Terror Near the Gulf
Jeffrey Galko
After the events of September 11, much has been written about the political actions which preceded the horrible tragedy. The aim of many of the commentators, especially in the print and television media, is to pinpoint the major political actions or events that precipitated what happened on September 11. The focus of much of the political discussion seems to be divided between two major themes. These are the American support of Israel and the Soviet-Afghan War and America’s neglect of the Mujahidin upon the war’s conclusion. The point of this essay is not to downplay these significant policy concerns. Rather, here I wish to bring to light an important conflict which has gone largely unnoticed: The Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988). It has escaped attention mostly because it took place at the same time as the Soviet war against Afghanistan. However, it is my view that the Iran-Iraq War played a key role in setting the stage for September 11. We would do well to briefly examine the combatants of this war.
First of all Iraq was ruled, and is still ruled to this day, by the Ba’th (Renaissance) Party. It is important to realize what the Ba’thists stood for leading up to the war against the Iranians. The Party was committed to modernizing Iraq. Indeed the Party was successful in bringing such things as electricity and compulsory education to the backward southern region of the country. The Ba’thists emphasized secularity as key to modernization. This fact lead to a revolt among some Shia opposition groups in the south. The response of the Ba’thists, led by Saddam Hussein, was to crush the rebellion by use of force. However, Hussein offered a carrot to the Shia community by opening up the Sunni Ba’th Party to Shias. This had the effect of transforming the Party from one of exclusivity to one that enjoyed plenty of popular support from the Shia majority.
In comparison, a review of the popular trend in Iran at the time just preceding the war reveals a society moving in the opposite direction. The movement toward fundamentalism in Iran at this time is so widely known that it barely needs comment. The overthrow of the Shah in 1979 and the establishment of the Islamic republic of Iran marked the beginning of this trend. The only thing that Iran and Iraq seemed to share was a border.
A clear and distinct ideological line marked the conflict between Iran and Iraq. The combatants embodied different ideas of progress: Iraq pursued modernization while Iran sought to undo the modernization initiated by the Shah in order to pursue a civilization governed by Islamic Law. It must be underscored that this clash of civilizations occurred within the Muslim community. What this suggests is that the battle line between Islamic fundamentalism and the West is a malleable one. It is one that is as dynamic as a battle line on a real battlefield. It is not as static as those who see the line drawn at the West Bank or Gaza would like to believe. However, it would be foolish to simply equate modernization with westernization. Becoming a member of the West, which we all should believe is possible, means much more than simply modernizing. The case of Iraq proves this. Iraq’s ostracism at the hands of the international community upon invading Kuwait shows that complete westernization comes only by obeying the rules of international relations. Another condition for westernization is that the regime recognize and uphold the basic freedoms (for example, freedom of speech) of its citizens. This is a condition in which Iraq has failed for some time. The history of Iraq shows that there is a trade off between modernization and the state recognition of human rights and freedoms that exists within developing countries. Iraq chose to pursue the former at the sacrifice of the latter. The U.S. has consistently used its military to support modernizing regimes and has tried to promote human rights through diplomatic means. This policy has caused concern among human rights groups. However, when we place the unsavory modernizing regimes back into the world and consider their fundamentalist neighbors we realize that there is at least some wisdom in U.S. foreign policy.
And by the way Iraq won the war. The Iraqi Army adopted modern tactics and the War in Iraq enjoyed widespread support due to Saddam’s political maneuverings.
How does all of this link up to September 11? There are two links. First is the indirect connection. The indirect connection essentially states that the Iraqis won the war, but lost the peace. In order to beat Iran, the population of which out numbered Iraq almost 3 to 1, Iraq overextended itself financially. Thus Iraq invaded Kuwait in part to attempt to alleviate some of its financial problems. This resulted in the Gulf War and the opportunity for the U.S. military to establish bases in Saudi Arabia, which so angered Islamists like Bin Laden. However, there is another layer to this onion.
One of the most significant aspects of the Islamic republic of Iran is its support of terrorism. Indeed it is written in the Constitution that one of the duties of the regime is to export the revolution. The Constitution however leaves unspecified just how the regime is to carry out this duty. Consequently how it is carried out is left to the interpretation of whoever is in charge. Who is in charge is not always so clear in Iran since the beginning of the revolution. The regime has been plagued by a power struggle between the conservative clerics and the moderates that continues today. Yet the export of the revolution has occurred historically in two ways. First the revolution has served as an exemplar to aspiring Islamic terror groups such as Abu Sayeef in the Philippines. Second Iran has directly supported terrorist groups, for example Hizbollah in southern Lebanon.
I theorize that the defeat of Iran dented the cause of state-sponsored terrorism. The loss left a vacuum that showed the inadequacies of state-sponsored terrorism especially if the state that is sponsoring terrorism is as backward as Iran. The cause of terrorism needed a benefactor or many benefactors who not only had large checkbooks, but who also viewed supporting terror much like Bill Gates views the support of technology in the classroom. The support of terrorism is a philanthropic concern for those who are bankrolling it. Terror is not just an attack on modernization or America. The principals see it as spreading justice throughout the world. It must be seen in this way in order to blind the participants to the inherent evil of the actions which they commit.