America’s Frankenstein 2: Iran’s Revenge

By Liam Bailey

Most of you will already know that U.S administrations between the 80’s and early nineties supported Iraq, as a buffer against Iran’s fundamentalist Khomeini regime, massive scale support and equipment came from the U.S, especially during the war between the two countries (for full details read my blog Islamic Extremism: America’s Frankenstein on this site). The equipment known as dual-use, included helicopters for crop spraying, which Saddam used for spraying nerve gas on the Iranians, and memorably in the chemical attack to quell unrest in a Kurdish village. When Iraq’s war with Iran ended, practically a draw, Saddam had stockpiled a lot of the dual-use equipment streaming in from the U.S and other western countries including Britain, but I believe the U.S administrations were the only ones who really knew why they were providing the equipment. Read this, a reference box from the blog mentioned above:

Iraq War Fourteen Years Too Late:

During the second Persian Gulf War (Aug 2 1990-Mar 3 1991) in which America and the U.N were forced to deploy troops in the gulf region, because Saddam Hussein’s Iraq successfully invaded Kuwait. During the fighting President George H W Bush called to the Shiite (southern Iraq) and Kurdish (northern Iraq) minorities, badly oppressed by Saddam’s Sunni Regime to revolt and overthrow their oppressive dictator, arguably inferring direct U.S support in this aim. Encouraged by the stunning defeat of Iraqi forces in Kuwait, the Shiite’s and Kurd’s begin an uprising in-line with the defeat of Saddam’s regime. Unfortunately, most of Saddam’s forces escaped the fighting in Kuwait, and when American support for the uprising never materialized, Saddam easily crushed the revolt-

George Bush Snr continued support for Iraq into the early nineties, despite significant evidence and advice that the opposite would be prudent, Bush Snr must have felt slightly silly then, when Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, by then a well-equipped and funded army turned on Kuwait. Bush Snr also caused the current resentment and mistrust of the Shiite and Kurd minorities by suggesting to the Iraqi Shiites and Kurds that the U.S would support them in their uprising, then giving them no support at all. Read the second half of the above reference box:

-I believe that if even U.S forces alone had advanced north in March 1991, on the tail of Saddam’s retreating Iraqi forces, the Shiite revolt in the south, and Kurdish in the North would ultimately have lead to Iraq fighting a war on two fronts, and therefore I believe being easily defeated. Furthermore, if this was done and Saddam overthrown then U.S forces would have had to deal with only the Sunni majority mistrust, and resentment.   Being followers of Saddam, this would and has happened in any case, but the triumphant Shiite and Kurd minorities would have undoubtedly supported U.S forces, and therefore any attempts made by them to install an interim government. I believe this support from two of the three rival groups in Iraq, would have meant the Sunni majority would have had to take part in the new democratic proceedings, a lot sooner than they did for fear of being left out of future decisions in the rebuilding of their new country. In conclusion, if America had done as suggested and helped the Shiite’s and Kurd’s to overthrow Saddam, Iraq would probably have been a stable democratic country by now, certainly closer than it currently is or has been for decades.


I am sure Bush Jnr is fully aware of both mistakes in his father’s foreign policy towards Iraq, so surely he could have made a more educated guess on how the war would pan out and have planned far better than he obviously did.  For a start calling for a Shiite and Kurd uprising, which would be supported by the invasion; must have brought “where have I heard that before.” or “like father like son” reactions from Iraq’s Shia and Kurd populations. The other main problems our forces are facing in Iraq should also have been obvious to President Bush. As I mentioned the U.S and other western (mostly European) countries supplied Iraq with dual use technology and equipment, which could, and the U.S knew probably would be used as, or to create chemical and conventional weapons of mass destruction. Because of this it is alleged the U.S supported Iraq’s chemical campaign even after the attack on the Kurds at Halabja, in fact it is widely believed that Reagan sent a presidential envoy, Donald Rumsfeld to tip Saddam the nod on Chemical weapons manufacture and use. To this day, a large portion of Iranian society must feel outraged by this, especially those who lost family members in chemical attacks and other battles, and especially Iranian intelligence.

So now, a figurehead for the hatred of Iranian intelligence and many Iranian people is occupying the country next-door Iraq against the will of increasing numbers of Iraqi’s. Based on all the above I believe it is a fair assumption that Iranian intelligence is doing whatever it can against the occupation, including funding, arming and possibly training insurgents and terrorists in Iraq, sending insurgents and/or agents of its own, and generally costing the U.K/U.S forces as dearly as possible.  In revenge and self-defence  When the Afghanistan invasion was still in its infancy, along with Iraq, Iran was being mentioned as part of an (imaginary-buzz words) “axis of evil” and earmarked for reprisals, with invasion and war not ruled out.

I suggest to you that these reasons make a good case to suggest Iran playing a major part in the difficulties our forces are facing, evidence comes from the hi-tech weaponry such as the hi-tech roadside bombs Iraq’s insurgents seem to have an abundance of. I put it to you that this is also the reason for Iran’s nuclear announcement, the program has existed since the 80’s, but was announced recently as a scare factor for any proposed invasion or bombing of Iran. Either way, my blog: Islamic Extremism: America’s Frankenstein, proves that American foreign policy between the 80’s and mid nineties was the major contributing factor to the alarming rise of Islamic Extremist terrorism. This blog proves it is also the cause of the terrible conditions for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and probably the main cause of the current Iran nuclear crisis, definitely the cause of Iran’s mistrust, hostility, and reluctance to negotiate. Therefore, between the two blogs I have proved beyond a shadow that the war on terror needs to be cancelled and the whole situation looked at from a non-Neocon perspective, in other words sack Bush. I wonder if the American public will agree when election time comes a calling.


Buy content through ScooptWords Creative Commons License



  1. Mister D said,

    May 25, 2006 at 6:29 am

    In the first paragraph the author writes: “U.S administrations between the 80’s and early nineties supported Iraq, as a buffer against the communist Iran, massive scale support and equipment came from the U.S, especially during the war between the two countries…”

    This contains two errors:

    First, Iran was then and is now fiercely anti-communist.

    Second, the US supplied only 1/2 of 1% of the arms supplied to Iraq during the period 1973-1990. The Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact supplied 68.9% of arms during this period. This is well-documented by the Stockholm International Peace Research Group. The numbers are as follows:

    Soviet Union & WP 68.9%

    France 12.7%

    China 11.8%

    US .5%

    Egypt 1.3%

    Others 4.8%

    The writer appears to be blinded by anti-Americanism. he does get one thing right: Iran is fomenting terror in Iraq. Also in the West Bank, Lebanon, and elsewhere.


  2. Leejay said,

    May 25, 2006 at 7:03 am

    In reference to you first mistake MR.D I actually meant the Khomeni in Iran, not communist, I got carried away.

    And as for the other mistake, if you haven’t yet read the post above titled:
    Islamic Extremist Terrorism: America’s Frankenstein, you will see I know al about America’s support for Iraq. It was the American administration that sent an envoy (alledgedly Donald Rumsfeld)) to Iraq to tip the nod on their use of chemical weapons. Also the American’s who made the world believe it was okay to help Iraq, by applying massive pressure to secure the support from Eximbank, without which none of the trade would really have been possible. I wasn’t actually referring to arms, I was referring to dual-use technology, which could be used for weapons or weapons manufacture, but was supposedly foreign aid for the country’s agricultural development. Such as my example of the helicopters supposedly for crop spraying that were used in chemical attacks on the Iranians, and on the Kurds at Halabja.

    I don’t think you read my post:
    Islamic Extremist Terrorism: America’s Frankenstein. It is linked from the sidebar, in it I quote official U.S gov documents stating exactly how it was the U.S who were instrumental in the development of Saddam and Iraq as a major military power, but also mentions support from other countries. The only reason I don’t go further on the other countries; I only had 3000 words to write my article on the causes of rapidly rising Islamic Extremist Terrorism, and in my opinion it was a selectively ignorant attitude to the possible unintended consequences of oil-biased cold-war foreign policy. By successive U.S administrations, which with the exception of Clinton is still a trend U.S administrations can’t seem to get out of. “Bushy”: “Well, we’re bigger than them aren’t we, if we can’t bully them we’ll invade?”
    Islamic extremism funded and carried out by all the enemies America made with this attitude, has become the main unintended consequence, in that it can’t be invaded (no base country, or dealt with by direct U.S force of any kind. Mister D: Please read the Islamic Extremist Terror: America’s Frankenstein post, and Islam’s Two Most Wanted: Bring Our Soldiers Home!
    I started this blog to have a debate and your input will, based on this comment certainly start that. As I believe, we have quite different viewpoints on the matter. Thank you for commenting on my post.

  3. May 25, 2006 at 10:30 am

    […] So, let’s start with Iran. The report states Iran’s nuclear announcement as part of its “strategic detterent defence” against a possible attack by the west, to compliment diplomatic means. Also stating the same as my blog: America’s Frankenstein 2: Iran’s Revenge (read: ) that Tehran’s scepticism of the west comes from American foreign policy endeavors since 1979 and the iraq war. […]

  4. HelloWorld said,

    April 28, 2007 at 12:41 pm

    Peace people

    We love you

  5. Idetrorce said,

    December 16, 2007 at 8:07 am

    very interesting, but I don’t agree with you

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: