From: javad@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Agha Javad)
Subject: Re: A humble response to Mojahedins
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:02:14 GMT
Organization: LabaniyyAtee-e-Sar-e-Koocheh

In article <1992Dec18.170302.20523@rd.hydro.on.ca> nbadie@rd.hydro.on.ca (Navid Badie) writes:
>javad@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Agha Javad) writes:
>: In article <1992Dec17.174403.3006@rd.hydro.on.ca> 
>: nbadie@rd.hydro.on.ca (Navid Badie) writes:
>:
>

Thank you for yuor reply, it was very educating for me, and made me 
think.  I'll try to address some of your points:


>I will start by addressing some of the points you raise in your 
>comparison of the military power of Iran and Iraq in the 1970's.
>
>: Iran had roughly 450 combat aircraft, 300,000 strong army, and a navy with
>: 3 destroyers and some other surface ships (frigates, etc.).  Iraq had
>: roughly 369 combat aircraft (including long range bombers such as Tu-16
>: and Tu-22, whereas Iran didn't have any long range bombers), an army of
>: roughly the same size, with more and better tanks than Iran had.  We had
>: roughly 750 Chieftains, and a few hundred Scorpion and M48 light tanks,
>: very few of which helped in the subsequent war with Iraq.  They had
>: more tanks, among which were the T-62 and T-72 tanks, which were considered
>: some of the world's best tanks at the time.  Also, they had a formidable
>: surface to surface missile force, including Frog-7's and Scuds, which was
>: much more capable than our SSM force.  
>
>Without arguing with your specific numbers, I think it was a matter of
>consensus at the time that Iran's armed forces were clearly superior to
>those of Iraq. You take pains to mention the state-of-the-(soviet)-art
>weapons of Iraq, but fail to mention the state-of-the-(American)-art
>Iranian weapons, such as the F14 fighters. There was also, I seem to remember,
		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>a tank which was custom-ordered by Iran to Britain, which was the state
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>of the art at the time. Further, the Shah had more grandiose plans for the
>Iranian armed forces and would have expanded them at a rate which would
>have been unmatched by any of our neighbours (except the USSR, of course).
>

Just as a side, the F14 is a pure air defense fighter, and is designed 
specifically to defend against incoming air attacks, which was a major
capability of the Iraqi Air Force as we so painfully saw.  Not to mention,
that at the time, Soviet Mig25's were flying unchallenged in Iranian airspace,
and F14 was only plane in Iran's inventory capable of intercepting a Mig25.
So the F14 was a 100% justified weapon for Iran (also considering the large 
area and the distance between different threats).  The tank was called 
"Sheer", or the "Lion", and was never delivered to Iran. Another example
of such a weapon is the Bell 214ST, which was an expanded payload version
of the 214, and was heavily funded by Iran, only to be cancelled by the
IRI gov't. I think it is totally appropriate to fund development of 
weapons systems which are specific to your needs, e.g. long range heavy
lift helicopters which can operate in desert conditions, which was a 
backbone for Iranian ground troops.  

As far as grandiose plans, I can just say this: Our country was surrounded 
by enemies, and had a lot of natural resources.  If there is one thing we
must learn from our history, especially our modern history (2 Russo-Persian
wars, WWII, etc.), it is that we need a strong military which will 
deter any aggression against us, since we are a big rich countries with
few natural barriers (unlike a place like Switzerland which is surrounded 
by tough terrain), and we cannot rely on foreigners to take care of our
defence needs.  This is what happened after revolution: Our military was weak,
Iraq destroyed us.  And the American Rapid Deployment Force was the only
military reason the Soviets could not invade, in effect, Americans had drawn
up plans to stop any possible Soviet attack on Iran, without the consent
of Iranians!  If we had a strong military ourselves, we wouldn't be in
such a situation.

>The undisputed military superiority of Iran is what forced Iraq to agree to
>the 1975 Algiers accord. You may say that this is proof that the Shah's
>military strategy worked. I say that any accord which is reached
>because of one side's fear of the other is bound to be unstable and
>subject to unilateral abrogation once the balance of power changes, as
>happened with Iran and Iraq.

With a guy like Saddam, the only way you can have peace is through strength,
not through logic and negotiations.  Remember, Saddam wanted the Shatt-al-Arab
all for Iraq, which is totally against international maritime law, which
says such a waterway should be split down the middle, as was the case in the
1975 Algiers agreement.  If Iran had forced Iraq to give up all of the Shatt,
I would agree with you.  But Iran subscribed to the reasonable, internationally
acceptable position, and in addition, bolstered its defences to ensure that
peace endures.  In 1980, when Iran became weak, Saddam took the Algiers 
agreement and ripped it to shreds on TV.  So an agreement based on international
law and justice is not enough in that area with those neighbors.

>
>: offensive posture, not to mention Most of Iran's wealth and lifleine
>: was right on the border with them.  
>
>Read this line aloud and think about it from an Iraqi citizen's viewpoint.
>ALL of Iraq is right on the border with Iran! I hope you will forgive my 
>impudence, but this sounds a little like "going to the judge alone, and 
>returning happy". 

Yes-consider yourself an Iraqi for the moment. Ask yourself, when Iran was 
stronger, what did they do to us?  Then ask when Iraq was stronger what did we 
do them?  Can you see the difference?

>
>: Iran's military was much more defensive,
>
>A military which was by far better equipped than that of every one of our
>neighbours (again, except the USSR) could not be viewed as defensive.
>

It never took any offensive action of significant scale against its neighbors'
territorial integrity, and therefore was not offensive in nature (as opposed
to Israel for example)

>: focussing on air superiority and antitank helicopters, and was an excellent
>: deterrent to any Iraqi/Arab aggression, and it WORKED, which is more than I 
>: can say for the IRI's strategy.
>:
>: As far as being gendarme of the region, I don't see what is wrong with 
>: defending your country's interests in your own backyard.  
>
>The concept of "your own backyard" is exactly what I am objecting to!
>Please, amoo, forgive me, for I am about to sin, but your own backyard
>is part of your property, it is IN your house. The Persian Gulf is not 
>Iran's backyard, it is an international waterway which we share with
>several of our neighbours as our main access to the open seas.
>

I guess I should be clearer about "backyard".  Specifically, I'm referring
to making sure the Persian Gulf remains open and free, and shipping
doesn't fall victim to vicious attacks of some madman like say, I don't know,
like Saddam for example.  This is totally legitimate.  I don't know the
story of the three islands Tumbs and Abu Musa, but if they were taken by force
then of course that is wrong.  But my position is that Iran is justified in
having a strong Navy to protect its coastline and lifeline, as long as it
does not invade other countries.

>: It's certainly 
>: better than letting foreigners do it for you.  
>
>Alright then, how about we get together with the other countries which
>have a shore line on the Persian Gulf, define a common set of interests,
>and defend those interests together? This requires, first and foremost,
>for us to realize that other countries also have interests which can be
>as legitimate as Iran's.

I perfectly agree.  And during Shah's time, Iran took a much more diplomatic
and civilized stance towards Gulf Arab states than the current government.
It was just a matter of building up trust, which was more achievable through
diplomacy than through violence.  But until such an alliance can be agreed
upon, Iran had to take necessary steps to defend itself.
>
>
>:Except 
>: that the Shah's gov't was friends with the US, so this was an easy label to 
>: put on him.  It just turns out that the US and Iran had many common interests
>: at the time- to contain Iraq, to keep the Soviets where they were, and to 
>: keep the Persain Gulf open to traffic and commerce.  Which one of these was 
>: not in the interest of Iran?
>
>This is the core of your argument, and I must admit, it is a very hard
>question for me to answer. But let me try to, anyway.
>
>First, why do you think that other Persian Gulf countries had no interest
>in keeping the Persian Gulf open to traffic and commerce? This is one of
>those common interests I was referring to above. Iran didn't need a to
>adopt a confrontational posture to reach this particular goal.
>

No, but it needed to be ready, and it was.

>Second, the US had an interest to keep military pressure on, and obtain 
>military information about, the former USSR. This was not an interest of 
>Iran. Again, this belongs in its own thread, since it can quickly take 
>over this whole debate.

Ok, we'll debate this later.

>
>
>Finally (wow!), the Shah's army was destined to be the real guardian of
>US interests in the Persian Gulf region, whether or not they happened
>to coincide with Iran's own interests. A preview of things to come
>was when the Shah sent troops to Oman to do a little dirty work for
>the US. In my mind, this kind of "mission" was one of the main reasons 
>for the build-up of the Iranian armed forces under the Shah. 
>

Of course, you can argue this forever.  But IRI does this now by
sending pasdars to Lebanon, Sudan, etc., where we as a country at least,
have absolutely no interest!  So I guess I'm saying that gov'ts will
tend to use troops for their political aims sometimes, and I agree,
that's not the mission of a country's military.


>If you still have not hit the 'n' key, congratulations, you have reached 
>the end!

Thank you!  I enjoyed discussing with you tremendously, and thank you
for your input, I've certainly learned quite a bit.

I'll be away for a while, so unfortunately, I won't be able to continue
this discussion.  But I look forward to talking again when I get back.
So, happy holidays, and take care!

>
>: moaffagh bashee,
>: 
>: Agha Javad
>
>Shomaa ham be hamchenin, Agha Javad. And I thank you for presenting
>your point of view so eloquently.
>

>Navid
>nbadie@rd.hydro.on.ca

ekhtiaar darid, nokar-e-shoma ham hastim,

Agh Javad


Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.arabic