Guerre IRAN / IRAK [1980-1988]

[Rebell]

ki tafham nta arwa7 fahamli quelque sois le soutiens extérieur qu'a reçu l’Iran tout le boulot c'est bien elle qui la fait encore une foi certain sont limité en analyse l’Iran représente une plus grande menace pour israel a cette époque (militairement) certain veulent volé la victoire de l’Iran ici on essuyant de tout faire pour dire que comme quoi c'est israel qui a fait...pfff alghira thabal l’Irak a reçu tout le soutiens du monde et l’Iran a tant sacrifier et était seul sur le front le reste c que des parole

[Amine Ind]

Sérieux arrête le syndrome de persécution ça deviens grave.. Personne n'essaye d'enlever rien a personne J'ai apporté des arguments contente toi d'en apporter mais surtout de prendre le temps de lire les liens posté au lieu de répondre bêtement a coté de la plaque L'Iran représenté tellement une grande menace pour Israël qu'Israël a accepté de faire transité les armes par son territoire a destination de l'Iran et a même vendu des armes a l'Iran Continue a creusé ta raison..

[dil@w]

non Rebell ne fait pas dans la mauvaise foi non plus, l'Irak aussi était seul de l'autre coté, tu as vu des soldats d'autres nations venir combattre avec eux ? non.
ce qu'Amine a apporté prouve (encore une fois) que l'Iran a aussi bénéficié d'aide, moins que l'Irak mais il a bénéficié.
après pourquoi tel ou tel pays a aidé telle et/ou telle partie c'est autre chose

[Amine Ind]

Excerpt from "Israel and the Iran-Iraq War"

by Joseph Alpher
The Iran-Iraq War: Impact and Implications, ed. Efraim Karsh (New York: St Martin's, 1989), pp. 156-57.
1989

Enunciated by David Ben-Gurion in the early 1950s, the periphery doctrine as a strategic approach to the Middle East derived from the perception — essentially correct at the time — that Israel was surrounded by a wall of militant Arab states, led by Nasser's Egypt, that sought its total destruction. Accordingly, Israel set out to establish relationships with countries on the periphery of the Arab Middle East that shared its fears of the Arab mainstream. These states sometimes also offered the additional attractions of pro-western regimes and large Jewish minorities anxious to emigrate.

Ben-Gurion conceived the periphery doctrine in rather subtle terms not always recalled by his disciples of recent years. Thus, the notion of alliances with the periphery was linked to the expectation that these would eventually generate a desire on the part of the Arab mainstream to enter into similar alliances with Israel — once the Arabs recognized how valuable an ally Israel could be. Additionally, the periphery alliances were seen as a means of attracting the interest of a great power, the United States — by demonstrating that Israel could be helpful in collaborating with key states in which the United States had a considerable strategic interest. In this sense, the periphery doctrine interacted with a second strategic tenet enunciated by Ben-Gurion early in Israel's history as a modern state: the need for close military association with a great power.

The periphery doctrine led Israel into strategic relationships with Turkey, Iran, Ethiopia and Morocco, as well as the emerging Sahel states of Africa that feared Arab meddling with their Muslim populations. As a corollary, Israel also fostered ties with an 'ethnic periphery' of non-Arab or non-Muslim minorities within the Arab Middle East — e.g., the Maronites in Lebanon, the Kurds in Northern Iraq — that shared its fears of Arab nationalist encroachment.

Almost inevitably, strategic decisions concerning periphery interests came to be seen in Israel as operational matters, to be judged by the senior decision-making echelon (that usually knew periphery leaders intimately through clandestine contacts), without any need for the significant intelli­gence input considered requisite for decisions concerning the Arab countries. This perception was reinforced by the existence of an intimate military strategic relationship with some of the periphery states. In the case of Iran, this involved, in the 1950s and 1960s, primarily co-ordination in planning and intelligence, followed during the 1970s by expansion of Israeli arms sales. The latter factor, in turn, created a vested economic interest inside Israel in maintaining the relationship.

The periphery doctrine was one of the pillars of Israeli foreign and defence policy for about three decades. Viewed in retrospect, by the late 1970s its foundations had become considerably less viable, as the Arab core and the non-Arab periphery of the Middle East in many ways exchanged roles. On the one hand, the Sunni Arab heartland was becoming more stable, more moderate and more amenable to the need to deal with Israel politically rather than militarily. The Sadat peace initiative, and the emerging de facto coexistence between Israel and Jordan, were the principal expressions of this change .4 On the other hand, the periphery itself was either becoming radical - Marxist in Ethiopia, Islamic fundamentalist in Iran — with sharp anti-western and anti-Israeli positions; or was abandoning Israel in favour of the Arabs - the Sahel and other African states; or, as in the case of the Maronites of Lebanon, it was simply proving itself unsuitable and unable to support a strategic alliance with Israel.

Nor, in retrospect, could Israel take its periphery relationships for granted even at their zenith. After all, periphery ruling elites had their own agenda in terms of exploiting the Israeli 'card' in dealing with the Arab world. Note, for example, the Shah's prescience in a remarkably candid interview given to Muhammad Hassanein Haykal in April 1975 — shortly after the conclusion of the Algiers Agreement, and at the height of the Israeli-Iranian alliance: "We followed the principle 'my enemy's enemy is my friend,' and our relations with Israel began to develop. But now the situation has changed ... I think occasionally of a new equilibrium in the region ... Perhaps [it] could be integrated into an Islamic framework."

http://www.danielpipes.org/10485/excerp ... n-iraq-war

[Amine Ind]

Despite its enmity toward the Jewish state, Iran secretly bought weapons from Israel after Iraq’s 1980 invasion. The sales ended in the mid-1980s without producing the rapprochement that some Israelis had hoped for. Relations deteriorated further as Iran took a front line position against Israel by training and equipping Lebanon’s Hezbollah, and encouraging Palestinian attacks on Israel from Gaza and the West Bank. In 2006, Israel and Hezbollah fought Israel’s longest war. Due partly to Iran’s rearming of Hezbollah, Israel’s northern border remains a serious flashpoint.

Iraq’s 1980 invasion of Iran fulfilled this hope, for a time. Iran’s desperate military, decimated by purges and the loss of Western military assistance, forced the regime to turn to Israel for crucial supplies. Weapons, munitions, aircraft spare parts and combat engineering equipment were transferred to Iran in an extensive covert operation that later meshed with the Iran-Contra conspiracy launched by the Reagan administration. By 1982, it became clear that weapons sales were not going to renew Iranian friendship, but the profits retained Israel’s interest. Transfers continued until the mid-1980s, when they petered out, in part because Iran’s failure to pay on time undermined the incentives of middlemen.

The 1988 ceasefire between Iran and Iraq removed any basis for secret engagement with Israel.

After the revolution, between 1980 and 1983, Israeli sales totaled an additional $500 million, including TOW anti-tank missiles, spare parts for armor and aircraft and large amounts of ammunition.

http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/iran-and-israel

[Rebell]

************************************** ta rien présenté du tout juste un article qui parle que l’Iran a réussie a obtenir des pièce et certaine équipement de certain pays dont israel et alors? sa fait des allier? l’Iran a payer très très cher des misérable pièce israel avais besoin d'affaiblir l’Irak elle n'a rien donner de dangereux a l’Iran mais il fallait que celle ci fasse le boulot d'affaiblir l’Irak israel aurai tout de même pas permise de donner l'avantage a l’Irak quel serait a l'avenir une puissance..c'est logique *********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
que du factuel pas de personnel

encore et encore je me répète que le soutiens qu'a reçu l’Iran n’était pas a un soutien mais celle ci avais mie de lourd moyen pour acquérir de simple tow ou pièce de rechange mais sa change rien que le rapport de force était de 10 contre 1 pour l’Irak qui recevez officiellement des char complémentaire des chasseur des missile et j'en passe...qui a pas hésité a utiliser les arme chimique et que les allemand on augmentez la porté de ces missile a 600km contre 250 breff c'est incomparable chacun a fait ce qui fallait faire pour affaiblir sont armée et se faire de l'argent en aucun cas c'etait un soutiens fraternelle

je rappelle encore que la population iranienne était a 36million et celle d’Irak était a même pas 20 million et la production pétrolière irakienne était largement superieur a celle de l’Iran

Avant la guerre, l'Iran et l'Irak comptaient sur leurs revenus pétroliers pour subvenir à leurs besoins militaires : 3,5 millions de barils par jour exportés par l'Irak et 1,6 million par l'Iran. Au début de 1980, les deux pays n'exportaient plus que 600 000 barils par jour. En raison de cette diminution considérable, l'Irak dut recourir à l'aide de l’Arabie saoudite, entre autres.

oui oui l’Arabie saoudite et autre car il avais besoin de soutiens l’Iran lui il 'na pas reçu de soutiens pour sont effort de guerre comme l’Irak en a reçu certain haineux veulent juste salir l’Iran a passer leur temps a parlé du soutien d'israel comme si que l’Iran a réussie a s'en sortir grâce a israel et que sans celle ci l’Iran aurai était perdu

l’Irak a reçu un soutiens sans faille et jusqu’au bout sur le terrain c'etait les iranien qui mourrez et c'etait l'armée de l'air la marine et l'armée de terre iranienne et non israélienne ni autre l’Iran se débrouiller pour entretenir sont matos comme elle le fait maintenant

voici un ti conflit en 1980 entre la marine iranienne et irakienne

Opération Morvarid

Issue Victoire décisive iranienne
Neutralisation à 80 % de la marine irakienne
Destruction des terminaux pétroliers d'Al-Bakr et de Khor-al-Amaya
Blocus du port d'Al Faw
Destruction des sites de SAM et radars irakiens


force en présence:
marine iranienne et armée de l'air iranienne
-------------------------------------------------------------
marine irakienne
armée de l'air iranienne

perte iranienne

1 vedette coulée
1 F-4 Phantom II abattu
1 F-4 Phantom II endommagé

perte irakienne

5 patrouilleurs de classe Osa coulés
4 torpilleurs P-6 coulés
1 Aérospatiale SA321 Super Frelon abattu
6 MiG-23 abattus
1 MiG-21 abattu
Plusieurs sites de SAM détruits

Source
la seul chance de l’Irak c'est que l’Iran était affaiblie par la suite par manque de moyen financer et militaire alors que l’Irak avais tout ce qui faux

c'est comme si que a l’indépendance de l'algerie le Maroc nous envahie sauf que celui ci sera soutenue par le monde entier et que nous on se de brouillera dans le black..faut comprendre la difficulté..

[Amine Ind]

lah ghaleb rani nahdar m3a 7it ta rien présenté du tout juste un article qui parle que l’Iran a réussie a obtenir des pièce et certaine équipement de certain pays dont israel et alors? sa fait des allier? l’Iran a payer très très cher des misérable pièce israel avais besoin d'affaiblir l’Irak elle n'a rien donner de dangereux a l’Iran mais il fallait que celle ci fasse le boulot d'affaiblir l’Irak israel aurai tout de même pas permise de donner l'avantage a l’Irak quel serait a l'avenir une puissance..c'est logique *************************************************************

**************************************************************************************************** Pour la suite sérieux je te comprend pas.. Mais pourquoi tu te mes dans des états de malade Je dis juste que l'Iran a aussi bénéficier d'aide d'Israël point a la ligne le reste j'en ai rien a faire contrairement a toi je ne m'intéresse qu'aux faits que ça te plaise ou pas l'histoire c'est l'histoire

Pour la phrase surligné en rouge je laisse le soin aux modérateurs de s'occupé de l'insulte.c'est réglé

encore et encore je me répète que le soutiens qu'a reçu l’Iran n’était pas a un soutien

le soutien n'était pas un soutient bon OK

oui oui l’Arabie saoudite et autre car il avais besoin de soutiens l’Iran lui il 'na pas reçu de soutiens pour sont effort de guerre comme l’Irak en a reçu certain haineux veulent juste salir l’Iran a passer leur temps a parlé du soutien d'israel comme si que l’Iran a réussie a s'en sortir grâce a israel et que sans celle ci l’Iran aurai était perdu

[/quote]
Je retiens juste que ton argumentation est basé sur wikipedia, les insultes et le syndrome de persécution.. Tu sais il y a même un livre ou on parle de F-4 livré a l'Iran via l'Arabie Saoudite.. une source

[Rebell]

******************************************************************************** je vais pas me répété c'est pas ma faute si ta un probleme de compréhension l’Iran était sous embargo ce quel pouvez avoir c'etait des artillerie des pièce de rechange des tow quel a eu on changeant les otage us.. breff contremaitresse a l’Irak qui a reçu un soutiens directe et officiel donc on peut pas parlez de soutiens a l’Iran ce quel achetez au black a des prix faramineux..l’Iran n'a eu aucun soutiens réel...qui était en plus limité et qui était pas des arme lourde contraire a l’Irak qui tait pas en manque de char ni de chasseur vu quel on recevez tout le temps.. alors que l’Iran manqué cruellement de blinder et de force aérienne elle géré comme elle pouvez avec les moyen du bord...

oué l’Iran a reçu des f-4 via les saoud....mli7a hadi

[Rebell]

breff pour revenir au sujet interessant et pas et pas perdre sont temps avec certain... voici une émission qui parle des commandos de l'air iranien et leur mission impressionnante en Irak

[dil@w]

bon les deux là STOP
des faits et uniquement des faits sourcés pas d'attaques personnelles ou sinon la sanction tombe

[anzar]

Et je vous avez prévenu les deux donc ça va être expéditif Encore un pet de travers et vous savez à quoi vous attendre, y en a marre de vos gamineries à la noix

[Amine Ind]

C'est vrai je me suis précipité sur les F-4 en faite erreur de traduction c'est un F-4 iranien aillant fait défection qui s'est posé en Arabie Saoudite (How the U.S. and Britain Secretly Built Saddam's War Machine, p.20). Désolé pour l'erreur, pour le reste j'ai toujours sourcé mes argumentations jusqu’à présent..

[Amine Ind]

"Liberation of Khoramshahr"

oldats irakiens détruisant un poster de l'ayatollah Khomeiny après la capture d'un poste iranien près de Abadan pendant la guerre Iran Irak

Saddam Hussein visitant un poste de combat

[Amine Ind]

Qui connais l'histoire du Falcon 50 irakien modifier pour accueillir un missile exocet Je vous poste le récit d'un ancien pilote irakien

Everybody here heard about the USS Stark incident in the 17th of May, 1987, so I am not going into much details about that we already know. If however you know nothing about it then read

The following is a summarized description about the incident from the Iraqi perspective. It is based on a small interview with one of the Iraqi crew on that Falcon 50.

First of all, the Falcon 50 that hit the USS Stark was originally a part of the Presidential Squadron that belonged to Saddam Hussein. It was sent back to France to be modified so it can carry the AM.39 Excoet anti-shipping missiles. So half of the Falcon 50's cockpit was converted into a Mirage F.1 cockpit. After that the airplane returned and was stationed in Saddam AB nearby Mosul.

Its crew consists of 2 pilots, one handles the Falcon 50 side and the other pilot handles the Mirage F.1 side. With 2 technicians (Master Sergeants) accompanying them. The Falcon 50 pilot is tasked with taking the airplane to the target and then the Mirage F.1 pilot takes control to hit that target then return the controls to the first pilot so he can pilot it back to home.

At that day we received information that there was a large naval target nearby the shores of Bahrain. However no more details were given about the nature of this target, usually they are oil tankers carrying Iranian oil.

The crew of that airplane was tasked with hitting that target, the airplane was loaded two AM.39 Exocet missiles and took off from Saddam AB, when they reached Basra they refueled the airplane and continued their way to the target. When they got nearby it at sunset the usual procedure was to start a radio silence, at that point they discovered that the target was in fact an American vessel.

Then a dilemma started inside the cockpit of the Falcon 50 among its crew, they didn't know what was the target until and so did their high command. And since they can't call their HQ back and inform them about the new development due to the radio silence, they have to decide whether to hit it or not right now. So they started to discuss both options. If they hit the American frigate then they might not survive because US Navy aircraft will shot them down not to mention that they will cause an International crisis between USA and their own country. If they don't then their commander might get very upset and court martial them to be shot because they disobeyed a direct military order. So they decided to fire their missiles at it anyway.

The airplane got closer to the frigate, and they did receive the ship's radio message where it identified itself to them and asked them for their identification but they didn't pay attention to it nor cared. First missile was fired, it hit the ship in its engine room but didn't detonate (but its fuel caused fires). The radio operator in the airplane reported that the Americans are sending SOS messages. Second missile was fired, it hit the ship and detonated.

Once they were done, they started to think how to get away alive from the US Navy fighters, the first pilot decided to ascend into a high altitude and asked the technicians to close the curtains of the jet's windows and open the internal lights to make an impression that they are carrying passengers back in the airplane. And asked everybody recite Sura al-Fatiha because they might die soon.

Suddenly a pair of USN F-14 Tomcats followed and surrounded them, one from their right and the other from their left. The Iraqi pilots could see the American counterparts sitting in their cockpits and vice-versa. The American formation leader pointed to the Iraqis by hand to open communication with him via radio and so they did. The American asked them: “What are you doing in this area? Where are you coming from and where to are you going?”. The Iraqi pilot answered: “We are Iraqis and we have VIPs from the Iraqi government on board”. Then the American asked: “And who are those VIPs?”. The Iraq replied shortly: “I can't tell you that, this is a state secret”.

The American pilot was apparently a bit suspicious but he couldn't do anything because all he was seeing is a civilian jet, so he ordered his wing man to go and both left. That's how the Iraqi Faclon 50 escaped a probable death. The airplane was refueled again in Basra and then continued its trip to Saddam AB. The next each pilot was awarded with 5000 Iraqi Dinars (equals to 30600 nowadays US Dollars) from the high command, and each technician was awarded with a Volkswagen Passat B1 salon car (called Brazili in Iraq because it was manufactured in Brazil) and were never punished for that incident. That was the first and last mission for this modified Falcon 50.

American losses were: 37 killed, 21 wounded and a damaged frigate. The ship was repaired later at the cost of $142 million. And was decommissioned in 1999 after serving in the Gulf War.

[Amine Ind]

L'Iran utiliser un drone Mohajer-1 armée de 6 roquette de type RPG-7 durant la guerre Iran - Irak.