Over the course of the last 40 years, the United States has been tangled in the political environments of both the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Republic of Iraq. This entanglement is rooted in the contradictory involvement of the United States in the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980’s. In the war, the United States supported both sides of a conflict in which it officially wished to end, but the resources it provided may have actually allowed the war to continue. One should ask, “Why would the United States pursue contradictory policies in a war it claimed to want to end?” The contradictory policies are grounded in the fact that the United States aimed to effectively prevent a victory from either country, ensuring the security of its interests
…show more content…
It has even been noted that the United States may have known prior to supplying tactical information that a chemical weapons attack was impending, but no actions were taken to prevent these attacks . In 1987, the Iraqi military fired missiles at the USS Stark, resulting in the deaths of dozens of sailors. Even though the “accidental” military strike was committed by Iraq, the Reagan administration used the event to further build support against Iran. Reagan even stated after the Iraqi strike, “The villain in the piece really is Iran.”1 Truly, the support for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War was tremendous considering the state of relations only a decade earlier. At this one point, one must consider why the United States would support the Soviet backed regime of Saddam Hussein in the first place. As mentioned previously, the United States did not necessarily want Iraq to win the war, but it certainly did not want Iran to win. If Iran won, the administration feared the imminent destabilization of the Middle East and the spread of the anti-American rhetoric seen in the Islamic …show more content…
In his book, Malcolm Byrne lays out a few prominent reasons for the American sale of weapons to Iran, and the greatest of these motivations was a new hostage crisis2. In the mid-1980’s, Hezbollah, an Islamic extremist group backed by the Khomeini regime, took several American hostages. Certain members of the Reagan administration believed that working with moderates in Iran’s government would result in the release of the hostages and the restoration of Shah-era relations. Ending only on Reagan’s Inauguration Day, the Iranian Hostage Crisis likely had a great impact on President Reagan, and he did not want to endure the same trials of Jimmy Carter. For this reason, the goal of getting the hostages back swiftly and safely consumed him. Even though Reagan publicly disavowed negotiating with terrorists, the sale of arms to Iran was largely an attempt to resolve the situation. He even said that he would go to prison if it meant ensuring the safety of the American hostages . In 1986, Reagan claimed that the theories of using the sale of arms as ransom payments were “wildly speculative” and were simply not true . A few months later, however, Reagan acknowledges that the facts and evidence suggest that his previous comments were false, and he concedes that he let his concern for the hostages affect his
It has even been noted that the United States may have known prior to supplying tactical information that a chemical weapons attack was impending, but no actions were taken to prevent these attacks . In 1987, the Iraqi military fired missiles at the USS Stark, resulting in the deaths of dozens of sailors. Even though the “accidental” military strike was committed by Iraq, the Reagan administration used the event to further build support against Iran. Reagan even stated after the Iraqi strike, “The villain in the piece really is Iran.”1 Truly, the support for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War was tremendous considering the state of relations only a decade earlier. At this one point, one must consider why the United States would support the Soviet backed regime of Saddam Hussein in the first place. As mentioned previously, the United States did not necessarily want Iraq to win the war, but it certainly did not want Iran to win. If Iran won, the administration feared the imminent destabilization of the Middle East and the spread of the anti-American rhetoric seen in the Islamic …show more content…
In his book, Malcolm Byrne lays out a few prominent reasons for the American sale of weapons to Iran, and the greatest of these motivations was a new hostage crisis2. In the mid-1980’s, Hezbollah, an Islamic extremist group backed by the Khomeini regime, took several American hostages. Certain members of the Reagan administration believed that working with moderates in Iran’s government would result in the release of the hostages and the restoration of Shah-era relations. Ending only on Reagan’s Inauguration Day, the Iranian Hostage Crisis likely had a great impact on President Reagan, and he did not want to endure the same trials of Jimmy Carter. For this reason, the goal of getting the hostages back swiftly and safely consumed him. Even though Reagan publicly disavowed negotiating with terrorists, the sale of arms to Iran was largely an attempt to resolve the situation. He even said that he would go to prison if it meant ensuring the safety of the American hostages . In 1986, Reagan claimed that the theories of using the sale of arms as ransom payments were “wildly speculative” and were simply not true . A few months later, however, Reagan acknowledges that the facts and evidence suggest that his previous comments were false, and he concedes that he let his concern for the hostages affect his