MERGED-->Iran's President Said + New Situation in Middle East

[maycocksean]

Here's my opinion: Iran has and always will be an enemy of the US and its allies.

Well, I don't know about that. Wasn't it just 30 years ago that we were pretty tight with our buddy the Shah?

 

[yolland]

How Iran played the hostage "crisis"

By Hooman Majd
salon.com, Apr. 05, 2007

The so-called crisis over the Iranian capture of 15 British sailors and Marines in the Persian Gulf ended rather quickly, perhaps to the dismay of some who may have been looking for a prolonged standoff to provide a casus belli for armed intervention. The way the crisis started and why will be the subject of numerous analyses for days to come. But the way it ended -- as a "gift to the British people," in the formulation of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- was Persian grandiosity at its finest, and a political victory for the beleaguered leader.

Most Iranians, including many in government, were on holiday when the British sailors from the HMS Cornwall were captured by a naval unit of the Revolutionary Guards on March 23. The Iranian new year, which begins with the official ushering in of spring and runs until its 13th day (coincidence, perhaps, that the British captives were freed exactly 13 days after the capture?), is a time when even the newspapers cease to publish. Tehran, one of the most crowded cities in the world, becomes a comparative ghost town. (Think Paris in August.) Some have suggested that Iran's seizing the British sailors was a premeditated move to rally popular support around the government, or to distract the population from other, namely nuclear, issues. But those notions were clearly preposterous to any Iranian observer; the fact that there was little coverage of the "crisis" inside Iran, at least early on, made that abundantly clear.

Though the Iranian government insisted from the start that the British sailors were caught in Iranian waters, curiously, President Ahmadinejad, never one to shy away from speaking on behalf of his nation, or even to make an issue his personal crusade, was conspicuously silent. That a week of the "crisis" went by before he made his first comments (and mild comments at that) showed who was really in charge: Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Revolutionary Guards report directly to him, and whether or not Khamenei knew in advance of the military gambit, he was definitely calling the shots on this one and wanted no interference from presidential quarters. And Khamenei is a master at the kind of game the British seemed to want to play, at least in the beginning: tough words, and an insistence on the veracity of their version of the events. The British maintained echoes of a colonial attitude, at least in the eyes of the Iranians, about their presence in the Persian Gulf, which the state-owned BBC referred to as the "Arabian Gulf" in its broadcasts -- an insult of the highest order to any Iranian, Islamic or not. When the British government went public with GPS coordinates of the captured boat and began discussions at the U.N. Security Council to condemn Iran's action, Iran's response was to put the British sailors on television.

It was an act that seemed provocative and self-destructive to many people in the West -- but was in fact quite brilliant in its execution. The Iranians showed the British captives on Iran's Arabic language satellite station, a station that hardly anyone inside Iran actually watches (very few Iranians speak Arabic). But its broadcasts are beamed to Arab countries across the region, where Iran has much support and sympathy among ordinary people. And the message was clear enough: Iran was treating the British, hated though they are, very well -- unlike the way the British and Americans treat Arab prisoners, whether in Basra, Abu Ghraib or Guantánamo. No hooded or shackled prisoners here, certainly no humiliating human pyramids. In Iranian custody, the captives played chess and ate well. Upon receiving their freedom, they were attired in civilized-looking, albeit Tehran-made, suits.

The British sailors appeared to admit their trespass into Iranian territory on television without any visible signs of coercion. Many in the West may feel certain that the sailors' "confessions" were made under duress, but it should be remembered that even were the Arab street to believe that, their conclusion might well be that the British naval personnel were extremely weak, given that they were seen enjoying hearty meals and were not terribly nervous. Either way, the Iranians were winning where it mattered. The Arab street was being reminded that the British, once hated as colonial masters in the region and now hated as servants of the U.S., were meddling in both Iraq and in Iran's territorial waters. And if the Arab governments were too timid to do anything about it, well, the Iranians weren't. Any downside to a reaction of disgust by Westerners at the display of the confessions was tempered by the knowledge that Iranian power and British weakness, even humiliation, was on display for the whole world to see.

And inside Iran, for those Iranians less preoccupied with vacation, the sense from the very beginning was that the British --along with their bullying big brother -- are up to no good in the Gulf and more than deserved to be called out on it. Iran also quickly saw an advantage to be gained, at a time of mounting threats by the U.S., Britain and Israel against its nuclear program, in showing that it is not toothless in the face of mightier and technologically superior forces in the Gulf. The relative ease with which the Revolutionary Guards made off with their captives -- amid a host of U.S. and British naval vessels almost bumping into each other in the shallow waters off the Iranian coast -- was doubtless a cause for celebration in Tehran. It also surely caused some worry among other Gulf states, those that depend on the U.S.-British alliance for their protection.

Within the corridors of power in Tehran there was undoubtedly much discussion on how to proceed with the "crisis." Ayatollah Khamenei's style, ruling by consensus, showed in the seemingly schizophrenic pronouncements coming from various government sources, both hard-line and pragmatic. But Khamenei's success lies in that very style; he will allow various competing parties a certain amount of freedom of opinion and action, and when he feels the time is right, he will quickly make a decision and have it acted on immediately, before anyone has a chance to object too strenuously.

It is hard to know exactly where Ahmadinejad stood on the issue up until his announcement that the sailors had been pardoned (pointedly not by him, but by "Iran"). But wherever Ahmadinejad stood earlier, he clearly wanted, in his vainglorious style, to be the person who delivered the good news of their release. The 13th day of the Persian New Year, Norouz, was on Monday, a day Iranians know as seezdah-bedar, traditionally a day to spend outdoors. That day, Ahmadinejad announced a press conference for Tuesday, the first real working day of the Persian year, a sign that there might be some news on the British captives as well as on Iran's nuclear program. The press conference was quickly postponed to Wednesday, indicating that either Ahmadinejad didn't have the Supreme Leader's approval to hold one yet, or that there was still some maneuvering to be done by him to ensure that he could be the one to make the announcement.

It is quite likely the decision to "pardon" the British captives had already been made on Monday; what remained to be worked out was how to extract maximum advantage for Tehran. Ahmadinejad, more often the angry, indignant or sometimes offensive public face of the Islamic Republic, was going to be allowed a heroic moment -- a moment he desperately needed at a time when even his conservative supporters are questioning his leadership.

Stories are told in the Middle East of the Prophet Mohammad's good deeds and his compassion, even for his enemies, and Ahmadinejad was going to be, Saladin-like, compassionate. The Iranians had made their point, and in a gesture of Shia Muslim magnanimity, after only 13 days of captivity, the sailors were going home in time for their very own Christian holiday of Easter.

A bit eyebrow-raising in places, but quite possibly on-target so far as its analysis of the intended primary audience and message.

 

[trevster2k]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1259413,00.html

Interesting...

 

[Muldfeld]

Here's my opinion: Iran has and always will be an enemy of the US and its allies. The US and its allies should always be on guard to anything Iran says or does.

Actually, the US has historically interfered in the Middle East after the Western Europeans consistently interfered. Iran will be an enemy because America has historically condescended to it and manipulated the will of the people.

Since WWII, the US has pressured Iran into joining its orbit instead of staying neutral as its leaders wanted. The US wanted to ensure access to oil supplies and wanted to prevent Soviet influence. So unwilling were American officials to have any vital area outside of their control that the US allowed its corporations to obtain beneficial oil deals while denying the Soviets the same. In 1953, the CIA engineered a coup to replace a more democratic government (from what I understand) with the brutal Shah. Only in 1979 was he overthrown and an understandably irrational fundamentalist revolution took place. Sadly, this resulted in a hostage crisis with which Americans are all too familiar -- bordering on ridiculous obesssion. Under the Reagan administration, the US funds and supports Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime -- the regime American officials now rightly claim was immoral -- and supplied it with arms and biological weapons to wage an 8-year war on Iran.

If I were Iranian, I'd bear a pretty strong anti-American sentiment for the people of the US for allowing their government to do this all in the name of fighting Communism. Still, Iran's population is young, has opposed much of the oppressive regime's tendencies and stood with America after 9/11. Yet, Bush unleashes unhelpful rhetoric about Iran being evil. It then attacks Iraq for trying to develop nuclear weapons all the while trying to develop Star Wars. Understandably, Iran wants to avoid such an invasion from an aggressive opponent which has historically interfered in its affairs for decades and waged war through others. All this enmity helps idiot and racist President Ahmadinejad come to power. While Israel has illegally had a nuclear arsenal and occupied Muslims in the region for decades, the US only has a problem with non-allies doing so. It has backed and funded Israel with arms and funding to engage in terrorism from its inception. While I don't doubt the idiocy and racism of regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the US has supported these despotic regimes against popular will for decades.

If the American people can only imagine threats and potential enemies and engages in preemptive action to counter these imagined threats, then it will have them, but do not be confused about who started this aggression and has practiced hypocritical mores about warfare and violence.

Iran is suspected of helping Al Qaeda, which I deplore, but how is funding Iraq in a direct attack as well as Israel in continued occupation and deprivation of human rights not terrorism. I can guarantee you the US has caused more Iranian deaths than Iran ever has American ones, and the former are provable!

And don't even get me started about US involvement in Latin America.....

I understand if many of you are unaware of this, but CNN is not the best source of news. PBS' Newhour is better, though it has its problems, and the BBC World News and CBC national news are excellent in getting a more informed and balanced perspective instead of short-term nationalist nonsense by poorly educated anchor people who act cool.

 

[trevster2k]

Another twist to the saga.

Captives' media fees spark fury

Royal Marine Captain Chris Air and Lieutenant Felix Carman

The Ministry of Defence's decision to allow Royal Navy personnel held captive by Iran to sell their stories has sparked anger and unease.

Opposition MPs said the move was undignified while relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq said they did not want to make money from their tragedies.

But the MoD said families of the crew had already been offered "significant sums" by the media.

Lt Felix Carman, who was held, said any fee was likely to go to charity.

"I am not interested in making money out of this," the 26-year-old from Swansea told the BBC.

"My main aim is to tell the story. There's some people who might be making money, but that's an individual's decision, that's very private, but that's not something that myself or many of the others will do."

The MoD said its decision would ensure officials "had sight" of what might be said as well ensuring "proper media support" to the captured crew members.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6537103.stm

 

[Vincent Vega]

Money talks.

 

[verte76]

I agree about the BBC being much better than CNN. I don't watch television news that much, but CNN is highly overrated in the U.S.

 

[STING2]

Actually, the US has historically interfered in the Middle East after the Western Europeans consistently interfered. Iran will be an enemy because America has historically condescended to it and manipulated the will of the people.

Since WWII, the US has pressured Iran into joining its orbit instead of staying neutral as its leaders wanted. The US wanted to ensure access to oil supplies and wanted to prevent Soviet influence. So unwilling were American officials to have any vital area outside of their control that the US allowed its corporations to obtain beneficial oil deals while denying the Soviets the same. In 1953, the CIA engineered a coup to replace a more democratic government (from what I understand) with the brutal Shah. Only in 1979 was he overthrown and an understandably irrational fundamentalist revolution took place. Sadly, this resulted in a hostage crisis with which Americans are all too familiar -- bordering on ridiculous obesssion. Under the Reagan administration, the US funds and supports Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime -- the regime American officials now rightly claim was immoral -- and supplied it with arms and biological weapons to wage an 8-year war on Iran.

If I were Iranian, I'd bear a pretty strong anti-American sentiment for the people of the US for allowing their government to do this all in the name of fighting Communism. Still, Iran's population is young, has opposed much of the oppressive regime's tendencies and stood with America after 9/11. Yet, Bush unleashes unhelpful rhetoric about Iran being evil. It then attacks Iraq for trying to develop nuclear weapons all the while trying to develop Star Wars. Understandably, Iran wants to avoid such an invasion from an aggressive opponent which has historically interfered in its affairs for decades and waged war through others. All this enmity helps idiot and racist President Ahmadinejad come to power. While Israel has illegally had a nuclear arsenal and occupied Muslims in the region for decades, the US only has a problem with non-allies doing so. It has backed and funded Israel with arms and funding to engage in terrorism from its inception. While I don't doubt the idiocy and racism of regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the US has supported these despotic regimes against popular will for decades.

If the American people can only imagine threats and potential enemies and engages in preemptive action to counter these imagined threats, then it will have them, but do not be confused about who started this aggression and has practiced hypocritical mores about warfare and violence.

Iran is suspected of helping Al Qaeda, which I deplore, but how is funding Iraq in a direct attack as well as Israel in continued occupation and deprivation of human rights not terrorism. I can guarantee you the US has caused more Iranian deaths than Iran ever has American ones, and the former are provable!

And don't even get me started about US involvement in Latin America.....

I understand if many of you are unaware of this, but CNN is not the best source of news. PBS' Newhour is better, though it has its problems, and the BBC World News and CBC national news are excellent in getting a more informed and balanced perspective instead of short-term nationalist nonsense by poorly educated anchor people who act cool.

While its true that the United States did everything it could to contain the spread of Soviet influence in the middle east during the Cold War, Iraq was not a client state of the United States. Nearly all of the weapon systems Saddam's Iraq used were Soviet military weapon systems, with China and few other European countries making up the remaining suppliers. The United States NEVER sent Iraq any US combat weapon systems during the Iran/Iraq war. It did not send biological or chemical weapons to Iraq either. Obviously, Iraq was able to obtain biological precusers for bio weapons, but virtually any country without any sort of trade restrictions on them could do the same.

Iran had been the United States client state prior to the revolution. The United States did start to lend some support to Saddam's Iraq in 1983, because a total Iraqi defeat, which was appearing more likely, could of had potentially catastrophic consequences for the Persian Gulf and the world. But Iraq was already well supplied by the Soviet Union, and the Arab States. Of the nearly 100 Billion dollars in aid given to Iraq, the United States only gave 5 Billion dollars. The United States also sent Trucks, transport helicopters, computers, intelligence on Iranian military positions and actions, and spare parts for other equipment, but NOT combat weapon systems. The United States did send weapons to Iran, over 2,000 TOW Missiles for the release of hostages during the war. The War ended in 1988 and could have been even more devastating for Iran without outside help in negotiating an end to the conflict. By the end of 1988, Saddam's Republican Guard, thanks to Soviet training, had turned into an effective fighting force and had crushed the Iranian military. Iraq now had 10 times as many tanks as Iran and a total military force twice as large as Iran, despite Iran having a population that was 3 times as large as Iraq.

Iran would have better relations with the United States and the rest of the world if it was not such a huge sponser of terrorism conducted by Humas and Hezbolah. Iran does not need Nuclear power for energy given its large reserves of oil. The above makes all of Iran's moves in developing nuclear power and likely nuclear weapons, a very big concern.

Israel unlike Iran has never signed NPT treaty. It was invaded by 5 Arab countries on the first day of the country's existence and has had to repeatedly fight wars in order to defend itself and prevent the country from being wiped off the face of the map. If there ever was a country that had an arguement for needing nuclear weapons to defend itself, its indeed Israel. Israel will give up the occupied territories when Arab countries make a serious effort to insure its security, and Palestinians are able to form a stable country that is not a base for terrorist operations against Israel. Some of the Arab countries have made great progress in this area, but countries like Syria and Iran continue to fund elements that threaten Israel's security. Israel unlike several of its Arab neighbors and the Palestinians, do not engage in the targeted destruction of innocent civilians. If Israel did, the Arab population in the West Bank and Gaza would have been wiped out decades ago.

While the United States has supported dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, these countries are not huge supporters of terrorism like Syria and Iran, nor have they invaded or attacked any of their neighbors with the exception of Israel nearly 34 years ago. They also have never used WMD or maintain any signicant arsenal of such weapons if any.

Iran has directly provided weapons to terrorist groups that have killed and harmed hundreds of Americans. In the Iran/Iraq war, the United States gave weapons to Iran, but did supply Iraq with intelligence, money, transportation assets. The United States used its influence to help bring an end to the Iran/Iraq war at the end of 1988, which saved hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of Iranian lives, given the uper hand Saddam had at that point after years of large arms shipments from the Soviet Union and several thousand Soviet advisors on the ground in Iraq training the Republican Guard.

US policy in the middle east has prevented the expansion of Soviet Communism into the area, the loss of Israel as a state and the slaughter of the Jewish population there, helped keep the planets key energy resources safe and secure, and negotiated peace agreements between Arab States and Israel and has remained committed to finding a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem. There are obviously people who will view the United States as the problem because they are so heavily engaged in the region, but there are many people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries through out the region, even Iran that view US engagement in the region as vital to the development of a stable, peaceful, and prosperous middle east.

Lets not forget that there are many Iranians who never supported the Islamic Revolution in 1979 and still view the United States favorably.

 

[trevster2k]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case
No.:


93-241-CR-HIGHSMITH
CARLOS CARDOEN,
FRANCO SAFTA,
JORGE BURR,
INDUSTRIAS CARDOEN LIMITADA, DECLARATION OF
a/k/a INCAR, HOWARD TEICHER
SWISSCO MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
EDWARD A. JOHNSON
RONALD W. GRIFFIN, and
TELEDYNE INDUSTRIES, INC.,
d/b/a,
TELEDYNE WAH CHANG ALBANY,

)
Defendents.
_____________________________________________

I. Howard Teicher, hereby state that, to the best of my knowledge
and belief, the facts presented herein are true, correct and complete. I
further state that to the best of my knowledge and belief, nothing stated
in this Declaration constitutes classified information.

1. My name is Howard Teicher. From 1977 to 1987, I served in the
United States government as a member of the national security bureaucracy.
>From early 1982 to 1987, I served as a Staff Member to the United States
National Security Council.

2. While a Staff Member to the National Security Council, I was
responsible for the Middle East and for Political-Military Affairs.
During my five year tenure on the National security Council, I had
regular contact with both CIA Director William Casey and Deputy Director
Robert Gates.

3. In the Spring of 1982, Iraq teetered on the brink of losing its
war with Iran. In May and June, 1982, the Iranians discovered a gap in
the Iraqi defenses along the Iran-Iraq border between Baghdad to the north
and Basra to the south. Iran positioned a massive invasion force directly
across from the gap in the Iraqi defenses. An Iranian breakthrough at the
spot would have cutoff Baghdad from Basra and would have resulted in
Iraq's defeat.

4. United States Intelligence, including satellite imagery, had
detected both the gap in the Iraqi defenses and the Iranian massing of
troops across from the gap. At the time, the United States was officially
neutral in the Iran-Iraq conflict.

5. President Reagan was forced to choose between (a) maintaining
strict neutrality and allowing Iran to defeat Iraq, or (b) intervening and
providing assistance to Iraq.

6. In June, 1982, President Reagan decided that the United States
could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran. President Reagan
decided that the United States would do whatever was necessary and legal
to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran. President Reagan formalized
this policy by issuing a National Security Decision Directive ("NSDD") to
this effect in June, 1982. I have personal knowledge of this NSDD because
I co-authored the NSDD with another NSC Staff Member, Geoff Kemp. The
NSDD, including even its indentifying number, is classified.

7. CIA Director Casey personally spearheaded the effort to ensure
that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to
avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war. Pursuant to the secred NSDD, the United
States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis
with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military
intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third
country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military
weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational
advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat. For example,
in 1986, President Reagan sent a secret message to Saddam Hussein telling
him that Iraq should step up its air war and bombing of Iran. This
message was delivered by Vice President Bush who communicated it to
Egyptian President Mubarak, who in turn passed the message to Saddam
Hussein. Similar strategic operational military advice was passed to
Saddam Hussein through various meetings with European and Middle Eastern
heads of state. I authored Bush's talking points for the 1986 meeting
with Mubarak and personally attended numerous meetings with European and
Middle East heads of state where the strategic operational advice was
communicated.

8. I personally attended meetings in which CIA Director Casey or
CIA Deputy Director Gates noted the need for Iraq to have certain weapons
such as cluster bombs and anti-armor penetrators in order to stave off the
Iranian attacks. When I joined the NSC staff in early 1982, CIA Director
Casey was adamant that cluster bombs were a perfect "force multiplier"
that would allow the Iraqis to defend against the "human waves" of Iranian
attackers. I recorded those comments in the minutes of National Security
Planning Group ("NSPG") meetings in which Casey or Gates participated.

9. The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director
Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin
military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda
and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew
of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military
weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.

10. The United States was anxious to have other countries supply
assistance to Iraq. For example, in 1984, the Israelis concluded that
Iran was more dangerous than Iraq to Israel's existence due to the growing
Iranian influence and presence in Lebanon. The Israelis approached the
United States in a meeting in Jerusalem that I attended with Donald
Rumsfeld. Israeli Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir asked Rumsfeld if the
United States would deliver a secret offer of Israeli assistance to Iraq.
The United States agreed. I travelled wtih Rumsfeld to Baghdad and was
present at the meeting in which Rumsfeld told Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq
Aziz about Israel's offer of assistance. Aziz refused even to accept the
Israelis' letter to Hussein offering assistance, because Aziz told us that
he would be executed on the spot by Hussein if he did so.

11. One of the reasons that the United States refused to license
or sell U.S. origin weapons to Iraq was that the supply of non-U.S. origin
weapons to Iraq was sufficient to meet Iraq's needs. Under CIA DIrector
Casey and Deputy Director Gates, the CIA made sure that non-U.S.
manufacturers manufactured and sold to Iraq the weapons needed by Iraq.
In certain instances where a key component in a weapon was not readily
available, the highest levels of the United States government decided to
make the component available, directly or indirectly, to Iraq. I
specifically recall that the provision of anti-armor penetrators to Iraq
was a case in point. The United States made a policy decision to supply
penetrators to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC
files will contain references to the Iraqis' need for anti-armor
penetrators and the decision to provide penetrators to Iraq.

12. Most of the Iraqi's military hardware was of Soviet origin.
Regular United States or NATO ammunition and spare parts could not be used
in this Soviet weaponry.

13. The United States and the CIA maintained a program known as
the 'Bear Spares" program whereby the United States made sure that spare
parts and ammunition for Soviet or Soviet-style weaponry were available to
countries which sought to reduce their dependence on the Soviets for
defense needs. If the "Bear Spares" were manufactured outside the United
States, then the United States could arrange for the provision of these
weapons to a third country without direct involvement. Israel, for
example, had a very large stockpile of Soviet weaponry and ammunition
captured during its various wars. At the suggestion of the United States,
the Israelis would transfer the spare parts and weapons to third countries
or insurgent movements (such as the Afghan rebels and the Contras).
Similarly, Egypt manufactured weapons and spare parts from Soviet designs
and porvided these weapons and ammunition to the Iraqis and other
countries. Egypt also served as a supplier for the Bear Spares program.
The United States approved, assisted and encouraged Egypt's manufacturing
capabilities. The United States approved, assisted and encouraged Egypt's
sale of weaponry, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.

14. The mere request to a third party to carry out an action did
not constitute a "covert action," and, accordingly, required no
Presidential Finding or reporting to Congress. The supply of Cardoen
cluster bombs, which were fitted for use on Soviet, French and NATO
aircraft, was a mere extension fo the United States policy of assisting
Iraq through all legal means in order to avoid an Iranian victory.

15. My NSC files are currently held in trhe President Ronald
Reagan Presidential Archives in Simi Valley, California. My files will
contain my notes and memoranda from meetings I attended with CIA director
Casey or CIA Deputy Director Gates which included discussions of Cardoen's
manufacture and sale of cluster bombs to Iraq. My NSC files will also
contain cable traffic among various United States agencies, embassies and
other parties relating to Cardoen and his sale of cluster bombs and other
munitions to Iraq and other Middle Eastern states.

16. Under CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, the CIA
authorized, approved and assisted Cardoen in the manufacture and sale of
cluster bombs and other munitions to Iraq. My NSC files will contain
documents that show or tend to show the CIA's authorization, approval and
assistance of Cardoen's manufacture and sale of cluster bombs and other
muntions to Iraq.

17. My files will contain notes, memoranda and other documents
that will show that the highest levels fo the United States government,
including the NSC Staff and the CIA, were well aware of Cardoen's arrest
in 1983 in Miami in a sting operation relating to the smuggling of night
vision goggles to Cuba and Libya. My files will also show that the
highest levels of the government were aware of the arrest and conviction
of two of Cardoen's employees and his company Industrias Cardoen.

18. CIA Director William Casey, aware of Cardoen's arrest and the
conviction of his employees and his company, intervened in order to make
sure that Cardoen was able to supply cluster bombs to Iraq. Specifically,
CIA Director Casey directed the Secretaries of the State and Commerce
Departments that the necessary licenses required by Cardoen were not to be
denied. My files will contain notes, memoranda and other documents
showing or tending to show that CIA Director William Casey's intervention
was in order to maintain Cardoen's ability to supply cluster bombs and
other munitions to Iraq.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct to the best of my memory and recollection.

Executed on 1/31/95

Howard Teicher (signature appears on original)

(end of document)

 

[Vincent Vega]

Iran does not need Nuclear power for energy given its large reserves of oil. The above makes all of Iran's moves in developing nuclear power and likely nuclear weapons, a very big concern.

That Iran should not get nulear technology because you can't really trust them is on thing.

To say that "they have enough oil" is very short sighted. Oil fueled energy plants are highly inefficient, "climate killers" and not in any way recommendable to be the primary energy source of one country. We only use oil plants for high peak times because you can start and stop them very quickly.

You always speak about how important it is to secure the oil resources of that region.
If Iran should use oil as its only energy source would be counterproductive.
It would be a far better idea to provide them with solar energy solutions.

I'm not sure if Israel is so well-advised with the atomic bomb. Given the high density of that region to use these A-bombs would be suicide. And it could be argued if the knowledge to not know for sure, but maybe yes..., that Israel is in the possession of atomic bombs is the reason that they didn't get attacked again.

Of course Iraq didn't get money inofficially from the US.

"He's a bastard, but he is our bastard.", isn't a quote form a Russian reporter.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Only because the USSR didn't need to maintain any illusion about client states

 

[STING2]

Interesting, but it does not change the basic facts that the Iraqi's received all of their combat weapon systems from the Soviet Union and China, and to a much smaller degree other countries. Anti-Armor penetraters were not one of Iraq's most pressing needs during the war as Iran did not have large armored forces at that point and relied primarily on human wave tactics to make major progress on the battlefield where anti-armor weapons would have little utility. The Soviets supplied thousands of new tanks to Iraq in the 1980s and as well as the amunition for them. In terms of anti-armor weapons, the sell of 2,000 plus TOW missiles to Iran is far more significant than anything the United States diplomatically tried to make sure Iraq had. Iraq still had most of the cluster bombs that were supplied when inspectors first arrived in Iraq in 1991. Iraq succeeded in defeating Iran because of the Soviets success in training the Republican guard and getting them to effectively use their armor and artillery to stop and drive back Iranian offensives. Unlike any of the other countries, the Soviets had over 1,000 Soviet military personal on the ground in Iraq every year of the war.

Certainly, the United States encouraged other countries to supply weapons, but this was a process that was already ongoing well before the United States decided to help out. In the end US help amounted to 5 Billion dollars out of a total of 100 Billion dollars given by other countries. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait gave generously knowing an Iranian victory could mean the invasion of their countries by Iranian forces. The Soviets did not want to see their client state defeated. Diplomacy and sharing intelligence is one thing, but the overwhelming bulk of MONEY and WEAPONS were supplied by the Soviet Union and Persian Gulf countries who would have continued their efforts with or without United States involvement which when one takes an objective and broader view of the situation considering other country's efforts, was minor.

 

[trevster2k]

The U.S is just as implicitly guilty of being involved in Saddam's past as any other country regardless how you weight it. No one has the moral high ground anymore in the world, not France, not Germany, not Britain, not Canada, not Israel, not U.S.S.R and so on. All governments are doing things we think only other governments do.

Henry Kissinger- "Too bad they both can't lose.... I hope they all just kill each other"

The $5 billion given to Iraq was in the form of agriculture credit guarantees for grain purchased from the U.S. And much of the purchased grain was instead diverted in exchange for weapons.

There is more but I don't want to quote an entire book on the covert operations around the Iran/Iraq War.

 

[STING2]

That Iran should not get nulear technology because you can't really trust them is on thing.

To say that "they have enough oil" is very short sighted. Oil fueled energy plants are highly inefficient, "climate killers" and not in any way recommendable to be the primary energy source of one country. We only use oil plants for high peak times because you can start and stop them very quickly.

You always speak about how important it is to secure the oil resources of that region.
If Iran should use oil as its only energy source would be counterproductive.
It would be a far better idea to provide them with solar energy solutions.

I'm not sure if Israel is so well-advised with the atomic bomb. Given the high density of that region to use these A-bombs would be suicide. And it could be argued if the knowledge to not know for sure, but maybe yes..., that Israel is in the possession of atomic bombs is the reason that they didn't get attacked again.

Of course Iraq didn't get money inofficially from the US.

"He's a bastard, but he is our bastard.", isn't a quote form a Russian reporter.

It is widely known that given Iran's natural resources, it does not need to be pursuing nuclear power, perhaps in many decades, but its not something that would need to be one of the country's #1 objectives given its energy needs today are easily supplied from other sources and it will be one of the last country's in the world that would need to consider an alternative to oil for its energy.

Iran's energy consumption is not something that is so great as to threaten Iran's oil reserves. Iran has plenty of oil for its needs and the export market. While its technically true that nuclear power would be a way to help make such reserves last longer, the cost and lengths to which Iran is going to get nuclear power is not something such an oil rich country would go through unless there were other reasons for developing it. Syria which comparitively does not have very much oil would have a far better case for making an attempt at such nuclear development.

Israel's nuclear deterent is a weapon of last resort. With the possibility of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, the need to keep and maintain such a nuclear arsonel has never been more important for Israel.

Iraq did get 5 Billion dollars in loans from the United States, but thats a tiny fraction of the total that country's gave to Iraq during the 1980s. If there was anyone who could seriously claim that Saddam was their "bastard", it was the Soviet Union which had by far the closest and most important relationship with the Iraq during the 1980s.

 

[STING2]

The U.S is just as implicitly guilty of being involved in Saddam's past as any other country regardless how you weight it. No one has the moral high ground anymore in the world, not France, not Germany, not Britain, not Canada, not Israel, not U.S.S.R and so on. All governments are doing things we think only other governments do.

Henry Kissinger- "Too bad they both can't lose.... I hope they all just kill each other"

The $5 billion given to Iraq was in the form of agriculture credit guarantees for grain purchased from the U.S. And much of the purchased grain was instead diverted in exchange for weapons.

There is more but I don't want to quote an entire book on the covert operations around the Iran/Iraq War.

The technical details of the United States relationship with Iraq could easily fill up several books, but that does not change the fact that the United States had a comparitively minor role in giving money, supplies, and training to Saddam's Iraqi military. The United States did not have 1,000 of its own military personal on the ground training the Republican Guard, the Soviet Union did. Even if every cent of the $5 Billion dollars the United States gave Iraq was used to buy weapons, its a drop in the bucket compared to what other country's gave.

Despite the United States comparitively minor role in aiding Iraq in the 1980s, I don't find anything to be immoral about it given the security risk to the Persian Gulf involved with an Iranian victory. The United States wanted 1st for Iraq not to be overrun, and 2nd for a cessation of hostilities which is what happened in 1988.

If you want to know about a supply operation for a Dictator in which the United States was the primary supplier of materials, money, and weapons, you don't need to look any further than the United States supply operation for Joseph Stalins Soviet Union in the early 1940s during World War II.

 

[Vincent Vega]

It is widely known that given Iran's natural resources, it does not need to be pursuing nuclear power, perhaps in many decades, but its not something that would need to be one of the country's #1 objectives given its energy needs today are easily supplied from other sources and it will be one of the last country's in the world that would need to consider an alternative to oil for its energy.

Iran's energy consumption is not something that is so great as to threaten Iran's oil reserves. Iran has plenty of oil for its needs and the export market. While its technically true that nuclear power would be a way to help make such reserves last longer, the cost and lengths to which Iran is going to get nuclear power is not something such an oil rich country would go through unless there were other reasons for developing it. Syria which comparitively does not have very much oil would have a far better case for making an attempt at such nuclear development.

Israel's nuclear deterent is a weapon of last resort. With the possibility of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, the need to keep and maintain such a nuclear arsonel has never been more important for Israel.

Iraq did get 5 Billion dollars in loans from the United States, but thats a tiny fraction of the total that country's gave to Iraq during the 1980s. If there was anyone who could seriously claim that Saddam was their "bastard", it was the Soviet Union which had by far the closest and most important relationship with the Iraq during the 1980s.

Given that Iran doesn't develop.

I don't want this country to get its hands on nuclear material as well, and I'm sure they don't need atomic power plants for their energy supply.

But if you wanted this country to industrialize in the future you would better provide them with solar energy fields than with oil energy plants.

I don't want Israel to dismantle its nuclear weapons as long as there are other countries with these weapons, but I want them to open themselves to inspections by the IAEA. I think by the introduction of the Israeli state mistakes were made by every party included.
And the first Intifada resulted from the poor conditions in the tent camps provided for the Palestinian people.

It's also right that no state here can claim morale superiority, we've all our share in the situation we are in now.

To bring Stalin into play is a very poor comparison. The defeat of the Nazis was far more important than letting the Soviets without proper material.
You could only lose in that situation, but with the start of WWII there was no "win-all" possible anymore.
The priority was to kick Germany's arse, and that didn't work without Stalin's help.

You could rather name Pinochet, or Batista. Van Thieu wasn't a saint either, but who wanted Ho Chi Minh to have the whole country?

 

[trevster2k]

The United States used its influence to help bring an end to the Iran/Iraq war at the end of 1988, which saved hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of Iranian lives, given the uper hand Saddam had at that point after years of large arms shipments from the Soviet Union and several thousand Soviet advisors on the ground in Iraq training the Republican Guard.

Please enlighten us as to how the U.S brought an end to the Iran / Iraq war. Was it before or after the USS Vincennes mistakenly shot down an Iran Air commercial jet carrying 290 people? Or was it after the Tanker Wars or the War on Cities? Or after the Iraqi missile hit the USS Stark killing 37 U.S naval personnel? The U.S exacerbated this war through covert support of both countries, the Reagan administration is hardly deserving of a pat on the back for ending it. It was a U.N mediated ceasefire accepted after years of both countries being decimated by a brutal war.

Providing information for targeting the enemy for attacks including mustard gas is hardly a minor contribution. The U.S government was playing both sides of the fence tilting the war in whichever direction it deemed necessary to prevent an all-out victory by either side especially Iran. And even then the satellite intelligence was sometimes deliberately inaccurate so that neither side would gain too much of an advantage.

Near the end of the war, the Reagan administration allowed the export of dual-use equipment which were used against the Kurds later on. It wasn't just Soviets training Iraqis in Iraq. The Brits, French,Germans and CIA spooks were there all involved in selling arms, maintaining them and training. Iraqi pilots and naval officers were sent abroad to France, England, the Soviet Union and under Jordanian passports even the U.S for training. Iraqi elite troops were trained by U.S Special Forces at Fort Bragg in the event of an Iranian victory so that they could carry out a guerrilla war against an occupying Iranian force. Officers from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency were sent to Baghdad to plan strategic bombing strikes for the Iraqi air force when it was feared that the Iranians were going to launch a new offensive to cut of Basra from Baghdad.

The devil is in the details. Were France, Italy, Germany, Brazil, Egypt, Israel or the Soviets more responsible than the U.S? No, everyone had their hands deep in it for different reasons either political or economical. This was a war through proxies and designed to destroy not one but two countries for the benefit of the arms dealing countries supplying the combatants.

And ironically, after being economically wiped out by this war and not receiving promised assistance from his neighbours combined with the increased production of Kuwait's oil fields hence reducing the value of oil and Iraq's revenue source for rebuilding, this gave Saddam (in his mind) the reason to invade Kuwait. Moreso, after receiving what he perceived to be a green light from Washington.

 

[STING2]

To bring Stalin into play is a very poor comparison. The defeat of the Nazis was far more important than letting the Soviets without proper material.
You could only lose in that situation, but with the start of WWII there was no "win-all" possible anymore.
The priority was to kick Germany's arse, and that didn't work without Stalin's help.

You could rather name Pinochet, or Batista. Van Thieu wasn't a saint either, but who wanted Ho Chi Minh to have the whole country?

Well, Stalin is a far better example of the United States supplying a dictator for whatever the reason. The wording often used by some to describe US aid to Saddam in the 1980s would be more accurate for US aid to Joseph Stalin in the early 1940s. The amount of aid that the United States gave to Saddam was a tiny fraction of what other country's gave to Saddam, but others make it sound like the United States created Saddam which could not be further from the truth.

 

[STING2]

Please enlighten us as to how the U.S brought an end to the Iran / Iraq war. Was it before or after the USS Vincennes mistakenly shot down an Iran Air commercial jet carrying 290 people? Or was it after the Tanker Wars or the War on Cities? Or after the Iraqi missile hit the USS Stark killing 37 U.S naval personnel? The U.S exacerbated this war through covert support of both countries, the Reagan administration is hardly deserving of a pat on the back for ending it. It was a U.N mediated ceasefire accepted after years of both countries being decimated by a brutal war.

Providing information for targeting the enemy for attacks including mustard gas is hardly a minor contribution. The U.S government was playing both sides of the fence tilting the war in whichever direction it deemed necessary to prevent an all-out victory by either side especially Iran. And even then the satellite intelligence was sometimes deliberately inaccurate so that neither side would gain too much of an advantage.

Near the end of the war, the Reagan administration allowed the export of dual-use equipment which were used against the Kurds later on. It wasn't just Soviets training Iraqis in Iraq. The Brits, French,Germans and CIA spooks were there all involved in selling arms, maintaining them and training. Iraqi pilots and naval officers were sent abroad to France, England, the Soviet Union and under Jordanian passports even the U.S for training. Iraqi elite troops were trained by U.S Special Forces at Fort Bragg in the event of an Iranian victory so that they could carry out a guerrilla war against an occupying Iranian force. Officers from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency were sent to Baghdad to plan strategic bombing strikes for the Iraqi air force when it was feared that the Iranians were going to launch a new offensive to cut of Basra from Baghdad.

The devil is in the details. Were France, Italy, Germany, Brazil, Egypt, Israel or the Soviets more responsible than the U.S? No, everyone had their hands deep in it for different reasons either political or economical. This was a war through proxies and designed to destroy not one but two countries for the benefit of the arms dealing countries supplying the combatants.

And ironically, after being economically wiped out by this war and not receiving promised assistance from his neighbours combined with the increased production of Kuwait's oil fields hence reducing the value of oil and Iraq's revenue source for rebuilding, this gave Saddam (in his mind) the reason to invade Kuwait. Moreso, after receiving what he perceived to be a green light from Washington.

I did not say that the United States brought an end to the Iran/Iraq War, I said that it HELPED to bring an end to the war. The United States has no interest for such unecessary instability in area of the world that is so vital to its national security. In case you have forgotten, the United States is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and was involved in some way in the UN ceacefire.

An overwhelming victory by either side in which the other country was essentially annexed or had large area's annexed was an undesirable and destabilizing result although technically it might have ended that phase of the war earlier, but would have led to new problems. A stalemate in which the status qou of 1980 was returned to was the desired goal. To get that point though, the Iraqi military of course had to be strengthened from the difficult position it was in, in the early 1980s.

Of all the attacks that were launched during the entire Iran/Iraq war, only a fraction of them involved US intelligence. So when you look at the entire war, it is a minor contribution, perhaps important at that particular juncture, but overall its minor.

I have Iraq's total list of major weapon systems from June 1989, and I can post them here showing each equipment type, quantity as well as the country that the weapon system came from. Just as an example lets look at Main Battle Tanks, the first weapon system thats looked at when getting a quick gauge of the size and strength of any ground force.

Main Battle Tanks:

T-54/55 2,500 Supplier SOVIET UNION
T-59/69 1,500 Supplier CHINA
T-62 1,000 Supplier SOVIET UNION
T-72 1,500 Supplier SOVIET UNION

The Soviets end up supplying 78% of Iraq's Main Battle Tanks while China pick up the other 22%. I could go on to Armored Personal Carriers, Artillery Systems, Aircraft etc. While some other country's besides the Soviet Union and China start to enter the picture in other catagories, your still looking at the Soviet Union supplying the vast majority of the equipment with China and other country's making up the remainder.

Its funny, but mentioning the fact that at various times some officers from a particular agency were sent to Iraq, or that some Iraqi pilots went out of the country for training, or that some special forces were trained in the United States really makes my point. Compare that, to having over 1,000 military advisors on the ground in Iraq year after year.

The devil is in the details which you seem to be avoiding. The details show that there is a massive disparity in the amount of supplies given to Iraq, as well as money given to Iraq by the various country's. Again, the United States monetary contribution only amounts to 5 PERCENT of the total given to Iraq in the 1980s!

The war was not designed by anyone except originally by Saddam although as always his miscaculations lead to something radically different that what he expected. The Persian Gulf Country's did not want to face the Iranian military if it achieved a victory over Iraq. The Soviet Union did not want to see its client state swallowed by Iran and Iran gaining that much power and influence in the region. The United States and the western world did not want to see the consequences of an Iranian victory because of what it would mean for the Persian Gulf, vital to the global economy.

Although Iraq came out of the conflict heavily in debt it had the 4th largest military in the world and Iraq did not suffer the casualties and level of devestation that Iran did. Given its resources, it could have easily recovered from the conflict provided that Saddam used his money to build up the oil industry and take advantage of its water resources. Saddam's reasons for invading Kuwait and risking US intervention were essentially the same as his reasons for invading Iran. An easy power grab that was obviously a serious miscalculation. Iraq's military manuvers during and following the invasion of Kuwait showed that Saddam fully expected an immediate military intervention by the United States. Despite the fact that it only took 2 Republican Guard Divisions to overrun Kuwait, Saddam sent 7 of his Republican Guard Divisions into Kuwait followed by regular Army divisions.

No matter how you stack, the Soviet Union and China supplied Iraq with over 80% of its weapon systems, and country's other than the United States gave 95% of the money given to Iraq. When compared to other country's involvement, the US level of involvement simply does not stack up. There are certainly a lot of things to list and discuss, but when you look at what other country's gave, especially the Soviet Union, the US contribution is minor.

 

[trevster2k]

Saddam's reasons for invading Kuwait and risking US intervention were essentially the same as his reasons for invading Iran. An easy power grab that was obviously a serious miscalculation. Iraq's military manuvers during and following the invasion of Kuwait showed that Saddam fully expected an immediate military intervention by the United States. Despite the fact that it only took 2 Republican Guard Divisions to overrun Kuwait, Saddam sent 7 of his Republican Guard Divisions into Kuwait followed by regular Army divisions.

Saddam's motivation in attacking Iran was not simply a power grab. Khomeini regularly condemned Hussein and was considered an enemy, a tyrant by Khomeini. Khomeini was rallying Shiites in the Middle East which resulted in unrest throughout the region hence the funding of the Iraqis by Sunni dominated Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

The United States passed on intellligence reports exaggerating political turmoil in Iraq. " According to Howard Teicher, who served on the White House National Security Council, "the reports passed on to Baghdad depicted Iran's military in chaos, riven by purges, and lack of replacement parts for it's American-made weapons. The inference was that Iran could be speedily overcome"" - Web of Deceit, Barry M. Lando, pg 53

There were many behind the scenes engagements which I don't have the energy to explain too.



His decision to invade Kuwait was brought on from frustration of the economic toil of trying to support his military and rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. In his mind, there was a plot to destroy Iraq and owing billions to other countries, he saw Kuwait as the main culprit in excess oil production set by OPEC quotas. The UAE followed Kuwait's example resulting in a drop of oil from $21 to $11 a barrel. Also, he approached the U.S ambassador regarding his plans about Kuwait and unfortunately, he heard this response from April Glaspie "we have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait" which he perceived as a green light. Also, during this time the Soviet Union was collapsing and distracted the U.S so they didn't consider Saddam's threats to be truely serious. There was no clear statement to Iraq by the U.S condemning the invasion of Kuwait. Yes, Saddam was an evil dictator but he didn't just do things on a whim for power even though he did have aspirations to lead the Arab world. It was more complex than it appears to some.

The fact that he sent in large battalions to Kuwait could be seen as their realization that to occupy a country after defeating the military you need many forces to control the populace. A fact overlooked by the U.S upon invading Iraq in 2003 but not by General Shinseki.

I am not defending any of Saddam's actions but just pointing out that writing him off as a crazy madman and not considering the diplomacy failures and other factors is simplifying a complex time in the world's history.

Regarding more involvement of the U.S beyond just money, go here:

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html

I found this today. It discusses many of the points I mention plus more.

 

[STING2]

Saddam's motivation in attacking Iran was not simply a power grab. Khomeini regularly condemned Hussein and was considered an enemy, a tyrant by Khomeini. Khomeini was rallying Shiites in the Middle East which resulted in unrest throughout the region hence the funding of the Iraqis by Sunni dominated Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

The United States passed on intellligence reports exaggerating political turmoil in Iraq. " According to Howard Teicher, who served on the White House National Security Council, "the reports passed on to Baghdad depicted Iran's military in chaos, riven by purges, and lack of replacement parts for it's American-made weapons. The inference was that Iran could be speedily overcome"" - Web of Deceit, Barry M. Lando, pg 53

There were many behind the scenes engagements which I don't have the energy to explain too.



His decision to invade Kuwait was brought on from frustration of the economic toil of trying to support his military and rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. In his mind, there was a plot to destroy Iraq and owing billions to other countries, he saw Kuwait as the main culprit in excess oil production set by OPEC quotas. The UAE followed Kuwait's example resulting in a drop of oil from $21 to $11 a barrel. Also, he approached the U.S ambassador regarding his plans about Kuwait and unfortunately, he heard this response from April Glaspie "we have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait" which he perceived as a green light. Also, during this time the Soviet Union was collapsing and distracted the U.S so they didn't consider Saddam's threats to be truely serious. There was no clear statement to Iraq by the U.S condemning the invasion of Kuwait. Yes, Saddam was an evil dictator but he didn't just do things on a whim for power even though he did have aspirations to lead the Arab world. It was more complex than it appears to some.

The fact that he sent in large battalions to Kuwait could be seen as their realization that to occupy a country after defeating the military you need many forces to control the populace. A fact overlooked by the U.S upon invading Iraq in 2003 but not by General Shinseki.

I am not defending any of Saddam's actions but just pointing out that writing him off as a crazy madman and not considering the diplomacy failures and other factors is simplifying a complex time in the world's history.

Regarding more involvement of the U.S beyond just money, go here:

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html

I found this today. It discusses many of the points I mention plus more.

Saddam's invasion of Iran was actually mainly focused on one area, Khuzestan, a province in southwestern Iran that has the majority of Iran's oil reserves. While Saddam always had many unrealistic fears about the potential of an internal revolt caused by outside elements, its clear given the actions of the military, that the main intent of the invasion was the complete occupation and annexation of Khuzestan and its oil reserves.

Iran's military was not in the best of shape at the time, but Saddam's military was not at all ready for the type of cross border invasion that he pressed them into. Iraq's failure to completely succeed early on is do far more to Iraq being unprepared for the operation than Iranian defenses.

Saddam obviously saw Kuwait as an easy target and a way to get what he had been after in the Iran/Iraq war but failed to actually get. Saddam went into Kuwait with the intention of permanently annexing it, and he had also considered a move into Saudi Arabia as well. The temporary fluxuation of the price of oil would not be a reason to risk war with the United States given that Iraq had much larger oil reserves and given time, would eventually be able to repay its debts and be in a very handsome position in the Gulf. This was an invasion for Saddam's delusional dreams of power and control that were so tempting to him considering so much of the planets oil is located in area extending form Khuzestan in Iran, through southern Iraq and Kuwait, and then into Northern Saudi Arabia.

The "diplomacy" and April Glaspie's statements are irrelevant since Saddam fully envisioned a war with the United States in which the United States would rapidly send in a couple of light infantry divisions which he felt the Republican Guard could easily defeat inflicting thousands of casualties and causing wide spread protest in the United States. Saddam often remarked to advisors during this time that the United States had been "defeated" by a less well armed force with only 50,000 killed. In contrast, Iraq had suffered 50,000 dead in a single campaign during the Iran/Iraq war. The general feeling was of course that he could crush any rapid US response to his moves inflicting enough public protest within the United States to pursue some type of peaceful settlement where he kept Kuwait and its oil.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq was easily accomplished by 2 Republican Guard divisions. Given that Kuwait was only a country of 2 million people, 1.1 million of them ex-patriots from outside the country, the fact that most civilians were not armed, meant that the two Republican Guard divisions with 30,000 troops was more than enough to successfully occupy and control the small country.

The fact that Saddam sent in another 5 Republican Guard divisions plus began to move the majority of the worlds 4th largest military into Southern Iraq and Kuwait just shortly after the first day of the invasion clearly shows his intention to fight what he believed would be a sudden US military response to his moves. Saddam had a total of 1,000,000 troops in the total Iraqi military, more than there were actual Kuwaiti citizens. The majority of this force was moving into Kuwait or Southern Iraq in the days after the invasion. The invasion force itself was enough to occupy the relatively small and thinly populated country that had little means of resistence outside of its armed forces that were defeated in under 12 hours.

Saddam indeed proved through his actions to be an incredible miscaculater and risktaker. No set of diplomatic measures or other factors would have stopped Saddam's actions. History has shown that the only language Saddam ever understood was the language of force, even as late as the spring of 2003.

As for the article, I read it eons ago, and its filled with many inaccurate claims which would simply take to long to go into.