support to Iraq, yet the second paragraph of U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war states "Other countries that supported Iraq during the war included Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and West Germany." I believe it is fair to say that the MILHIST consensus is that a more appropriate title is External Support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, and to combine Iraq-gate (Gulf War and Arms sales to Iraq 1973-1990 with the former -- or to have two articles, one on combat-related support and one on supplies and training/advice. In like manner, there needs to be an External Support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq War, but the closest existing article is Iran-Contra Affair.

Think of one reason to have symmetrical articles about the major parties: a country might embargo weapons to both sides in a conflict, or supply both sides. Given that Iran had very significant Russian, British, and US weapons, and Iraq had (exclusive of WMD) extensive French and Russian weapons, having US-centric articles on support is needlessly POV.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK so we need timelines, tables and diagrams.

One conflict that got some nice timelines is Timeline of the War in Afghanistan (2001-present). This kind of detail is rather exhausting though. Also the timeline seems to be separate from the article War in Afghanistan (2001–present) which has it's own timeline.

To accurately visualize the changing relationships between parties over time would require a series of state diagrams and tables.

I can't imagine who has the time to get into all this detail, and the Afghanistan example above shows that unless all the pieces are integrated properly, you get a redundant and hard to navigate mess. Erxnmedia (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The only way I see people having time to do it is some agreement on division of labor in doing it. Not doing it won't produce meaningful articles, and will probably produce even more wasted time with people arguing about bias. I have a beard, but that doesn't mean I can't use Occam's Razor, or, if necessary, establish Occam's Barbershop. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess you need a mechanical Turk, but it didn't help this guy. Erxnmedia (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So what's your alternative? Continuing the arguments about bias and the difficulty of navigation? Suggesting some things are too complex for the Wikipedia paradigm? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The evolution of these relationships is very complex to visualize. To do a perfect job you may need something like this. Past a certain point, it starts to look like work! Erxnmedia (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not meaning this as criticism of you, it appears that there is no way to deal with this sort of complexity within Wikipedia, as long as there are people that have intense POV and perceive things that don't agree with their particular preconceptions as attacks. Nothing wrong with that; I'm mostly considering the utility of Wikipedia. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well when all is said and done about technology and writing style and organization, the U.S. was a player in the Iran-Iraq War. Do you suppose that contributed the total of 1 million dead? Did it make a difference in the end in terms of how much control Iran now has over Iraqi politics? Who knows but I guess it's not worth 1,000 lines of discussion over whether or not to plant a flag in an infobox. Erxnmedia (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet much of the arguing was about whether to have a flag in an infobox at all, and, if so, where. I agree that is irrelevant to the main issue, but that is where the chief edit wars are taking place.

As far as the questions "do you suppose", I have my own opinions, but I am not a WP:RS. If you believe you can source substantive answers to those questions, I suggest you WP:BB and do so. I'd have to say that Iraq was most responsible for 1 million dead, as it started the war. Of course, that's just OR.

One of my points, however, is that there were other significant external players beside the US. I expect to see those other players discussed, not exclusively the US. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I am in favor of listing all participants, in text or with whatever degree of visualization people prefer, together with the roles, goals, contributions, attachments and the materiality of their participation. All expressed as a function of time, of course.

However, as in the Iraq War, the reason the U.S. tends to get focussed on is because the U.S. is usually the 800-pound gorilla in the room. In the "Coalition of the Willing" (or "Billing" in some cases), one good graphic would be a bar chart showing the size of each nation's participation measured in boots on the ground. Then animate that bar chart over 7 years to see who is material and who is not in that picture.

As to whether the Iranians bear 100% responsibility for being willing to engage in bare-knuckle trench warfare with 1 million men and boys brandishing tinfoil passports to the 72 virgins: Did they have a choice? And if the U.S. wasn't punishing them by giving material support to Iraq, would the numbers have been smaller?

It doesn't matter any more in the sense that the dead are buried. However it does matter in regards to interpreting the motivations and beliefs of the Iranians. No one should think blindly about "Islamofascism" and scary mullahs and the like without visiting the graveyards and considering the alternatives from the point of view of their real options. Also considering that they were getting screwed by the British for their oil and then hassled when they took it back, for the last 50 years, people should really cut them some slack. Erxnmedia (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know what "cutting slack" means with respect to Wikipedia editing. Further, I don't understand why you are responding to my comment about responsibility that referred to IraQ -- the one with the Q -- being responsible for starting the war, not the one with the N. I don't expect George W. Bush to get it straight regarding four-letter geographic areas starting with I, and will not be surprised to see him invade Iowa, but I thought you would respond to what I actually said.

Have I ever used the term "Islamofascism"? Yes, I am aware of the British screwing, but apparently you only want to discuss an 800 pound gorilla, as opposed to some other substantia Great Apes. If the gorilla throws less bananas than a very active orangutan, I see no reason not to discuss all of them. You speak of British screwing, which is appropriate. The bulk of WMD precursors and equipment going to Iraq (the one with the Q) came from France and Russia. Cultures are far easier to get than industrial-grade fermenters, refrigerated centrifuges, lyophilizers, etc.

Did the US, for example, screw the Kurds? Unquestionably! You will forgive me, however, when I see British tanks arrayed against Soviet ones, or the KARI air defense network coming from the reverse spelling of French "Irak" (also known as the one with the Q), if I see additional apes about. I simply want to see accurate coverage of all the primates, of all weights and activity levels. "Cutting slack" is meaningless in terms of objective research about the primary participants, where IraQ was the primary aggressor. CAPT Rogers of the Vincennes, IMHO, should have been court-martialed for what the lawyers call "depraved indifference to human life", and, as far as understanding his systems, what one TV character calls "felony stupid". An assortment of US policymakers aggravated the situation, but Iran-Contra involved the one with the N, not the Q, and also flaunted Congressional restrictions on CIA activities. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am inclusionist. Let's stop yakking and get them all in there, big gorilla and small ones too. I would redact the above discussion into a list because I think it's all there, but someone might yell at me for copying talk page into article. Erxnmedia (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

---

This thread has unfortunately become something of a forum discussion, so less get back to brass tacks. There are at hand a text and an infobox. The point of my sarcastic example of an infobox is to demonstrate the preferability of restricting inclusionism to the text – where context and nuances can be appropriately addressed – and not in the infobox, which lacks context or nuance. Take away my summary of the rationales for the countries included and the list makes no sense; it just begs for clarification – not least because the “super-list” abrogates any sense of weight. That’s simply and fundamentally not what an infobox is for. Furthermore, the ‘Belligerents’ section is not intended to capture all of the “combatants”, “participants” or “players”. To do so would produce in the end an infobox much longer than this long article itself. Regarding the addition of a third column to the infobox, this has been attempted before and actually expands the width of the infobox to fully half the page width – and the consensus on it was that it was hideous.

My (and others’) proposals regarding the dispute at hand are as follows:

1. For this article’s infobox, the belligerents be restricted to Iran and Iraq.
2. An article on the Tanker War be created; there the belligerents would be Iran and Iraq on the one side, and the US, USSR, et al on the other. The topic would be addressed summary-style in “Iran-Iraq War”.
3. Expanding on a good recommendation made by a WP:MILHIST member, the articles “U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war”, “Arms sales to Iraq 1973-1990”, and “Iraq-gate (Gulf War)” should be merged into an article “Foreign involvement in the Iran-Iraq War”. In that way, the topic could be addressed summary-style in this article, but developed in a more extensive fashion in a single, coherent, independent article. IMHO, this would allow for a much better explanation of the changing players (and sides) who were involved in various ways supporting either or both countries.

Is there something like a consensus for this approach? Askari Mark (Talk) 21:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletes by CreazySuit

The fact that the war "brought neither reparations nor change in borders" and that the slogan of the Islamic Republic was "War, war until victory!" ("Jang, jang ta piruzi") are neither "half-truths" nor "urban legends". The source for the quote is the The book, The Soul of Iran, Molavi, Afshin, Norton, (2005) is by an Iranian who has traveled extensively in the Midlde East, and South Asia and is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in the US who has professor. The book has praise from Karen Armstrong and John Esposito. If you continue to do delete, I will have to do what ever it takes to block you. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's sensational editorializing, POV of Afshin Molavi who is a lobbyist of Council on Foreign Relations, and not a historian. --CreazySuit (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What evidence to you have that Afshin Molavi is anything but a reputable source? Do you deny "War, war until victory!" ("Jang, jang ta piruzi") was the slogan of the Islamic Republic during the war,or most of the war?

Here is a brief bio of Molavi:

Afshin Molavi is the author of Persian Pilgrimages: Journeys Across Iran, which was nominated for the Thomas Cook literary travel book of the year.

A former Dubai-based correspondent for the Reuters news agency and a regular contributor to The Washington Post from Iran, Mr. Molavi has covered the Middle East and Washington for a wide range of international publications.

in Iran, Mr. Molavi holds an M.A. from the Johns Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Middle East History and International Economics. He has also worked at the International Finance Corporation, the private sector development arm of the World Bank.--BoogaLouie (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It was one of many slogans that the soldiers chanted, not an official policy as you're trying have us believe. --CreazySuit (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as a Request for Mediation? The diffs between BoogaLouie and CreazySuit are fairly subtle and somebody needs to sort this out. Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead summary of Results of the war

In support of the line that the war "brought neither reparations nor change in borders" here is a quote:

it was a war that resolved nothing, and changed very little. ... Neither regime was toppled by the war, and none of the issues underlying it were settled. (from Fred Halliday's review of The Iran-Iraq War: The Politics of Aggression, edited by Farhagn Rajaee in International History Review 16 February 1994 p.217 --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath section

See Line 697 in this link for what CreazySuit was deleting in the Aftermath section.

See if you find "sensational editorializing" or cleanup to make the section more concise and readable (my edits are the version on the left). ---BoogaLouie (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

War, War, Until Victory

Amir Taheri in The Spirit of Allah p.295 gives "War, War, Until Victory" as the war slogan of the Islamic Republic --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You're now citing Amir Taheri who is infamous for making up stories, like his "Yellow Badges for Iranian Jews" story which discredited him as a source. Thank you for proving my point that is nothing but sensational POV. --CreazySuit (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The slogan also appears on p. 328 of The Iranians by Sandra MacKay, Plume, 1998

By now the government's slogan of `war, war until victory` was turning the conflict with Iraq into the revolution's most enduring legacy. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a quote or document from the Iranian government saying `war, war until victory` is the official state policy? If you don't, then please stop trying to editorialize and sensationalize the article with questionable soundbites, taken from opinionated tendentious books/editorials written by people like Amir Taheri who have a reputation of making up stories. --CreazySuit (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this slogan sensationalizes the article or not; however I grew up in Iran during the war and as far as I remember this slogan was repeated by every government organization during the war, most commonly by the state TV during every news report on war. there was even an official song made based on it.

So we have three different books noting the slogan "War, war until victory!" ("Jang, jang ta piruzi") during the war - The Iranians by Sandra MacKay, p.328, Molavi, Afshin, The Soul of Iran Norton, (2005), p.152, The Spirit of Allah by Amir Taheri, p.295 - plus the testimony of Ghlobe above. It's not as though there is any doubt the Islamic Republic talked about achieving victory after driving Iraq out of Iranian soil. So what wikipedia policy requires a document from the Iranian government saying `war, war until victory` is "the official state policy"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

All you do is cherry-picking sources written by notoriously unreliable authors like Amir Taheri who have been caught lying, yet you have failed to provide a direct quote from an Iranian official to verify this claim. And besides the issue of verifiability, what's the purpose of putting this one slogan in the lead of the page in such sensational manner, when there were hundreds of such slogans on both side? By your logic, we could also say "Iraq attacked Iran following the slogan that God should have not created Persians, Jews, and flies", and that can be sourced too, with much more authoritative sources than anything you have brought forward for your favorite slogan. My point is that this is a Encyclopedia, not an editorial, so the lead should be written in an Encyclopedic manner, as neutral as possible, without any selective sound-bites and urban myths which are only meant for sensationalizing. --CreazySuit (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a wikipedia policy that requires a quote from a government document or official for a slogan like this? Might it just be that the slogan's presence in primary sources is rare, as the IRI would rather forget about it? The Baathists did print a book about how "God should have not created Persians, Jews, and flies", but do you have any evidence that that was a slogan of the war? what evidence do you have that any of the authors I've quoted (besides Taheri who may be) were "notoriously unreliable"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Is mentioning the slogan War, War, Until Victory, appropriate in the lead?

Here is a quote from a book on the Iran-Iraq war (Hiro, Dilip, The Longest War, Routledge, 1991,) on the issue of the Islamic Republic's goals for the war:

In short, the goals for the war varied
"The combatants continually raised and lowered their military and political objectives in the light of their performance on the battlefield. ...
In the case of Tehran: "Starting with the basic defensive objective of expelling the invading Iraqis, it went on to demand the removal of President Saddam Hussein's regime. The exact nature of this requirement varied from wholesale replacement of the Ba'athist state with an Islamic one to the mere resignation of Saddam Hussein from the presidency. Following Tehran's victory in Fao early in 1986, (Hiro, Dilip, The Longest War, Routledge, 1991, p.254)

• the Iranian `maximalists` visualized liberating the Shi'a holy shrine cities of Najaf and Karbala, and installing an Islamic regime in Baghdad, as a steppingstone to freeing Jerusalem from Zionist control. (p.254)

"The maximalists, to be found mainly in the Revolutionary Guards Corps" (Hiro, Dilip, The Longest War, Routledge, 1991, p.177)

• In contrast the `minimalists` limited their objectives to toppling Saddam Husein, getting an inquiry commission appointed to determine war guilt and receiving substantial war reparations from the aggressor and its Arab allies." (p.254) Page 177 says the same thing, plus: "Rafsanjani was a minimalist" According to him "Iran would not press for war compensation if the post-Saddam Hussein governmetn proved to be `Islamic` even if it were backed by America - just as the Saudi regime was." (Hiro, Dilip, The Longest War, Routledge, 1991, p.177)

My point - the goals varied but at the least they included the overthrow of Saddam. So whether they were good or bad, wise or foolish, these goals for the war were ambitious, not defensive ones, and very much reflected by a slogan such as War, War, Until Victory --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC).

I have seen arguments that the Bathist book "Persians, Jews, Flies" inspired Saddam's aggression toward Iran. As for Iran's goals in the war, Iran's demands about the removal Saddam are already covered in the article, and the sentence "Iran went on offensive" is sufficient enough for the lead, without the need of selective cheesy sound-bites which make the article look and sound like a cheap piece of yellow journalism, instead of an encyclopedia entry it should be. Also, when you're attributing something to an individual or government, a direct quote is always needed. The Iranian soldiers chanted a lot of things, they also chanted "Karbala, we're coming", but that doesn't mean that the annexing of Karbala was an official policy.--CreazySuit (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"arguments" that the Bathist book "inspired agression" are not quite in the same league as a slogan quoted by three different books and one editor! "cheap piece of yellow journalism" is your POV. It sound to me like War, War, Until Victory is a straightforward expression of what the IRI regime wanted, though different forces defined victory differently. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolving the dispute

The [Requests_for_mediation] is "backlogged with requests". Therefore I'll set aside my hope to include the War, War, Until Victory slogan in the lead for the time being and work on less controversial stuff. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've cleanup the aftermath section to make it more readable. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed addition

The war can be divided into four stages according to one author (Dilip Hiro),

• September 1980 to March 1981: Iraq advance into Iran
• March 1981 to mid-March 1982: Stalemate
• mid-March 1982 to end of June 1982: Iraq retreat from Iran
• July 1982 to ceasefire in 1988: Iran on the offensive attempting to overthrow Saddam (Hiro, Dilip, The Longest War, Routledge, 1991, p.87) --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, things weren't as simple as that, it was way more complicated than that. But what exactly do you mean? Which part of the page is this proposal meant for? I don't see why this is necessary, The article already divides the war in a more detailed and logical manner. However, we can add "attempting to overthrow Saddam" after "Iran went on offensive" in the lead, as long as by the same token we add "attempting to annex Iran's oil- rich Khuzistan region" (Britannica) after "Iraq invaded Iran".--CreazySuit (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding some more dates

I'll go along with your idea for lead change.

As for "The article already divides the war in a more detailed and logical manner,"

yes, the sections

• September 1980: Iraqi invasion,
• The invasion stalls,
• Iraq retreats but the war continues,
• Iranian offensive, blunders, and hardening of Iraqi resolve,

seem to cover that, except that there aren't many dates given. So I propose to work some dates in. e.g.

change

The Iraqi invasion soon encountered unexpected resistance, however. to

The Iraqi invasion soon encountered unexpected resistance, however, and around March 1981 it stalled.

change

"By June 1982, an Iranian counter-offensive had recovered the areas lost to Iraq earlier in the war."

to

"For about a year after the Iraqi offensive stalled in March 1981 there was little change in the front, but in mid-March 1982 Iran took the offensive and Iraqi forces began to retreat. By June 1982, an Iranian counter-offensive had recovered the areas lost to Iraq earlier in the war." --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

More change

"For about a year after the Iraqi offensive stalled in March 1981 there was little change in the front, but in mid-March 1982 Iran took the offensive and Iraqi forces were forced retreat. By June 1982, an Iranian counter-offensive had recovered almost all the areas lost to Iraq earlier in the war." --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for resolving the participant-related issues

Okay, I’ve looked at the “Summary of material participants” section that Erxnmedia added, and frankly it doesn’t work – on many, many levels. It provides no useful information; it goes against WP’s guidelines for lists; it is unsightly as a list; it doesn’t provide what it purports to provide; no consensus was ever established over what to do about non-belligerent participants – and this simply “reloads” the same unresolved POV issues that generated all this contentious debate; it comprises original research; it is unsourceable (since it is dependent upon my satirical rendition of an “alternative” approach infobox); and there is not even a proposed definition of “material participants” – which is not intuitively obvious and is even less useful (and prospectively more controversial) than “combatant” or “belligerent”. I could add more, but I think the point is clear. Accordingly, I have removed the section.

Instead, I would encourage the establishment of a consensus over the original infobox-related issue before trying to reproduce it in the body of the article. Let’s get the unfinished work done first; how that sorts out will affect how the matter gets addressed in the text of this and related articles. Accordingly, I will reiterate the standing – and as yet undiscussed – proposal for resolving the dispute at hand:

1. For this article’s infobox, the belligerents be restricted to Iran and Iraq.
2. An article on the Tanker War be created; there the belligerents would be Iran and Iraq on the one side, and the US, USSR, et al on the other. The topic would be addressed summary-style in “Iran-Iraq War”.
3. Expanding on a good recommendation made by a WP:MILHIST member, the articles “U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war”, “Arms sales to Iraq 1973-1990”, and “Iraq-gate (Gulf War)” should be merged into an article “Foreign involvement in the Iran-Iraq War”. In that way, the topic could be addressed summary-style in this article, but developed in a more extensive fashion in a single, coherent, independent article. IMHO, this would allow for a much better explanation of the changing players (and sides) who were involved in various ways supporting either or both countries.

Is there something like a consensus for this approach? Please keep discussion direct and to the point and take “rabbit trail” discussions to a separate thread or an involved editor’s talk page. TIA, Askari Mark (Talk) 02:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Support 1 & 2, impartial over 3 Ryan4314 (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As an experiment it was interesting because people went to the trouble to move US from "both sides" to "Iraq" while forgetting Iran-Contra Affair which was during the same time period and transferred U.S. arms to Iran.

I think anything which doesn't sort out the material participants is POV. My definition of material participants was contained in the first sentence: it could be political support, weapons, medical support, training, troops. Support is support, it's not rocket science what it means to provide support to something.

Save the irony for some other forum and if you delete something, replace it with something with more information in it, not less.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It may not be rocket science, but "support is support" ignores a considerable body of customary international law, and, I must agree, is original research. It is original to state you experimented with Wikipedia editors. reactions, but I would not call it research or good faith. If you were to hypothesize, I would have hoped that you would, at least, state your criteria, such as the ongoing work at http://www.fas.org/asmp/campaigns/control.html, or the various WMD treaties. Sometimes, apparent weapon supply needs to be analyzed in depth; that Nation A uses weapons from Nation B against Nation C does not imply Nation A is hostile to Nation C. This has been a confusing and controversial situation, for example, with Israel's use of US manufactured weapons in Lebanon, when the weapons were used in violation of the terms of the sale agreement. Nation D might reverse-engineer spare parts for Nation B equipment, and allow Nation A to give the impression it is supported by Nation B. Another kind of complex situation arose when France gave Britain information on the electronic controls of Exocet missiles used by Argentina.

With respect to international law and custom, direct medical support, or the provision of medical supplies, is widely accepted as consistent with neutrality. Dual-use industrial supplies are problematic, especially when they do not fall under specific treaties such as the Chemical or Biological Weapons Conventions. Direct weapons sales often have a fictional End User Certificate. Some of your categories, such as "political support", can be interpreted to mean virtually anything. It is not at all unprecedented for one country to praise the leader of another while simultaneously destabilizing that leader's control. There are times when a nation deliberately keeps support narrowly defined, as in the "quarantine" during the Cuban Missile Crisis, intended to stabilize without going to blockade, defined as an act of war.

To respond to Askari Mark, I support 1 and 2. #3 has promise but probably should have a rough draft or outline. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Howard,

With respect to Lebanon, I don't think the people on the receiving end of the missiles would care to spend the time to read the end-user certificate. If they see USA anywhere on the casings, they're going to think USA. It is really counting angels on the head of a pin to decline responsibility for an armament based on an fig leaf like an end-user certificate. In my mind (call this "original research" if you have to, but, trust me, no "research" has been required for this thought!), if you sell arms to both sides, you're playing both ends against the middle, and you should be listed on both sides of the equation.

I'm in favor of option #3. Also I would otherwise rename the "US Support for Iraq" article to be "US Support for Iraq and Iran" and include the Iran-Contra arms transfer as it occurred during the same timeframe. Once the Iranians had our missiles in hand, it is specious to say that that offered no increase in their general military preparedness.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand. After the Israelis started using some area-effect heavy cluster munitions against rocket firing sites in civilian areas, I called, at TPMcafe, for a cutoff of all US military aid to Israel. One of the reasons I have been harsh about their weapons use is exactly because they were largely US, and I knew their capabilities and US doctrine for their use. When rockets are fired at a US base in Iraq, if artillery counterfire is used, with accurate location of the firing site from radars and other sensors of which the Israelis have most, the particular cannon and shells have a much more local effect without much problem of unexploded bomblets. Further, in areas where it is possible -- and this might not have been possible in Lebanon -- the preferred technique is to ambush, capturing where possible, using helicopter and vehicle-borne patrols that the counter-artillery radar directs to the firing site.

But, as far as OR, while what you say is inherently reasonable, it still needs to be reliably sourced. In the specific conflict we are discussing, I can't immediately think of anything used by the Iraqis that were finished weapons stamped "made in USA". If you have specific examples, I would be interested. Clearly, as a result of the arms-for-hostages swap, the Iranians used TOW and HAWK missiles stamped "made in USA". Your "US Support for Iraq and Iran" is not inherently unfair, but I prefer "foreign support", given, for example, that the production equipment for chemical and biological warfare, and a good deal of the chemical precursors, came from several countries other than the US. I don't hesitate to criticize irrational decisions of the US, but in this specific case, it was one of many countries providing support, none of which was a make-or-break.

In the tanker war, the direct involvement of the US was clear, but, as you mentioned, also of other countries. It might be nitpicking, but I prefer "naval war" to "tanker war", since one of the issues was the Iranian release of floating mines into international waters, and some of the US retaliation was against offshore oil platforms -- some of which were not producing but being used as military staging areas.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we are agreeing with each other. A lot of the infobox arguing is about where to put US i.e. in camp A or camp B and people are pushing very hard to have US in a single camp. Having a single article about US on Iraq side is very POV, much less POV and much more instructive is to gather up and clearly present all of the threads of material support from all state and non-state actors -- however you want to define material support, irrespective of international law: I am talking about common sense here, i.e. what group A does to give group B the ability to actually kill people in group C, not what is legally attributable in the transaction between A and B and what is legally inadmissible according to some random definition: In our own actions in Gitmo etc. we have long since put a big distance as a nation between international accords like the Geneva Convention and what it is we are willing to do in practice, so in general I think we should go by a practical, common sense definition of support and not a legalistic one. Also note that in the field of terrorism, non-state actors have come to include charities, banks and influential families (e.g. Al-Saud), so I would take a wide view of what non-state actors to include.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We are in partial agreement. Irrespective of common sense, I am talking about international law and not "common sense", the latter being a rare commodity, especially in the Bush Administration. Simply said, if there is international law or precedent on a topic, and you decide to apply some other subjective criterion, you are using the legal theory of tu quoque (freely translated as "you did it too!").

Tu quoque was generally rejected, as a defense, by the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg. There was one specific exception, when Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz sent a statement stating that US submarines, under his command, did not do anything that Grossadmiral Karl Doenitz's submarines did not also do.

Citing the IMT as precedent is problematic. It wasn't convened by treaty and thus did not set formal precedent; the UN General Assembly but not the Security Council accepted the Nuremberg Principles, an acceptance of no legal weight. It clearly was victors' justice and did not address what I believe to be major war crimes on the part of several Allied powers. Nevertheless, abandoning formal treaties, precedent such as Nuremberg, and even the context of Just War Theory, in favor of a subjective and culturally dependent definition of "common sense" is something I will not accept.

I believe in the return of a framework of international law, rather than reducing it to the lowest common denominator. Guantanamo is wrong and cannot be used as precedent.

I agree about a broad view of non-state actors. Unfortunately, they are not well handled by current international law. My personal opinion would be a starting point would be in treaties on the Law of the Sea, starting with the annex on privateering in the Treaty of Paris of 1856. A reasonable principle would be Hostis humani generis, "enemy of mankind", as used against pirates and slavers.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Howard, we gave arms to both sides. No Latin required. Erxnmedia (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if that is true, in the literal meaning of arms, I am not going to agree with your undefined "common sense". Tu quoque is the worst side of slippery slope, being used by assorted countries to become terrorists in fighting terrorism.

Now, for my information, what specific arms did the US give or sell to Iraq? Not industrial or medical supplies. Not information. Certainly not the weapons provided to Kurds fighting Saddam, while the US still backed them. Arms, in the sense that they directly blow up people or equipment, such as the TOW and HAWK missiles provided to the Iranians in the Contra deal. There may have been some, and I'm open to sourced information. Most Iraqi weaponry, however, was Soviet or French.

Direct combat, as in the Tanker War or whatever one may call it, is not the conventional way to provide arms; they usually are not shipped at high supersonic speed. The very different action at sea is yet another reason to have separate articles about largely separate conflicts. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

According to NY Times,

• August 20, 1984. 96 TOW anti-tank missiles
• September 14, 1984. 408 more TOWs
• November 24, 1984. 18 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles
• February 17, 1986. 500 TOWs
• February 27, 1986. 500 TOWs
• May 24, 1986. 508 TOWs, 240 Hawk spare parts
• Aug 4, 1986. More Hawk spares
• Oct 28, 1986. 500 TOWs

They really liked the TOWs, not so much the Hawks. Do you think they needed more than 2,000 TOWs for target practice or do you think they might have lobbed one or two at the Eye-rack-ees? Erxnmedia (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. I was asking about US weaponry being provided to the Iraqis, not the Iranians. The sarcasm isn't helpful, nor is failing to understand the purpose of the HAWK and why it might not have been used extensively. I fully expect, however, that BGM-71 tube launched, optically tracked, wire guided (TOW) missiles were fired, by the Iranians, against Iraqi armored vehicle. Anti-armor engagements were far more common in that war than surface-to-air defense. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been talking all along about the issue of U.S. supplying arms to both sides of the conflict, and why that makes the U.S. a belligerent on both sides (or some variation on a fair-weather friend, however you want to define belligerent). This is the grand and much debated infobox question. The loudest people want to keep the U.S. and all other parties except Iran and Iraq out of the Iran-Iraq war, regardless of their level and nature of participation. Erxnmedia (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"the loudest people" is your value judgment and hardly assumes good faith. Indeed, it is attacking the people rather than the argument. It is a valid professional writing style, in texts or encyclopedias, to keep the critical points most visible, but to supplement them in narrative. An infobox is much like a chapter review box in a textbook, which does not replace the chapter.

The war is called the "Iran-Iraq War", not "World War 2.5". The Sino-Japanese war had other participants and certainly suppliers, but the key belligerents were China and Japan. The Franco-Prussian war was principally between France and Prussia. The American Civil War, regardless of how much cotton was sold to Britain, was principally a war between the Union and the Confederacy.

There is a style called "inclusionist", but I find, most often, that its use results in a confusing overload of data. Good encyclopedic writing organizes without original synthesis, and one of the characteristics of organization is recognizing the minimum but necessary elements to include in summaries, introductions, subordinate sections, and sub-articles.

Incidentally, it's not how I want to define "belligerent". In American politics, it is a time-honored tradition to cite law when law supports you, and cry "common sense" when law does not support you. In the broad sense, the definition comes from the Hague and Geneva Conventions, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and even the Kellogg-Briand Accord and the UN Charter. The infobox in question was developed by the Military History Project, which has written guidelines for its use. Develop your own template if you don't even want to discuss it at MILHIST. I suggest, however, you do discuss it there, rather than twist and turn it into epicycles that more or less work for unique circumstances. Frankly, I'd be delighted if all the infoboxes went away, and people actually considered content rather than fighting over the color of the cover of the book Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My technical definition of "loud" is anyone who is bold and uninhibited with the Delete key.

With so many wars out there, I think the Infobox could do a service in summarizing who was at the party, if it were not misleadingly exclusive.

I find it enlightening and educational to see who are the material participants in a war. Note I am using the phrase "material participant" rather than "belligerent" as a sop to your attachment to the Geneva Convention as a dictionary. I don't care who the "Geneva Convention belligerents" are. I care who came to the pot luck and what did they put on the table and who were they eyeing when they got there.

For example in the case of our own Iraq War, as so titled in Wikipedia, irrespective of any other conflict that may have occured in Babylon or Mesopotamia -- the infobox has an interesting list of belligerents that does not include Iran, Syria, Turkey or Kuwait, or any of the neighboring Arab republics which make material contributions which typically result in the death of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi collaborators with the U.S. military.

The infobox which lists only the 2 main parties in the conflict is totally useless because the conflict itself draws other participants with other motivations, and those participants and their motivations may in fact be the center of gravity of the conflict, not the putative dispute between the two main contenders. U.S. interests in the Iran-Iraq war are as much of a center of gravity as any conflict that may have existed between Saddam and the Shiites. So to exclude the U.S. as a material participant (I am not allowed to use the word "belligerent" for legal reasons) is to seriously occlude any understanding of the conflict itself.

I believe my thinking here is in line with our Government's, i.e. to use "material participant" rather than "belligerent" and "enemy combatant" rather than "soldier" makes things so much clearer, don't you think?

Erxnmedia (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Do I believe that the use of "material participant" makes things any clearer? No. I do not believe any single word or phrase, whether it be material participant or enchanted prince in the form of a frog, is going to help explain a complex relationship. It no longer helps understand than does a sound bite on television "news". But do not feel constrained; I am quite competent to return sallies of sarcasm.

Funny, I've never had trouble understanding the parties involved in wars. I do not, however, limit myself to what will go into an infobox. As far as titles of wars such as "Iraq", tu quoque may well apply if several countries want to use propaganda-oriented titles. There are other cases where the major participants do, in fact, have different names for the war, invoking their own symbols.

Do forgive me for using widely ratified international agreements' definitions of words, and, where appropriate, pointing out the concepts not covered by such agreements. Chastise me with scorpions for the very idea of trying to focus on the core of the legal definitions and then put in the exceptions and qualifications relevant to a specific conflict -- which, alas and alack, will not fit into an infobox.

You raise a number of points about motivations for the Iran-Iraq war, for example, that are not universally accepted among reasonably objective historians. I'm reminded of a work on the American Civil War, which included an interview with Gen. George Pickett, in his later years, with the interviewer inquiring why the South lost the Battle of Gettysburg. The historian offered several suggestions, such as J.E.B. Stuart forgetting his critical scouting & security mission, James Longstreet's lack of enthusiasm for "Pickett's Charge", and technical inadequacies in the Confederate artillery preparation before the charge.

Pickett, not necessarily the brightest bulb in the military chandelier, but an honest and straightforward man, scratched his head before answering. "Why did we lose? Sir, I've always suspected the Yankees had something to do with it."

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

USA Flag added again

I don't think someone who once added comments about "anti-Iranists", the movie 300 and telling Westeners to "take responsibility" all in the same post [4] should be allowed to put the USA flag back up, he's obviously not neutral. He didn't leave an edit summary, when he evidently knows how [5] (which implies a certain level of sneakiness) and on his user page he has comments like "In the West I realised how large is the agression towards Iranian history and identity." If you read a discussion I had with him a couple of months ago here, it is pretty clear he sees this as a mission and negotiation with him is futile. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what is the problem here. Against all the rules of logic you proposed voting/dicusiion and the arguments were largely in favor of adding the USA flag there based on sound arguments. USA violated Iranian territorial integrity, bombed Iranian territory and killed Iranian citizens. This is what we call acts of war. As for anti-Iranianism: I do not see why you have problem with that. That is a reality. Why is Anti/Semitism unacceptable but these American neocons are shamelessly stating the most harsh anti-Iranianists satements? And yes anti-Iranianism is not a neutral thing so reaction against it wont be neutral per definition. USA FLAG should be there otherwise it is RAPE OF HISTORY.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the USA flag should be up there -- on both sides, as we provided 2000+ TOW anti-tank missiles to Iran in the middle of the largely ground-based conflict, and the stated US policy as expressed by a serving CIA officer at the time was have both sides "kick the shit out of each other". So I will put the flag in both places. I hope that will clear matters up once and for all! Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Erxn, you seem committed to dealing only with proposals that affect the infobox, rather than proposals that try for NPOV by having several articles that can deal adequately with things too complex to be simplified to a flag in an infobox. Few military historians will disagree that providing Stinger missiles to the Afghans fighting against the Soviets was decisive. Neither TOW/HAWK missiles provided to Iran, nor various dual-use chemicals provided to Iraq, were decisive.

Did the US have a policy to let the two main sides exhaust one another? In all probability, that is true. The best argument for that, I suspect, is the changing support to the Kurds. Nevertheless, I can only consider it POV to insist:

1. The US is the only power outside the region to be listed. Soviet missiles and French/Soviet aircraft provided to the Iraqis had as much, or more, significance to the main Iran-Iraq conflict than the missiles.
2. Offers to have 2 or 3 thoroughly cross-linked articles that address the issues in more depth than an infobox are consistently ignored. For example, the "Tanker War", with the exception of one Exocet attack by the Iraqis that might have been an accident, clearly involved Iran on one side and the US, Kuwait, and other allies on the other.

No, I don't think this clears up matters once and for all, unless one believes, as your statement about clearing suggests, that the conflict must be reflected in a single article and a single infobox. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A small note Erxnmedia, when you say "we", I am not an American. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha Ha, look at how he (Babakexorramdin) reverted Erxnmedia's edit [6], further proof of his POV push. His says in the summary that as the US attacked Iran it must therefore be it's combatant enemy, but Iraq attacked US (see USS Stark (FFG-31)) meaning (by his logic) that Iraq and US were combatant enemies too, regardless of support. With his way of thinking either US flag should be added to both sides or neither. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Howard and all the rest of you guys Americans or d'ailleurs,

I favor Howard's proposal of having an article to list all of the third-party participants in the Iran-Iraq War, not just a separate article for U.S.

I was kidding when I said that adding U.S. to both sides would fix the infobox, but not kidding in the sense that if someone sticks U.S. in one side, the history shows U.S. should be in both sides.

I am inclusionist with respect to the infobox and think that anybody who moved arms to either side should be included.

All of this is hashed out ad naseum above but the new Iranian guy has kicked it all off again by throwing U.S. into the info box once again bringing us back into the grand and glorious infobox debate territory.

Also there are two other guys (C-Suit and B-Louie) going into endless debates about a single Iranian war slogan (something like "Onward, beans and bagels, fight fight fight for Palestine" or something like that) that one insists is real and the other insists is invented but I can't for the life of me figure out why either of them considers it worthy of so much debate. Oh yes, the slogan is "We will keep fighting until we win". You'd hope so, don't you think? What else would they say, "We will keep fighting until we stop fighting or whatever"? That would not be a very effective slogan!

Is there some way we can combine the slogan debate and the infobox debate into one huge bonfire of nitpicking?

I'd like that!

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor note again, Babakexorramdin has been here from the start. I think he was the first person to add the flag, back in December 07 when a user called John Nevard opposed him. I saw all the axe grinding and more calls of "Take responsibility for your (your countries?) actions" [7] and stepped in, starting the RFC and here we are now. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The Tanker War and U.S. support for Iraq

First, this section should be split into two sections, (The Tanker War) and (U.S. support for Iraq) . Second, (U.S. support for Iraq) should be renamed to (U.S. involvement in the war) sources say U.S. supported both Iraq and Iran to produce a military stalemate. Imad marie (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the split, but I honestly believe that the other article should be "foreign involvement in the war". Take one example for relevance -- the missiles provided as part of the Iran-Contra affair were provided to Iran via Israel, a notable transaction for the Middle East. The bulk of the raw chemicals for Saddam's chemical warfare program, and the large-scale equipment for his biological weapons work, did not come from the US. I have no difficulty with accepting US responsibility for seeking a stalemate, or simple profit, but it was not the only nation to do so.

In like manner, the Tanker War certainly involves the US, but also other countries. The issue of freedom of navigation in international waters is an issue. While I am ashamed for my country, the US, for whitewashing the Airbus shootdown and not court-martialing the captain of the Vincennes, letting floating mines adrift in international waters is also a war crime. Few wars bring out the best in countries at the national level, although I am certain there are individual or small unit actions by Iranians, and, yes, even Iraqis, that should be remembered in song or verse. That a war may be terribly wrong doe not mean that individual people cannot be at their best, both in bravery and mercy. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It's true that other foreign countries were involved in the war, but I think we can fairly assume that the US government was the leader and coordinator of the support policy, some people call Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld the "architects" of the appeasement policy. Would Israel provide weapons to Iran had the US government not approve it? same goes for the other countries, France, Britain, Kuwait etc... Imad marie (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

So we can fairly assume that the Soviet Union — by far the most important arms supplier of Iraq — was also coordinating with the US government? Hee-hee.

—WWoods (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I mention the involvement of Israel for two reasons. First, regardless of what the US wanted, Israel could simply have said "no, we won't be your conduit to Iran." Part of the problem in the US-Israeli relationship is that Israel will act in what it considers its best interest, and has enough US domestic political influence to avoid sanctions that might affect other countries. Did the same sort of thing that happened to the Joshan and Sahand, which was a partial response to the mine that hit the USS Samuel B. Roberts, happen to Israeli warships after that unfortunate little series of purely accidental attacks on the USS Liberty? Sorry, I do not accept Israel had no choices in the matter of the missile transfers and that every foreign action against Iran or Iraq was the sole responsibility of the US. To answer your question "Would Israel provide weapons to Iran had the US government not approve it? ", the answer is emphatically yes. In the recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Israel repeatedly used weapons, with cluster munition warheads, in a manner contrary to the sales agreement with the US: the M26 rocket was to be used only against troops in the field, not civilian areas.

With respect to the Iraqi chemical weapons program, are you suggesting that the US, for example, had control over the export of chemical precursors and equipment from (see Iraq and weapons of mass destruction#Program development 1960s - 1980s) ... (I have trimmed nuclear exports except when necessary to give context to the chemical export)

An Austrian company gave Iraq calutrons for enriching uranium. The nation also provided heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the Iraqi chemical weapons infrastructure, 16% of the international sales. Singapore gave 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gasses to Iraq. The Dutch gave 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gasses to Iraq. Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions. India gave 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gasses. Luxembourg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors. Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq’s chemical warfare program, 4.4% of the international sales. China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare.

If it is relevant to do so, I am quite prepared to get into an engineering-level discussion of the relative criticality of dual-use exports for the Iraqi chemical and biological warfare programs. I must say that until I read that, I might not have assumed 650 tons of precursors would have fit into Luxembourg.

Further, it is significant, given the literally apocalyptic interpretations of Iranian nuclear programs by some U.S. and Israeli politicians, and the interpretation that Iran is committed to the physical destruction of Israel, to find that Israel and Iran can cooperate when it is to their mutual benefit. As DeGaulle said, nations have interests, not allies.

No nation in this conflict is blameless, but no nation is totally responsible for every bad thing, and there seems to be a POV desire to single out the US.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, I will split the section into two, and name the new section: "Foreign involvement in the war" as Howard suggested. Howard, about the POV, that happens when you are the leader of the world, you will be the first to be blamed. Imad marie (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea

Thank you; this is an excellent start to see how separation works, and have some idea what would go into separate articles if it is agreed to split some off.

I truly appreciate what you are saying about "leader of the world", but, consider how much of that is emotion or personal feeling, and how much of that is objective and encyclopedic. For example, there is a very good chart on the arms sales to Iraq. Looking it objectively, and I recognize that it does not show things without a dollar value, such as intelligence and military advice, note that the US does not appear as a major line item.

That isn't meant to whitewash the US. It does point out, however, that the then-Soviets and the French, at the very least, were trying for influence with Saddam and in the region. While they certainly were not in physical combat with the US, they were competing in economics, military doctrine and training, and, to some extent, ideology. It is reasonable to say that the US wanted to exhaust both Iraq and Iran, but it is also reasonable to say that the Soviets and Western nations were maneuvering for power in the region. If you look at the region today -- I'm probably most familiar with Sudan, which is sort of on the edges -- consider the US-balancing role of the Shanghai Cooperation Agreement, much more involvement by China, and, which is surprisingly low profile, India.

It would be very nice to have a similar chart for some other factors, but they become difficult--not impossible, but difficult, and I would ask all reader/editors for ideas. A good deal of Iran's military equipment came from US sales/grants under the Shah. Does it make sense to include some of that value in a supplies-to-Iran chart, given that they were provided to a very different government, but recently enough that there were substantial stockpiles?

Another, even more difficult, chart would reflect the WMD precursor and research/production sales. Dollar value isn't always the criterion for the most critical items. Cultures of microorganisms are quite inexpensive -- I've bought cultures, for university research, from the American Type Culture Collection. In biological warfare production, however, the things that are most difficult are the production equipment: fermenters, refrigerated centrifuges, lyophilizers (freeze-dryers), low-temperature grinding mills, etc., all of which have to have a capacity of 100 liters or so. Many years ago, when I tried to set up a microbiological production facility in my university, building all the equipment myself, it was a nightmare of things that didn't work because I didn't have the purpose-built equipment. That was trying to produce no more than 5 liters, and often 2.5.

Further complicating the BW area is that much of this equipment is dual use. For example, the main difference between a fermenter used for beer and for biological warfare is better air filtering and isolation on the BW device -- the "plumbing" inside is the same. There are also perfectly legitimate industrial, medical, and scientific applications for the output of many of these devices; BW starts being a strong possibility when you see the combination of various equipment.

Chemical warfare is easier to follow. Some chemicals are absolutely routine, such as isopropanol or common rubbing alcohol, but it makes up one of the two liquids in a binary nerve gas round. Others, like thiodiglycol, have industrial applicatios, but the quantities sold were beyond that what would be needed in an industrial application. Some of the equipment, in combination with the chemicals, point to nerve gas production -- there are certain steps in the synthesis, involving elemental fluorine, that have to be in platinum, Teflon, or sometimes silver plumbing. Mustard gas is sufficiently easy to make that smoking guns are harder, especially if you use the older Levinstein synthesis. Thiodiglycol is a key ingredient in the more efficient synthesi.

I recognize I have not necessarily put out specific editing proposals, but I think these issues should be in the open. In what I perceive as encyclopedia, "blame" should not be a factor. Rather, measurable actions, and reasonably well-defined actions, should define support.

That is one reason that it is good to separate out the Tanker War, since having the US shooting at Iraq clearly defines one side. In looking at that, however, it's well to consider the very long term commitment of the US and UK to freedom of navigation in international waters. In particular, the Iranian release of drifting mines, of a type that does not know the nationality or type of a ship against which it explodes, quite probably violates international law. I'm fairly certain it violates the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but UNCLOS was not in full force as yet. It had predecessors that are relevant.

Also in the Tanker War, I am appalled on the apparent cover-up/whitewash in the Airbus shootdown. I am somewhat familiar with the AEGIS battle management system and the JTIDS information distribution system on board the Vincennes and parts of which were on other warships, and the officers of the Vincennes ignored a large part of what it was telling them. That CAPT Rogers avoided a court-martial for criminal negligence amazes and shocks me. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, lengthy and too technical in some of its parts, but informative. You are right, all involved parties should be fairly pointed out in the article, and I agree that my comment was not encyclopedic. Imad marie (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You might be surprised, but I agree completely that my reply is far too technical for a talk page, or a main article on the Iran-Iraq War. First, if one breaks out the Iranian-US combat into "Tanker War", there starts being room to discuss, where relevant, the quite different military equipment used by the US and Iraq, as far as it affected combat. It's entirely possible that the details of the radars and combat computers on the Vincennes are too technical for a main Tanker War article, but, at some point, I do not think it is original synthesis to comment on the claims of the ship's captain versus the published specifications of the electronics, which, at the time, were commented upon in reliable technical journals. It's long enough ago that I can't say, from memory, that Aviation Week & Space Technology versus, say, Signal pointed out that the captain's story didn't match the known characteristics of the combat electronics systems, which means either he was lying, incompetent, or both. So, there might even be an encyclopedic sub-article about the Airbus shootdown, presenting objective facts about equipment.

Not you, but others keep arguing that the US bombed Iranian territory as part of the Iran-Iraq War. I'd consider something like Operation Earnest Will as part of the Iran-Iraq war, if and only if the US had coordinated attacks with Iraq. I have never seen evidence of that. That operation, however, was part of the Tanker War, as was the Iranian release of floating mines, which could not recognize the nationality of a ship, into international waters. If the intent of those mines was to deny tanker traffic, in international waters, involving Iraqi exports, then such denial may reasonably, in international law, be considered a blockade -- for which there are international standards. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in the war, so I have to ask... do other reliable sources and encyclopedias list the Tanker War as a separate war?

And about the Vincennes and the technical details you wish to add, can't you add those details to the Iran Air Flight 655 article? Imad marie (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me answer this way -- if you read U.S. Navy operational accounts and reports of the period, they tend to use the names of the various operations that made up the tanker escort, counter-mine warfare, etc. A more formal naval history will use "Tanker War", but it's probably most common to see a time duration and a list of events. This is relevant, in that if one wants to read any U.S. official source, it won't necessarily make a lot of sense unless you know the roles of Earnest Will, Praying Mantis, etc. What you never see in U.S. naval materials is referring to the U.S. as part of the Iran-Iraq war. Many Western historians do use "Tanker War" to cover the time period, and things like the negotiations with the Kuwaitis.

In a conflict, each side will have their own names for it, sometimes propagandistic and sometimes not. Japan most often referred to WWII as the "Pacific War". The Soviets used "Great Patriotic War" or "[Great] Motherland War". Insisting on one side's name for all cases is limiting in reading the full range of literature about it. While it's somewhat tongue-in-cheek, if one refers to the conflict between 1861 and 1865 as the "Civil War" (as opposed to American Civil War), you'll be considered of Northern ancestry/sympathy. The Southern usage tends to be "War between the States", with the caveat that the utterly proper blue-haired volunteers at the Museum of the Confederacy, in Richmond, tend to use euphemisms such as "the late unpleasantness."

As far as the technical details of the Airbus shootdown, consider how a "Tanker War" or similar article will refer to it. If that higher-level article makes it clear that one has to read some of the technical details before understanding that it was most likely incompetence or hyperaggressiveness in one ship, that's fine. If the "Tanker War" article says it was a deliberate policy of the US and then goes on, that's not OK, because if there had been a plan to shoot down the Airbus, it simply would not have been done that way. The transcripts of the recorded operational record appall many naval officers and analysts that understand how the AEGIS combat system is supposed to be used. IIRC, Rogers wasn't even in the Combat Information Center, where one can get the best situational awareness of an air action, given that is where the radar and other displays are located, but on the bridge, where he could rely only on verbal reports -- there wasn't anything useful to see.

Incidentally, some of the technical parts of my response above deal with the Iraqi WMD program, not just the Airbus. Support to Iraqi development is yet another area of discussion, separable from the Iran-Iraq and Tanker Wars.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverting changes based on "per-definition", but there are no such consensus definitions

My earlier text was

{{see|Arms sales to Iraq 1973-1990|U.S. support for Iraq and Iran during the Iran-Iraq war|Iraq-gate (Gulf War)}}", which was reverted.

The U.S., in an ill-advised arms-for-hostage swap, arranged for TOW and HAWK missiles to be provided to Iran. By any definition, providing weapons is support. If the provider does not actively use the weapons, however, it is not a belligerent.

(Undid revision 200506728 by Hcberkowitz (talk) as you yourself said it was linked to tanker war, and per definition pro-Iraq)

Assuming the best of faith on the part of the editor that reverted this, he believes that the US position was pro-Iraq. The intensity of the comments, however, often give me a sense of an agenda to blame the US for everything.

First, what is generally regarded as the "Tanker War" did not involve Iraq at all. The principal belligerents were Iran and the US.

Second, I am unaware of well-sourced, consensus definitions that the Tanker War war pro-Iraq.

Third, it is probably most accurate, based on declassified documents, to say that the US was neither pro-Iraq nor pro-Iran. It was more clearly anti-Iran, but such actions as assisting the Kurdish separatists in Iraq, and then dropping support, was much more a matter of being both anti-Iraq and anti-Iran.

I don't want to get into a revert war. Any suggestions?

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

following, answers to Berkowitz and Imad, Ernxmedia

1- I can assure you that I do not have any agenda to blame US, for everything. Nor is this article a good place for it. I always distinguish between the who and who in the USA politics. You can add USA under reagan, if it gives a better picture of reality. But sorry to say this, but I have the feeling that you and some other editors are working hard to plead USA unguilty of everything. It is not about guilt, but just a correct representation of facts, what I am concerned with. 2- Libya at that time was slightly pro-Iranian by the way. By Arab, I meant the pro-Iraq Arab alliance. Kuaiti and Iraqi oil financed ultimately Iraq. At least this was what the Iranians believed. By fighting Iran then in fact USA secured Iraqi interesst. 3- USA did not bomb the Iranian mainland, but violated the Iranian oilplatforms, which were located in the Iranian territorial waters. 4- I am aware of Iran-Contra affaire, but 1- USA did that for its own interest2- Iran got missiles from other sources too 3- It is important to note, that Iran has bought a big American arsenal during the Mohammedreza shah period, logically Iran eafgerly bought American materials which fitted its arsenal 5- USA only gave a portion of the weapons which Iran had bought. FRor example USA never delivered the F16s that were bought under Shah. 4- About coordination: would you call the mysterious meeting of Saddam with the USA embassy before invading Kuwait as an act of coordination? What about the meeting between Rumsfeld and Saddam. Coordination is difficult to prove. It can be he case, but it is not necessarily (for example it is unimaginable if the Yugoslav partizans have ever coordinated with the allies in the WOII.) 5- I would be grateful if you can afford me information about the USA giving radar images also to Iran. It was Iraq who during the end of the war could manage to liberate some of its territory. This is an indication of that the radar images were given to Iraq, while Iran was put in a deffensive losing for example the long held Fao (faw)port. 6- It is clear that during the end of war, which coincides with the US involvement, Iran was weakened and Iraq revived somehow. The US role was functional 7- Yes I do think that there can be a consensus, which is also fair to your POV. If I read you carefully and you read me carefully you notice that.

dear ernxmedia, my name is not Baba btw.

--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me respond in order. First, I have repeatedly said that the US directly fought Iran in the Tanker War, and that the shootdown of the Airbus was, at best, criminal manslaughter by CAPT Rogers. In a number of US jurisdictions, incidentally, that felony is defined as "a depraved indifference to human life". By separating the broad range of events into three articles, the events in the Tanker War can be thoroughly sourced; they do not require WP:OR, or "difficult to prove" coordination. The support to the military economies of both sides also can be sourced without speculation. That Iraq attacked Iran needs no effort to prove with reliable sources. It is demonstrable that I have described specifics where the U.S. is guilty. What I will continue to challenge is that the U.S. somehow gave permission to Iraq, or played a major role in the direct combat between Iran and Iraq, which you yourself say is difficult to prove. Could we apply Occam's Razor here and focus on what is easily demonstrable, rather than continue to argue about something for which there is no strong evidence?

As to #2, Libya joined the Arab League on 28 March 1953 and is a principally Arabic-speaking country. If it was pro-Iranian, then the infobox claim that the Arab League supported Iraq is false. Libya also had had a continuing argument with the United States, over freedom of navigation in the Gulf of Sidra, since Libya declared them as territorial waters in 1973. There was combat between the US and Libya in 1981, 1986, and 1989. The 1986 incident was over bombing of a German nightclub frequented by US soldiers, but the other incidents centered around freedom of navigation. Official US declarations about the Tanker War centered on freedom of navigation. You cite "At least this was what the Iranians believed." about the US being concerned with supporting Iraq. Belief, in and of itself, does not constitute proof. Freedom of navigation, however, has long been a strong principle of US foreign policy. The very creation of the US Navy was triggered by seizure of ships by the Barbary Pirates, leading to the the First Barbary War from 1801 to 1805 and the Second Barbary War in 1815. Freedom of navigation, in the form of impressment, a factor in the War of 1812. In other words, the U.S. has a history of pressing freedom of navigation that goes back well over 150 years before the Iran-Iraq War. Again, I suggest the application of Occam's Razor.

• (3 is listed twice) Thank you for clarifying the US did not bomb Iran, which could easily have been inferred as your earlier claim. Again, the attacks on the GOSP (gas and oil separation platforms), some of which were being used not for oil production but as bases for armed speedboats and minelaying operations, again pertaining to freedom of navigation. Had the US intent been to wage economic warfare against Iran by crippling its oil industry, there were much better targets that the US clearly could have hit. Again, Occam's Razor, and what is sourced, points to those attacks as related to freedom of navigation in the Tanker War.

• I don't understand your point about mentioning that Iran did not receive all arms purchased from the United States. Arms sales are a traditional means of enforcing foreign policy. Two conditional ultimatums to the Japanese, regarding their expansion in then-French Indochina in 1941, was, to the Japanese, a proximal cause of the attack on Pearl Harbor. To the US, the ultimata resulted in cutoff of raw materials to Japan, in the questionable-in-hindsight but real concern about a threat to a US ally. Tell me, can you think of any factors, between the fall of the Shah and the Iran-Iraq war, which might have caused the US to cut off arms shipments to Iran, factors purely dealing with US-Iranian relations and having no obvious connection with Iraq?

• you did not number it 5, but this comes after 4) You ask, "would you call the mysterious meeting of Saddam with the USA embassy before invading Kuwait as an act of coordination?" My answer is no. Coordination, in a military sense, is a continuing process, requiring substantial communications, and involving working-level military officers as well as high officials. I don't follow your point about the Yugoslav partisans, but, if you want to take them as an example of coordination, a substantial number of Allied special operations teams and supply shipments were parachuted into Yugoslavia. There were on-the-ground special operators; one of my professors, James Eliot Cross, a scholar of guerilla warfare, spent several years there. I cannot find anything remotely resembling the Allied cooperation with the Partisans as demonstrable with Iraq.

• "I would be grateful if you can afford me information about the USA giving radar images also to Iran." I have never made such a claim, and actually find it rather unlikely that the US gave radar imaging to either side. There is documentation that photoreconnaissance data, using a far less sensitive technology, was given to Iraq. If you ask me to give you information, I ask that it be related to something I, not someone else, wrote.

Richard Sale of UPI quoted a former U.S. official as follows: "Exclusive: Saddam key in early CIA plot", by Richard Sale, UPI, April 10, 2003:

a former official said that he personally had signed off on a document that shared U.S. satellite intelligence with both Iraq and Iran in an attempt to produce a military stalemate. "When I signed it, I thought I was losing my mind," the former official told UPI.

Erxnmedia (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• "It is clear that during the end of war, which coincides with the US involvement, Iran was weakened and Iraq revived somehow. The US role was functional" I do not understand what you mean by "functional". Please explain and source that claim.

As far as consensus, I have tried to stay with verifiable facts as much as possible, as I did here. I did not speculate, although, as in the case of the US interest in freedom of navigation going back far before the war in question, did give a historical context. I am perfectly willing to agree that the US attacked Iran, over freedom of navigation issues, in the separate Tanker War, and am willing to agree the Airbus shootdown was criminal. My POV, as you term it, does not extend to agree to things about direct US-Iraqi cooperation that cannot be sourced other than references to a small number of meetings, not remotely consistent with the amount of coordination that is meaningful in a modern war. I suggest, again, that the currently stalemated discussion will advance if:

• The Iran-Iraq War, the Tanker War, and foreign support to both sides are treated separately
• The infobox issue is accepted as trivial other than the belligerents being Iran and Iraq, with the attacker being Iraq. Do note that the Arab League is being claimed, yet you state that Libya was acting not in acordance with Arab League policy.

Reformatting Babakexorramdin for readability, then my response

I have changed leading plus signs to asterisks and made no other changes. My response follows

First this: Assume that UN general assembly does things, which the state X or Y does not. These things do not contradict Libyan or Syrian -for that matter- membership of the Arab league. We can use the Arab league flag as a flag for diverse Arabic forces who particpated, but we can remopve that flag and instead add flags of countries which siginificantly contributed. This is an issue about which should be worked.

• about the arm shipment: you can search for information and find easily information abiout that. Of coarse many factors contributed to a worsening of US/Iran relationship after the revolution. Hostage crisis, the Tabas operations, and Iranian (just) accusation of US having toppled Mosadegh's democratic government and involvement in the Iranian affairs.
• I said what Iranians believed was that the Arab sates such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia sold oil to finance Iraq. In other words they were selling oil for Iraq. This gave reason for Iran to wage the Tanker war. It is irrelavant if they truely did (and we have any reason to belive they did), but it is important to know the motives behind that war. You gave an interesting lecture about the US naval history and I know that you know this history well, but still I do not see any contradictions> There was a war and the USA participated in it. I guess we both agreed in that.
• I never made a claim that USA did not bomb Iran. I clearly said it did, aside from Iran Air plane shot down by the US, US also captured an Iranian ship. The oil platforms and Islands were in the Iranian territorial waters.
• I see that we agree on many things. The only thing which we in fact do not agree on is that the Tanker war and Iran Iraq war were related. Therse are things which are difficult to settle by using sourced material, because sourced material can tell us reliably only about facts, and not about motives. At least the Iranian and the Western sources differ in opinion about it. The only thing is to connect the two events using indications that they were connected or not. At this point I intend to belive they were because of the fact that it was essential and functional. It made Iran to accept armistice. Without it it was very improbable that Iran accepts the term of armistice.
• See your own statement: " Two conditional ultimatums to the Japanese, regarding their expansion in then-French Indochina in 1941, was, to the Japanese, a proximal cause of the attack on Pearl Harbor." How do you know this? --Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"about the arm shipment: you can search for information and find easily information abiout that" But this is Wikipedia. He who makes an assertion is required to source it. It is not my responsibility, or any other editor, to substantiate your claims -- and it is unclear which claim to which you refer.

"I said what Iranians believed was that the Arab sates such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia sold oil to finance Iraq. In other words they were selling oil for Iraq. This gave reason for Iran to wage the Tanker war" First, your statement about Iranian beliefs needs to be sourced. Second, you do not address points that were in violation of the international law of the sea, especially with respect to releasing drifting mines in international waters. "We have reason" (source please). I agree that the Tanker War was primarily between the US and Iran. I do not accept that the Tanker War was coordinated with Iraq by the US. See Operation Earnest Will and Operation Praying Mantis, among others, for the US justifications for its actions, based principally on freedom of navigation. We are not in agreement as long as the Tanker War and US military operations under it are assumed to be a deliberate part of the Iran-Iraq War.

"Therse are things which are difficult to settle by using sourced material." In that case, the things do not belong in Wikipedia, which requires sourced media. "At least the Iranian and the Western sources differ in opinion about it. The only thing is to connect the two events using indications that they were connected or not. At this point I intend to believe they were because of the fact that it was essential and functional." Since you say you cannot source it, that is WP:OR and does not belong in the article. The article should only contain things that can reasonably be sourced."

"*See your own statement: " Two conditional ultimatums to the Japanese, regarding their expansion in then-French Indochina in 1941, was, to the Japanese, a proximal cause of the attack on Pearl Harbor." How do you know this? " Perhaps because of the language of the ultimatums, captured Japanese documents, published statements (interviews and autobiographies) of Japanese officials involved in the decisionmaking, and the records of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East? Also, see Events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2008

(UTC):"*See your own statement: " Two conditional ultimatums to the Japanese, regarding their expansion in then-French Indochina in 1941, was, to the Japanese, a proximal cause of the attack on Pearl Harbor." How do you know this? " Perhaps because of the language of the ultimatums, captured Japanese documents, published statements (interviews and autobiographies) of Japanese officials involved in the decisionmaking, and the records of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East? Also, see Events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

I know what you are saying. We need time in order to have these statements. The victors usually do not admit to their crimes. sometimes they do like Albright said about the role of USA in toppling Mosadegh. You need sources, because it is wikipedia, however The USA POV is widesperead because the USA dominated the Press and Media. I should say there are sources. I however am not good in finding them, because of many reasons>

1- I am outside Iran, in a country with limitted Persian language material source. Most Iranian materials of those times are not digitalized.

3- These are secret documents

4- The USA POV is widesperead because the USA dominated the Press and Media. But please be warned that all sources contain POV.

Another thing is: How do you know if the persons (in japan-USA) case were telling the truth? How do you know that they not did it in order to justify their acts afterwads, or were not forced to do so, or had any other agenda's behind this? Again this wont solve the problem totally.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"I should say there are sources." That isn't adequate for Wikipedia. If you make the statement that your allegations are not sourced, it is completely within the rules of Wikipedia for other editors to delete them.

"We need time". Who is "we"? The people that agree with your POV, but don't have any sources except speculation?

Further, why are Persian documents relevant to establishing a cooperative relationship between the US (English-speaking) and Iraq (Arabic-speaking), a relationship that I have yet to see evidence existed? Separating the Iran-Iraq War from the Tanker War would at least let discussions move in parallel, but you seem completely opposed to that, and also seem committed to proving the US was the villain in all this.

I'm afraid "another thing" is coming across as an excuse to allow opinion to substitute for sourcing. This is hardly the place for a discussion of Japanese war planning, but, to begin with, a substantial number of Japanese diplomatic communications in 1941 were sent by enciphered communications that the Japanese believed, through the war, were secure. In point of fact, their most sensitive diplomatic encryption had been broken, so at least a portion of the evidence are messages sent to Japanese by Japanese. Further, the various Japanese invasions launched in December 1941 were identifiably part of the "Strike-South" faction of the Imperial general staff, to obtain materials in what internal Japanese documents identified as the "Southern Resource Area". If this is your argument, I suggest you spend some time with readily available historical documents; I do not feel it incumbent on me to prove to you how I know, how the cited Wikipedia articles are apparently not disputed over sourcing. Is it really appropriate, for example, to go over David Bergamini's analysis?

So far, all you seem to be saying is that Iran must be right but you can't prove it, and you can't prove it because the mean Americans cover up everything. You brush aside historical analysis of close to two centuries of US insistence on freedom of navigation. Sorry, this does not, in the slightest, come across as an attempt to reach consensus; it comes across as a demand to accept your argument with no proof. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Your words accusing me that I said Mean Americans, or that i will prove that Iran was right is out of place. (When and where did I say such a thing? Can you show me?) They show more your concern to plead USA innocent for everything. I am not talking about that. Your history lecture is very welcome I said. I was exactly reasoning along historical analysis. Action ---> another action, seeing the context --> what would be the reason. This is what we both do, however I say that reasong along this path of reasoning the Tanker war was not totally unrelated to Iran-Iraq War. USA might have had other motives, as you say, but it still affected the course of Iran/Iraq war. By `We`I meant those who care about this history. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there is an accusation -- that you want the article to read a given way, regardless of the Wikipedia policy on sourcing. It was wrong for me to be sarcastic about it, but it is frustrating to hear "your concern to plead USA innocent for everything." I have repeatedly said that the US committed at least one grievous act, shooting down the Airbus, but I hear nothing from you about Iranian acts hazarding civilian commerce in international waters. Indeed, I find you very eager to get the US to accept blame, but I have seen very little in the way of responsibility being assigned to Saddam, who would appear to be have the greatest responsibility in the Iran-Iraq war.

I care about history and am intimately familiar with it, and with its sourcing. I find you quite unwilling to examine Iran's actions during the Tanker War. You seem completely opposed to examining the Iran-Iraq War and the Tanker War separately, even though the Tanker War is the only clear and direct combat between the US and Iran. As long as you contend the Tanker War was only an effort to hurt Iran on behalf of Iraq and the United States, which is all I have heard so far, there is no indication we are moving to any consensus whatsoever. Start examining the Tanker War as a historical event of its own, which happened to coincide with other actions between Iran and Iraq, and this discussion might go somewhere. Otherwise, arbitration seems the only practical alternative for this article. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So lets have a third article which is Relationship of Tanker War to Iran-Iraq War. Erxnmedia (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What I said but Berkowitz apparently does not understand is this: Tanker war was another front. Of course it had its own rationale. Of course USA had their own interests and motives. But these two fronts are interrealted. The Tanker War influenced the course of the main front. Iranian actions were designed in order to cut off oil revenues for Iraq. So intervention in that front of course benefitted Iraq. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I would remind Babakexorramdin to focus on facts, not personalities. If I did so yesterday, I apologize and can only say I'm doing better after a good night's sleep. Babakexorramdin, you have no way of knowing what I understand and do not understand. Now, if you are saying the Tanker War benefitted Iraq, I do not object. I do object to saying it was another front of the Iran-Iraq war, because I have seen no strong sourcing that indicates the US provided as much direct support to Iraq as did, for example, France and the Soviet Union.

The key question, it would appear, is whether we can find a phrasing that agrees that the Iraqi economy got indirect benefits from the Tanker War, all the direct combat between Iran and the US was in the Tanker War and often for reasons having nothing to do with Iraq, and the US did not have an operational-level military cooperation with Iraq, I think that might be a useful approach. The key disagreement between us, I think, and I would like your comment, is that we interpret the role of the Tanker War differently. A secondary issue is sales of military and WMD related material to Iraq, where the US was not the largest supplier. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Tanker War and U.S. support for Iraq 2

CreazySuit, why did you revert my edit here? The discussion about my edit was made here. Do you disagree that the (Tanker War) and (US support) are two distinct topics? Imad marie (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

By assuming that US launched the tanker war to support Iraq then this would be WP:OR, references say that the US launched the war to protect tankers moving across the Gulf, we should adhere to the references. Imad marie (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

US launched the tanker war for many reasons, one of which was to limit Iran's capability to blockade Iraq's oil export, and end Iranian navy domination of Iraqis in the Persian Gulf. --CreazySuit (talk) 07:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Very good, but the US support policy for Iraq is larger that the Tanker War in its scope, and IMO it should be detailed in a separate section. Linking to the US support to the Tanker War only is incorrect. Imad marie (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines

The editing of this article is somehow turning into a mess. I just would like to remind the active editors of two Wikipedia guidelines: Wikipedia:FORUM#FORUM and WP:OR, if we adhere to those guidelines then our lives will be easier and then it doesn't really matter if we are pro/anti-Iraqi/Irani/American. Imad marie (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Victory or Failure? Notes from the infobox

IP address 99.238.111.56 says:

• Tactical Iranian victory

User:CreazySuit says:

• Tactical Iranian failure

I say US supported Iran as well as Iraq, CreazySuit calls that speculation.

That's 2 issues.

There are 5 or 6 issues that can be resolved factually that are disputed and subject to very frequent reversion wars. The article really needs to be locked down and some principles established about how it is getting pushed back and forth.

Also of course the related article U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war is another volleyball but I've flagged that one for move and maybe that one will also go up the chain of mediation and arbitration shortly.

We have a fairly small cast of characters in this space, maybe if we can come up with a list of binary yes/no issues, people can announce their structural biases, and we can proceed from there:

• User:Babakexorramdin
• User:CreazySuit
• User:Imad marie
• User:BoogaLouie
• User:Smb
• User:Hcberkowitz
• User:Erxnmedia
• IP address 99.238.111.56

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I forget the country, but there's an African proverb that advises how to eat an elephant: one bite at a time. Even more than an overall structure, I see the greatest problem here is that there are several interacting arguments going on, without agreement on as something as trivial as flags in an infobox -- infoboxes being intended as supplements to a main article.

Is it being forgotten that the core of the matter is between Iran and Iraq? Accepting that the initial problem is agreeing on what happened between those countries would seem a reasonable structural starting point.

Again, do not let the infobox drive the article. Strategic versus tactical, and victory versus defeat, are not always obvious. Adding to the difficulty of solving such issues is that professional military writing rarely limits itself to the strategic and tactical, but deals with four levels:

• Grand strategic or national policy
• [Military] strategic, at the level of major theaters
• Operational art, at the level of campaigns and forcing battle under the best conditions
• Tactics, which is the conduct of battles, but unfortunately a term inclusive of what 3-5 man fire teams do, as well as 25,000 man divisions.

It might help the discussion to recognize that some of the more controversial matters, such as economic warfare (i.e., the petroleum economy and its infrastructure), diplomacy, military and supply alliance, etc., are at the grand strategic level. Would it help to think of the "foreign involvement" article as most critically being concerned with grand strategic issues, since both Iran and Iraq are sellers of oil so have to participate in a larger international system?

The idea that a military event can be a victory at one level but a defeat at others often confuses people, so I'll try a few examples, and then an analogy. As one case, the WWII Battle of the Coral Sea was a US tactical (or more appropriately operational) defeat, in that it lost more warship tonnage than the Japanese. It was an operational victory, however, as for the first time in the war, a Japanese invasion fleet turned back. "Operational" means that the Japanese lost the ability to choose where they wanted to fight, at least for a period of time. Another example, from the War of Texas Independence, is the Battle of the Alamo, seemingly a total defeat for the Texans. That battle, however, kept the Mexican forces diverted long enough that the remaining Texan forces were able to consolidate and choose to force the decisive Battle of San Jacinto. Reaching back in time, Alexander, looking at the Persian war from an operational standpoint, knew he could not defeat Darius by confronting the stronger Persian navy. Alexander changed the operational context with what the historians Basil Liddell Hart and J. F. C. Fuller called the "indirect approach": attacking not into strength, but weaker infrastructure (the Persian naval bases, where he could use his land power).

It cannot be forgotten that both the Iran-Iraq war and the First World War were stalemates as much as victories of any sort, leaving the belligerents exhausted, and, on top of that, making a bad peace with the Treaty of Versailles for WWI. In the case of the Iran-Iraq War, an action such as Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was as much an effect of a poor peace as the rise of the Nazis was an effect of Versailles.

So, is it possible to focus first on Iran and Iraq, without oversimplifications in an infobox? I believe doing so would be to take the first bite of elephant.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Whose Smb? Ryan4314 (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are my suggestions:

• The tanker war is a sub-war of the Iran-Iraq war, I am not sure if we must create a separate article for it. However we can not conclude that the war was launched to support Iraq, as this would be WP:OR.
• Create a section: "Foreign support of Iraq and Iran in the war", which links to the main article: U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war
• Result of the war in the infobox: no one won, both Iran and Iraq were destroyed economically with no strategic gains. If anyone claims the opposite he has to be backed by sources.

Imad marie (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The title of the article U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war excludes the fact that US supported Iran and was not interested in either side winning. Therefore it is a highly misleading title and should be changed. Also it excludes the idea that other nations offered material support of one kind or another to one or both sides. It is highly misleading not to provide that information. To eliminate both kinds of bias, a better article title and organization would be to retitle the US article as Foreign support of Iraq and Iran in the war, give equal space to US support of Iran, and give equal space to the involvements of other nations in this conflict.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's worth looking at the George Washington University National Security Archive article on the US tilt to Saddam at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm. In some of the discussion here and on the "US Support" article, it has been suggested that the US controlled what other nations did. Document 1, from the US Embassy in Ankara, "Shortly after the beginning of the Iran-Iraq war, the U.S. embassy in Ankara reports that Turkish ports have a backlog of goods awaiting transshipment to Iraq, and that a substantial amount of Israeli goods transit Turkey for "Islamic belligerents," including Israeli chemical products for Iran. It remarks on "Israeli acumen" in selling to both Iran and Iraq.".

About a month later, Israel said it would not sell to Iran, but that European dealers would take up the slack. Of course, Israel later acted as conduit in Iran-Contra. This, and subsequent documents, point to how policies changed actively during the conflicts. Again, let us not forget, in all the sound and fury about US support, that Iraq invaded Iran. At times, it seems as if that's being forgotten.

The investigative report cited earlier mentions that the sale of US weapons to Iraq was principally through third parties. Some of this might have been French and Russian spare parts, but I am unaware of a French or Soviet embargo on either side. Is anyone aware of such?

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Having had another drive-by edit...

What is the feeling about simply listing the outcome as stalemate, rather than, in the infobox, creating controversial and perhaps oversimplified labels about strategy vs. tactics, victory vs. defeat. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested example of dispute resolution

Please take a look at both the article and discussion page about an equally controversial subject, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation. I'm not directly involved, except when I was working on a military article (Counter-terrorism if it's of interest), one of the editors objected to an example I used that mentioned Sri Lanka.

Everything worked out well, improving both the counterterrorism article and the Sri Lanka project. The key thing that was being miscommunicated was that when I referred to "terrorism", and the forms of antiterrorism and counterterrorism defense, I was in no way being political. The terminology I was using is common in military writing, and does not refer to a "Global War against Terror", or even assume that terror or defense against it are necessarily good or evil.

The editor concerned, with considerable informal mediation (so informal we didn't call it that) from User: Black Falcon, realized he had never thought of "terrorism" in other than political terms. He interpreted my reference to counterterror in Sri Lanka as separating the sides in their civil war to "good" and "evil". Indeed, Black Falcon, IIRC, made the point that my usage was not Manichean, as opposed to the way the Bush Administration speaks of an "axis of evil".

I'm going to copy this to the other Iraq-Iraq talk pages, as I think it's a very useful example. Before we get back to structuring the article(s), I strongly suggest that we see if we can adopt some of that project's techniques for keeping argument focused and polite. It's worth noting that their project has "reconciliation" in its name, even though they are dealing with current events. From my personal standpoint, the discussions here have not at all been focused on getting to truth and reconciliation, but refighting wars and finding guilt. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Material support branch articles

A workaround to the bias in

1. pointing only to U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war
2. not showing clearly support provided by other nations

is to create a separate article for U.S. support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq War and then a parent article for Foreign support during the Iran-Iraq war, and then link to the Foreign article in the Iran-Iraq War page and have the Foreign article link to the US-Iraq Support and US-Iran Support articles.

This neatly separates out all the issues and then people who want to buff a particular POV can sharpen up the article that emphasizes what they care about, i.e. if you believe that US was all about supporting Iraq then you buff that article and ignore the others. At least this way there is no way to delete the articles with the evidence that people want to ignore or minimize, because it will be harder then to delete those separate sections without exposing strong bias.

Everybody OK with this solution?

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me be sure I understand. I think I hear you saying that you suggest at least three articles:

• Foreign support in the Iran-Iraq War (not specific to either side, summarizing support to both sides)

• US support to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War
• US support to Iran during the Iran-Iraq War

Is there any objection to similar second level articles for France, the Soviet Union, Singapore, etc.?

Question: how does the Tanker War fit into your framework? I look at that as a direct conflict between Iran and the US (and allies), with Iraq having no significant part -- other than the attack on the USS Stark. That the tanker war might have helped either country economically simply does not strike me as a major motivator, given the history of the US with respect to freedom of navigation. I can't emphasize how strongly US foreign policy has always emphasized this point, and I suspect it affected US policy even more than the Embassy hostage taking, although the mainstream media don't often bring that out.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we have enough references about U.S. support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq War? AFAIK we have only two facts about it, Iran-Contra_Affair and sharing of the satellite intelligence, is this enough to create an article about it? Imad marie (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I don't have a copy of Alan Friedman's book, but another editor mentioned that it said that US officers were side-by-side with Iraqi staff. Unfortunately, that is fairly general, and I'd really want to have a second source, preferably with documents or interviews with named participants, to confirm that.

If there is reliably sourced material that US personnel worked directly with Iraqi operational personnel, that is clearly notable. I am quite willing to have that brought in, but I am uncomfortable with putting it in only with the somewhat vague statements by Friedman.

Does anyone have Ambassador Peter Galbriath's End of Iraq (2006) ISBN-13: 978-0-7432-9505-5? I don't have the book, but I just got a note that it may contain information of US Special Forces assisting Kurdish rebellion against Saddam.

I also have not seen anything about sharing satellite intelligence with Iran. Since the shipments in Iran-Contra came through Israel, it may be worth searching for more data on Israeli assistance to Iran, even if it was at the request of the US. Look at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm, especially the differences between documents 1 and 2. There are references later on to Israeli actions, but, not having read every document in detail yet, they seem more concerned with regional security negotiation, apparently brokered by US diplomats, about things that would benefit Israel and Iraq.

Incidentally, did any other countries provide material support to Iran? I simply don't know, and am asking this for information. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference source

The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars has a joint project on the Iran-Iraq War at http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=topics.item&news_id=90411.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

US involvement in the Ceasefire

I purpose adding the following paragraph, either to the "The Tanker War and U.S. support for Iraq" or to the "Towards a ceasefire" section. I am not sure where it would be more appropriate, as it relates one cause of the ceasefire to the US involvement in the tanker war. Here it is:

In his memoirs, Hashemi Rafsanjani, an aid to Khomeini, claims that Iranian defeat by the United States in Operation Praying Mantis and the American attack on the Vincennes produced a fear in the ayatollah that allowed his advisers to convince him that he could not risk a wider war with the United States. Fearing that he would lose control of the country, Khomeini accepted the UN-backed cease-fire (UN Resolution 598). Editor8472 (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Editor,

I will add your suggested paragraph.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Rafsanjani says nothing of sort in his memoirs, Amir Taheri is a not reliable source, he's been caught making false statement or attributing false quotes many times before, 2006_Iranian_sumptuary_law_controversy is just an example of it. Here is a good article about Taheri. [8] --CreazySuit (talk) 07:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(Tanker War) and (Foreign Involvement)

CreazySuit, why are you objecting to splitting the section into two? Don't you agree that the foreign involvement in the war was an eight year long process (and maybe more) and its scope is larger than and separate from the tanker war scope? Imad marie (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert wars and order of battle

I'm assuming that the principal reason for reverting is a source disagreement over order of battle (e.g., number of tanks), rather than the eternal issue of the U.S. flag. My reading of the Library of Congress document gives 1,000 tanks, a number used in neither source. I'd really like to understand from which specific documents each of the numbers are coming.

Numbers like this, however, are often oversimplifications. For example, Iraqi maintenance was not world-class, and Iran had spare parts problems due to embargoes. It is quite safe to assume that neither side had all its tanks and fighting vehicles operational. Differing doctrines make the number of tanks more or less effective, as well as supporting arms and equipment on the vehicles. Both the U.S. M1 Abrams and the Soviet T-72 tanks in the 1991 war used 120mm main guns. Both used armor-piercing, fin-stabilized, discarding sabot shells. The penetrator dart of those rounds, however, was depleted uranium in the U.S. ammunition and tungsten (or possibly steel) in the Iraqi equivalent -- their penetrating power was not remotely comparable.

Are the exact numbers worth a revert war? Is it really that important to spend this much effort on the infobox, when the tactical utilization of the armored vehicles (tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, self-propelled howitzers, scout vehicles, etc.) and battle results is more important? At the Battle of 73 Easting, E Troop, 2nd U.S. Armored Cavalry, destroyed over 20 Iraqi tanks with no losses to itself. I'm sure there were actions when Iran or Iraq prevailed. Is not the tactical results more important than the absolute numbers in the infobox?

I'd like to learn more about the actual use of the weapons rather than watch revert after revert. I suspect I am not alone in this.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

separation of the tanker war and US support to Iraq

Clearly, the US support to Iraq is larger in its scope than the tanker war. I suggest separating the subjects in two sections. Pejman47, Erxnmedia, CreazySuit and Hcberkowitz are invited to respond. Imad marie (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

May I offer what I believe is a constructive suggestion? It's not so much that US support to Iraq is larger in scope than the tanker war, but that the US involvement with Iran and Iraq, during the years of the Iran-Iraq war, is not limited to US direct combat with Iran during the Tanker War, US support to Iraq, or Iran-Contra. All three of these things fit under one logical heading, although I do think it is important not to give the impression, which I get from some statements, that the US support was personally to Saddam and it was the US that effectively controlled Iraq. I suggest that there are at least three branches, and the US support to Iraq may very well divide again into US supply (or US-permitted third-party supply) to Iraq, and US military & intelligence operational support for Iraq.

This is not meant to obscure any unwise decisions by the US, but it is meant to point out that the relationships between the US and both Iran and Iraq are complex. I have cited declassified documents that put one of the key US goals, for strategic reasons of the US, as keeping the Strait of Hormuz open. That goal fits in with a long-term historic position of the US, going back nearly two centuries, of considering freedom of navigation to be a critical national goal. While the Tanker War may have been of indirect benefit to Iraq, insisting that it was done purely to help Iraq simply contradicts a broader historical context. Freedom of navigation, including eliminating private threats to shipping, is not unique to the US, UK, or a variety of other countries; see both the de facto and de jure observance of the annex to the Treaty of Paris of 1856. That treaty's main purpose was ending the Crimean War, but the annex dealt with banning privateering. Freedom of navigation falls under a long series of law-of-the-sea treaties (and actions like the Barbary Wars and the War of 1812), in a continuous sequence going to the current UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the most recent version of which came well after the Iran-Iraq War.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I agree with both of you.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Waving arms appropriately at the heavens, there may be consensus, but about what? This seems another argument about infobox contents disconnected to anything else.

The Soviet T-34 was the best all-around medium tank of the Second World War. If, my country had 10,000 of them, and the other side had 100 Russian export-quality T-72's or US M1A2's, as long as the other side had main gun ammunition, the T-34s would be badly outnumbered. Admittedly, one German officer said that the Nazis ran out of antitank rounds before the U.S. ran out of the mediocre M4 tank, but the point is that the T-34 gun could, at best, dent the armor on the modern tank, but antitank rounds from an M1 can and did went through and destroyed several inferior tanks (e.g., T-54).

Absolute numbers don't matter in armored warfare. Tanks alone are vulnerable to infantrymen with antitank weapons, so effective operations need tank-infantry teams and the training to operate them. At least the Iranians had long-range antitank missiles (US TOW), which would be deadly if their crews were not at least under cover from artilery or airstrikes.

So, again, I ask about the significance of the infobox order of battle numbers, consensus or not. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Howard, this isn't what we are discussing here. We are discussing if we should split (tanker war) from (US support). Imad marie (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to reorder the section. The section should not equate the US support to Iraq with the US support to Iran. Imad marie (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably got that "consensus" confused with the ongoing revert war on the infobox.

To try to answer, while it would be an unfamiliar term, I'd even be willing to call the "Tanker War" the "US-Iran War". At a minimum, yes, there are branches for US (and other foreign) support to Iraq to assist Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War, and there is the Tanker War. I have some more extensive thoughts, but let's not digress. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

US launched the tanker war for many reasons, one of which was to limit Iran's capability to blockade Iraq's oil export, and end Iranian navy domination of Iraqis in the Persian Gulf. There is clearly a disagreement about this, you can not impose your desired version of event with edit-waring, the original version should remain until there is a consensus. --CreazySuit (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What edit warring?

To what edit warring do you refer? Most of my comments have been on talk pages. I did cite declassified US government documents about the priority given to navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, signed by Ronald Reagan. Do you have a reliable source that contradicts that NSDD? If so, by all means cite it.

Are you saying that I am forbidden to offer my position in a disagreement on the talk page, or by citing documentary evidence? That seems to be what you are accusing.

The word you just used was "blockade". Blockades are, in customary international law, an act of war. Are you suggesting, then, that if Iran initiated a blockade, the US was the aggressor by responding to an act of war? As a starting point, see Restrictions With Regard to the Exercise of the Right of Capture in Naval War (Hague XI); October 18, 1907,http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague11.htm Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Howard,

I think I'm who he's talking about. C-suit is hitting the delete key on Imad Mairie contributions claiming "no consensus". I am un-deleting his deletes. C-suit thinks that deleting his deletes of other people's contributions is not cricket.

So maybe he is confusing me with you.

I am sort of ready to confuse User:Pejman47 as being a double for C-suit to use when C-suit needs backup for a delete. It would be nice if Wikipedia offered a way of authenticating users as separate individuals. I don't know what the technology is for detecting sock-puppets other than coincidence and pattern of edits.

Thanks,

Erxnmedia (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to feel trapped in George W. Bush's idea of Abbott and Costello do international relations, "Hu's on First." Alternatively, it may take a skilled auditor to determine what is being deleted and restored by whom. It may take some higher mathematics to recognize the pattern, presumably some sort of directed cyclic graph, or perhaps a system of really weird simultaneous equations. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you Hcberkowitz, I was referring to Imad and Erxnmedia splitting the "The Tanker War and U.S. support for Iraq" via edit-waring without archiving a consensus for it here on talk page. Several users have opposed the split, but Imad and Erxnmedia are going ahead with it anyway. Also, I did not intent to delete any sourced content, but the original format should be restored until there is a clear consensus to split. --CreazySuit (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. As has been mentioned, I have been working on articles for every country I can identify that provided support to Iran, Iraq, or both. It is important for the appearance of NPOV, I believe, that there not be only such an article for the U.S.

Without making any decision on the Tanker War, what is your opinion about additional country sub-articles? I have one in my sandbox on French support to Iraq, which is in reasonably good shape but that I don't think I want to move to mainspace until I sleep on it. Next, I'd probably deal with the Soviets and Iraq, as there's quite a bit of related or competitive issues between France and the Soviet Union in their support for Iraq. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good Hcberkowitz, I have no problem with additional sub-articles dealing with France, USSR or any other country. I don't deny that many countries beside US supported Iraq, nor do I deny that US sold arms to Iran during a period of the conflict. My only issue is the attempt to equate USA's large-scale support for Iraq, with their arms-for-hostage deals with Iran and conclude that US equally "supported" Iran. The US sold arms to Iran during the Iran-Contra, but the controversial claim that US shared satellite intelligence with Iran is unreliable, and a fringe view, to say the least, I have never seen such claim made by any other author or scholar of the war, with so much literature available on the war. The mainstream view is that US shared satellite images with Iraq, but not Iran. --CreazySuit (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we are getting somewhere. There is no question in my mind that the US tilted to Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War, and that doesn't equate to the TOW and HAWK missile supplies. To me, as I look through an increasing number of declassified documents from the U.S., the more it appears that the U.S. fought a war with Iran, relatively separate from the Iran-Iraq War. In other words, what is hard for me to see is a close cooperation of the US and Iraq against Iran.

To me, it is much clearer to deal fairly separately with the US assistance to Iraq and the direct US combat with Iran. The reality was that Iraq was not using US weapons to any significant extent, and I have seen no evidence that the US was advising, or even commanding, Iraqi forces at any level below cooperation between national headquarters. The figure of 60 DIA officers has been mentioned, and, as military assistance missions go, that's quite small. The advisory forces in Laos in 1959-1960 were larger, in a much lower technology war. The idea of having multiple country entries gives a little more sense that the matter is being considered fairly, especially with the major weapons suppliers to Iraq.

There was anger on both the US and Iranian side. I'm not trying to claim either side was completely right or wrong. My suggestion, however, is that it is far easier to come up with a plausible history if there is less effort to bind the US and Iraq in a joint effort against Iran. Unfortunately, it can be hard for people on the US and Iranian sides to see how both sides did things that they might have considered justified, but were inflammatory to the other -- and I'm not restricting that to having started with the Iran-Iraq War. Events from Mossadegh to allowing the Shah into the US to the embassy takeover to the mining of the Gulf, in their individual ways, produced tension generally not seen rationally. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me comment:

• CreazySuit, I ask you to be more contributing in the talk page, and less contribution to the "UNDO" button.
• CreazySuit is right, the US support to Iraq should not be equated to the US support to Iran. However, if CreazySuit is trying to show that US and Iraq were allies against Iran then he is wrong. US and Iraq were "allies of convenience" and US "appeased" Iraq, that is different than being allies against Iran. Eventually Saddam was captured and hanged by the Americans.
• About creating additional sub-articles, I don't think is right. We already have two sub-articles and they are creating confusion. What I suggest, creating an article Foreign involvement in the Iran-Iraq war, and all sub-subjects should be covered in it: US support to Iraq, US balancing powers in the war, France support, etc.... this helps the reader gets the "big picture" and it is balanced and fair in my opinion.

Imad marie (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

US Support for Iraq and Tanker War, my reaction so far

My reaction so far: I should say that I agree wiith CreazySuit and that the Tanker War was directly related to and result of US suuport for Iraq, and that Imad and Xtmedia shouldn't be spliting the section.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 06:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess we all had a consensus that the USA was not an "indirect" combatant. Indirect combatant means that they did not take military action. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Formula for consensus:

[As Indirect Combatant in the Iran-Iraq main front (hier link to the provision of Sattelite info) and a direct combatant in the Tanker war (hier link to the article, in which all facts are written and it is up to the reader to to reach to any cnclusion)] This is fair and the ultimate consensus which summerizes all our discussions until now.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good direction. Treating the Tanker War as related to the Iran-Iraq War, but as a separate conflict with different causes on both sides, makes analysis easier. Does it make sense to say that the Tanker War would not have started had there been no Iran-Iraq conflict, but once it started, the US had motivations that were not primarily concerned with assisting Iraq? Just as Iran had reasons it considered fair to be angry with the US, so did the US have reasons to be angry -- and I'm not saying either side was right. Had there been a mutually trusted negotiator, perhaps that conflict could have been avoided or limited.

As far as US advisory and intelligence support to Iraq, some certainly took place. The question in my mind is the scope and criticality of this relationship, and how deeply the US organization was enmeshed in the Iraqi command structure. For example, it is very different for intelligence officer to observe the use of chemical weapons, pass it up to higher levels of command and Presidential policy, and be told to ignore it. It is quite another to participate in planning chemical attacks. There are lots of rumors but very little verifiable substance; I'm uncomfortable with a journalist, especially in a book, saying that "reliable sources" gave him information. I'd like to see some declassified documents, or interviews, with a name (since many officers would have retired by now), of direct participants.

It occurs to me that Walter (Pat) Lang has an active blog, would probably have known the specifics, and might comment. If there's a way to use such a source without OR, perhaps we can come up with a way to do it.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

no one knows what has happened if... --Babakexorramdin (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sub-articles by arbitrary nations for support to Iraq, Iran, or both

I have the first of a series of sub-articles for countries other than the U.S. supporting one or both of the major belligerents, now in my userspace at User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-French support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. It's in reasonable draft form, but comments are always welcome.

My immediate question is whether there is any preference about how and where such articles should be linked from this article. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say make a small intro, with title "international involvement" then highlight the name of countries, which serve as links to the articles. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea, but there are several sections in the current article with which it overlaps. Perhaps I might just put in a top-level heading for "involvement" with the country articles, including US, underneath it. Think about whether or not the section should contain links to stubs or red-linked names for stubs.

The existing headings that would be affected include:

• The Tanker War and U.S. support for Iraq (i.e., US support for Iraq is one of the sub-articles, so US support becomes redundant in the header)
• [country]'s armament and support. These might remain as a fusion of all the national support sub-articles plus what the country already had. It's the support aspect that might duplicate. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

you may add short intro's for the main supporters to Iran and Iraq separately and link them to the (coming) main articles--Babakexorramdin (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Foreign support to Iraq and Iran added

I put in this section to supplement the sections on total national resources. It simply happened that I finished the French support to Iraq first. Is there a category for French relations with Iran and Iraq?

It's important, I think, to bring out that Iraq played France and the Soviet Union against one another. I am actively working on a number of countries in my userspace, some as working drafts and some just as userspace redlinks. If anyone else would like to take on other countries that supported Iran, Iraq, or both, let me know; it's too much for me to get done in a reasonable time. I expect to finish the Soviet and Italian articles next, but haven't decided which to do after that.

This section does link to U.S. support. I don't think there's consensus, as yet, for what should go under Iran-Iraq War#Tanker war and U.S. support versus the U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and U.S. support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq war articles. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying purpose of section

I am trying quite hard to keep this section at a minimally POV level, and would appreciate not strengthening charges that are made in the articles to which this section points, and, at present, elsewhere on the main Iran-Iraq War page. It benefits Wikipedia to reduce the heat on this page, whether between Iran and Iraq, or regarding their relations with any other country, including the US. There is much anger here, and I would like to see it reduced.

For that reason, I reverted an edit that added more reasons why the US supported Iraq. The section established that there was support for Iraq against Iran; I'm afraid I see no reason to lengthen the list of ways the US supported Iraq in this section

Editors will have every opportunity to list sourced claims in the sub-articles by country. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Timeline for major operations

The sections (List of major Iranian operations during the war) and (List of major Iraqi operations during the war) are really ugly, and take much of the page length. How about we create a timeline for them, I created a test timeline here, comments are appreciated Imad marie (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That looks good. Let me offer something that helped in the article SIGINT in Modern History, to try to deal with multiple views of the same material: [[Image:SIGINT-SEA-1959-1963.png } thumb | one of several timelines dealing with signals intelligence in the Vietnam War. I had several such timelines, starting around SIGINT in modern history#Early days: American and Operational Perspective. These were done in PowerPoint, not the best tool for the job. I wonder if there might be value to using the approach of having entries above and below the dates, to show views from the different sides or different sources. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)