Connect with us

Featured

Iran Iraq War-The Long Fought Battle still Resounds

Published

on

Thirty-five years ago, one of the longest battles of the past century broke out. Yet the echoes of today persist as a bloody eight-year conflict between Iran and Iraq. “The war is still going on on many fronts,” the Iraqi poet and writer Sinan Antoon reflects that he grew up in Baghdad.

“Our neighbour lost both legs in the battle,” remembers Antoon, currently an associate professor at the Gallatin School at New York University. “If Saddam Hussein gives up his fighting in 1990, my neighbour replied, ‘Why have I lost my legs?’ It is believed that one million lives have been destroyed. A whole generation was scarred on all sides of the rift.

The lessons gained have already been gained in an area now overwhelmed by fire-destroyed proxy wars between the international and international powers. Syria, Iraq, and Yemen have been all torn up by growing fault lines: Sunni Shia, Persians against the Arabs, and “Fresh Cold War” alliances established in Moscow-Washington. Iraq was under the oppressive control of Saddam Hussein, who was eventually overthrown, convicted, and assassinated in reaction to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

Nearby Iran was governed by Ayatollah Khomeini, who had just returned from exile to direct the 1979 Iranian Revolt that had forced out the Shah. His nation was battled by a clash with his arch-rival Saddam to strengthen his uprising against home foes.

Olden Battle

After months of growing cross-border tension, the conflict escalated in September 1980. Iraqi troops marched several hundred miles to Iranian territory and their warplanes entered Tehran Airport.

“While Sadam is legitimately liable for an illegal invasion, Khomeini provoked subversion and massive propaganda,” argues Professor Mansur Farhang, who was Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations until a year before the war and partnered with foreign brokers to avoid it in the first years of the war.

As the war continued, foreign allies helped both parties, and Iraq was a key source of economic and military aid from the United States. Iran’s military powers were also inspired by the astonishment of its front-flooded soldiers.

While it became regarded as the “olden battle” over the years, Iran and Iraq proceeded to pay an incredibly high amount. Output the world has woken up to the magnitude of the devastation as Saddam has launched violence against Iranian enemies through chemical bombs and backed through his Iraqi Kurds.

Iran was still seeking to find a way out when the American cruiser USS Vincennes murdered 290 passengers on Iran Air Flight 655 in July 1988. The US administration expressed ‘strong sorrow’ but intensified Iran’s concern that Washington would deliberately engage in this conflagration. Ayatollah Khomeini has described his preliminary decision to support the UN resolution to end hostilities as ‘drinking poison.’

Iran’s Influence over Iraq

Three decades later we use the description to define the harsh decision taken to welcome world powers, including the US, by their successor Ayatollah Khamenei this year to significantly shorten its nuclear program. But today Iran has firm influence over Iraq’s firm Shia leadership and several well-armed militias in the area. And Iraq has gone from war to war since 1988 and has now been grappling with the terrifying emergence of the “Islamic State,” a virulent rebellion against the Shia law.

Within an 8 year of the war, Ayatollah Khomeini tried to unite the Shia group in Iraq and could not organize them. Nevertheless, racial tensions persist for most of the violence that now cuts into Iraq’s very existence as a united state.

And neighboring Syria is a battleground between Iran-Russia-supported forces of President Assad and Arab-Western armed opposition factions. The most devastating thing of all, the rising misery of millions of citizens now forced from home is the massive influx of desperate asylum seekers to Europe.

Iraqi Ahmed al-Mushatat, who was embroiled in a dispute in the 1980s after his medical studies, is now a frequent chapter in the region: “We assumed it might never stop. Wars are officially done. But today’s tensions threaten to further perpetuate the tensions of the last century.

Consequences of war

The tale of “futile battle” springs to mind as you want to look critically and retrospectively at the Iran-Iraq war. Who lost? Who lost? Or, maybe you might wonder, who won the fight at the end of almost ten years? There were air and land fights along the 1,000-kilometer frontier, and neither Iraq nor Iran could claim a lasting success nor impose its will and policy on the August 20, 1988, ceasefire.

Much Iraqi youth were involved in the fighting and post-traumatic disorder was already struggling for those fortunate enough to be unscathed on the war front. The war also produced a century of widows and orphans in which Iraqi society in its entirety could not rebound from nor reintegrate the state because of the Gulf War of 1991 and subsequent sanctions.

Iraqis were tricked into this relentless War by the accumulation of high domestic debt and the crippling consequences on their oil economies. A Jingoistic approach, the Baathist propaganda machine branded the Iran-Iraq War as the “Eastern Arab World border defence from Iranian hegemony,” thus raising the dependence of Arab neighbours and Western states – like the US – who opposed the newly formed Islamic Republic of Iran.

This gap between Iraq’s strong demands for Gulf Cooperation Council Countries (GCC) incentives mirrored their absence of reaction and empathy, which further raised tensions and aggressive Saddam-led policies. Ordinary Iraqis felt that the GCC countries were pushing and using them to stop Iran’s drive at the time to spread its Islamic revolution. To make matters worse, there has never been financial assistance and settlement promised to Iraq by any of the GCC countries during the 1980-1988 war.

Economic and Social Collapse

Consequently, Iraqis consider the conclusion of the Iran-Iraq war as the starting point of the economic and social collapse of their nations. The oil boom of the 1970s and its parallel economic development finally only substituted in the 1990s for isolationism. For ordinary Iraqis, Matt, Hana, or “the grinder,” comes to mind as the first word in the description of the Iran-Iraq War. Saddam invaded Kuwait in August 1990, which later triggered the paralyzing multilateral sanctions against Iraq and, probably, the 2003 US invasion of the country.

Has the Iran-Iraq War hits its goals? Well, on which side it is studied. It depends. While the eight-year war hindered Tehran and Baghdad’s economic development, it created a zero-sum culture between the two countries and left the Middle East volatile and dysfunctional. It is not a minor occurrence to ignore and historians do not treat it as a typical community boundary battle. The implications of this mechanism are not well known and, to say the least, have led to the development of a generation of Iraqis and Iranians who overruled the diplomacy and soft power which are now evident in their use of military and covert operations.

Around the same time, the war led to a distinct polarization within the Arab World by claiming positions and choosing sides. Syria and Libya were side by side with Tehran, while Baghdad was side by side with Egypt, Jordan, and much of the GCC. By 1988 a new strategic map of allies and enemies had been created.

The Iran-Iraq war has prompted sectarianism to increase in the Middle East. It became an instrument and an excuse for intensified political sectarianism used by Baghdad and Tehran and their regional supporters. By the end of the war, its sectarian character and its propagation as such were a symbol of a growing topic in the Middle East.

The GCC states may have spoken in the words “Arab” and “Persian,” but they said the words “Sunni” and “Shia.” Saudi Arabia and other nearby Arab countries felt threatened with Shia membership by the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Saddam was then championed by Sunni Muslims in the wake of the current movement headed by Ayatollah. Iraqi Shias were the first victim of this newly developed sectarianism, as evidenced by the result of the Iraqi revolts in the south in 1991.

Thirty years later, amid the difficulties of the Gulf War in 1991, strict multilateral sanctions, and the US occupation in 2003, generations of Iraqis have yet to erase the wounds of the unsuccessful Iran-Iraq war. Its effects are still felt today in the Middle East.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Featured

Who Will Guard Gaza’s Future? Inside the International Stabilization Force and the Peace Summit

Published

on

Who-Will-Guard-Gazas-Future-Inside-the-International-Stabilization-Force-and-the-Peace-Summit

As the world turns its gaze toward the upcoming Gaza peace moot scheduled in Sharm el-Sheikh, anticipation mixes with skepticism. Delegations from more than 25 nations, including Egypt, Qatar, Indonesia, Pakistan, and the United States, are expected to participate. The summit’s stated goal is to chart a post-war roadmap for Gaza: one that ensures reconstruction, stability, and long-term governance. Yet, beneath the diplomatic smiles lies a deeper unease. Will this summit bring justice, or simply repackage occupation in the language of peace?

While Egypt positions itself as a mediator and the United States attempts to portray itself as a peace broker, many in the Muslim world view this as an exercise in image management. For Gazans who have endured months of devastation, the word “peace” feels hollow when their children are still being buried beneath rubble.

The International Stabilization Force: A New Guardian or Another Overseer?

Central to the summit’s agenda is the proposed International Stabilization Force (ISF). It is a multinational security body meant to take charge of Gaza once Israeli troops withdraw. According to policy outlines discussed at the Council on Foreign Relations, the ISF would be composed of troops from Muslim-majority countries such as Egypt, Indonesia, and Turkey, supported logistically by the U.S. and possibly NATO allies.

Its mission is to oversee security, prevent rearmament, and assist in rebuilding civilian police institutions. Yet this concept immediately triggers questions of legitimacy and control. Who will the ISF answer to, whether it be the United Nations, the Arab League, or Washington? And will it protect Gazans or impose an externally dictated order?

Critics warn that such a force could serve as a buffer between Israel and Gaza rather than a guarantor of Palestinian sovereignty. A security expert quoted, “If the ISF’s mandate comes from Western powers, it may enforce stability at the cost of freedom.”

Gaza’s Sovereignty Between Protection and Control

The idea of international troops in Gaza is not new. Similar arrangements in Lebanon and Bosnia offered mixed results when peacekeeping often turned into passive observation, and local populations remained powerless. For Gazans, the fear is that the ISF might become an instrument to monitor them rather than protect them.

While Israel seeks guarantees that Hamas will not regain control, Palestinians demand something far simpler: the right to self-govern without occupation or military oversight. Many analysts argue that unless the ISF’s command structure includes Palestinian representation, it risks deepening mistrust.

Furthermore, there are legal and ethical dilemmas. If Israeli forces withdraw but still control Gaza’s airspace and borders through the ISF, can Gaza truly be called free? The world has seen this model before, which is an illusion of autonomy wrapped in the language of international cooperation.

The Politics Behind Peace: Competing Interests

Every participating nation arrives with its own agenda. For example, Egypt, leading the ISF, offers regional prestige. For Qatar and Indonesia, participation reinforces solidarity with Palestinians. For the United States, it is a strategic opportunity to maintain influence over the post-war narrative. Yet, for Gaza, each external interest risks turning the strip into a geopolitical chessboard.

Observers note that the absence of any confirmed Israeli participation in the summit is telling. It suggests that while plans are made for Gaza’s future, the voices of those who live there remain marginalized. Without Gazan and broader Palestinian leadership at the table, the summit risks becoming an exercise in deciding the fate of a people without their consent.

Reconstruction and Responsibility: The Road Ahead

Rebuilding Gaza will require an estimated $70 billion, according to updated UN and World Bank figures. Roads, hospitals, power grids, and schools must be reconstructed almost from scratch. The ISF, if deployed, will play a role in securing aid routes and ensuring humanitarian access, but security alone will not heal Gaza. Without justice, accountability, and economic sovereignty, reconstruction will be little more than rebuilding the cage.

Experts emphasize that any real peace must involve lifting the blockade, restoring trade access, and giving Palestinians control over their borders and ports. Without these measures, even billions in reconstruction funds will fail to bring lasting stability.

The Moral Imperative

The peace summit in Egypt and the proposed International Stabilization Force are being presented as symbols of hope. However, hope without accountability is fragile. If the world truly wants to guard Gaza’s future, it must begin by addressing the root cause of its suffering, which is occupation, displacement, and systemic denial of human rights.

True peace cannot be imposed, but it must be built on justice. For Gazans, peace is not about foreign soldiers on their streets. It’s about waking up without fear, owning their land, and rebuilding their lives with dignity. The question that remains is whether the world will finally allow them that chance.

Continue Reading

Crimes Against Humanity

Israel’s Airstrikes on Gaza Reveal the Fragility of Truce

Published

on

Israels-Airstrikes-on-Gaza-Reveal-the-Fragility-of-Truce

When a fragile truce was declared a few days ago, a brief wave of hope washed over Gaza. Families thought they might finally rebuild their shattered homes, search for missing relatives, and sleep without the thunder of jets. However, within days, Israeli warplanes were once again striking the besieged strip. The so-called ceasefire, brokered with international backing, proved to be another chapter in a series of broken promises and shattered faith.

Israel claimed its latest strikes were a “response” to alleged violations by Hamas. Yet, on the ground, the victims were overwhelmingly civilians. Gaza’s health authorities confirmed more than a hundred people killed in the first hours of renewed bombardment. Most of them are women and children. Hospitals, already operating on the brink of collapse, struggled to treat the flood of casualties amid power shortages and dwindling medical supplies.

The truce, meant to bring calm, instead became a cruel illusion. The hum of drones returned, the fear crept back, and families once again fled for survival through rubble-strewn streets. International media outlets described scenes of panic as people searched for shelter, knowing there was none.

Bombardment Under a Banner of Peace

Each new airstrike tears away the thin veil of diplomacy that labels this as a truce. Residential blocks in Khan Younis and Gaza City were flattened, as eyewitnesses described entire families buried under rubble. Aid convoys waiting at Rafah were delayed yet again, leaving tens of thousands of displaced families without food or shelter. Even temporary medical camps reported running out of anesthesia and blood supplies as wounded civilians poured in.

For many Gazans, this ceasefire was never about peace. It was a pause for breath, which means the one that Israel chose to weaponize. As one humanitarian worker told, “Every time they say peace, we prepare for more funerals.” The despair among civilians is palpable, as they question whether the world even listens anymore.

This renewed round of bombings underlines a haunting reality that every so-called truce has become another opportunity for Israel to reposition militarily while Gaza’s people pay with their lives.

Truce Without Trust: The Myth of Protection

The fragility of the ceasefire exposes an uncomfortable truth that there is no enforcement mechanism strong enough to hold Israel accountable. Western governments condemned the bombing with soft statements but continued supplying military aid. The United States, which once called for restraint, quietly approved another arms shipment days before the strikes resumed.

This moral contradiction fuels Gaza’s anguish. Washington preaches human rights yet funds the very machinery that violates them. The European Union speaks of international law but rarely acts when those laws are broken. For ordinary Palestinians, the message is clear that their lives are negotiable, their suffering expendable in geopolitical bargains.

Human rights analysts argue that without credible monitoring, ceasefires will remain political performances rather than pathways to peace. As one UN official said, “If a truce allows bombing to continue, it is not a truce but just a theater.”

The Humanitarian Fallout: Life Amid Rubble

The humanitarian picture is grim. The United Nations estimates over 1.7 million Gazans are internally displaced, living in makeshift tents, classrooms, or under broken walls. Clean water remains scarce, fuel is nearly exhausted, and disease spreads faster than aid. Children draw pictures of bombs instead of butterflies while mothers ration bread to feed hungry infants.

Entire neighborhoods lie in ruins while their residents wait for food deliveries that rarely arrive. The World Food Programme reports that over 90% of Gaza’s population faces acute food insecurity. Hospitals are short on insulin, cancer medicine, and even basic painkillers. In some areas, people boil seawater to drink. Aid agencies have warned that if the siege continues, famine could arrive before winter.

Yet trucks full of aid remain parked just across the border, which is a cruel reminder of political paralysis and global indifference.

Legal and Moral Accountability

Under international law, targeting civilians during a ceasefire violates the Geneva Conventions. Still, Israel acts with impunity, shielded by its Western allies. Human rights groups have repeatedly called for independent investigations, but efforts stall at the UN due to American vetoes. The International Criminal Court’s pending case on alleged war crimes in Gaza remains stalled by diplomatic pressure.

For the people of Gaza, these violations are not abstract. They are lived experiences with the sound of collapsing roofs, the dust in the lungs, the endless funerals of neighbors and friends. Each airstrike deepens a collective trauma that future generations will inherit.

International experts now warn that without accountability, the world risks normalizing war crimes. As Amnesty International stated, “A ceasefire without justice is a countdown to the next tragedy.”

What Lies Ahead

As diplomats gather to discuss the next phase of Gaza’s future, the ground reality remains unchanged. The truce is more fragile than ever, and the people it was meant to protect are once again paying the price. Unless the international community enforces accountability and demands a genuine end to hostilities, this cycle will repeat.

A ceasefire should mean safety, not survival between strikes. For Gaza’s people, peace cannot come from pauses in bombing, but it must come from the world’s moral awakening to their right to live, rebuild, and breathe free. The global community must decide whether it stands for human life or for silence in the face of genocide.

Continue Reading

Featured

Annexing the West Bank While Gaza Bleeds

Published

on

Annexing-the-West-Bank-While-Gaza-Bleeds

Gaza’s skyline has vanished under intense smoke, while its streets, once filled with life, now echo with silence and grief. Amid this devastation, Israel has chosen to open another front, and this time not with missiles, but with geography. The Knesset, Israel’s parliament, has recently advanced two bills that aim to formally annex large parts of the occupied West Bank. It is an act of political conquest, while on the other hand, Gaza’s children are buried under rubble.

This is not a coincidence but a continuity. As Gaza suffers from genocide, Israel is redrawing borders to make that erasure permanent.

A Legislative Land Grab

Recently, Israel’s parliament approved the first readings of two annexation bills. The first extends Israeli civil law to all West Bank settlements, which is a territory occupied since 1967 and recognized internationally as Palestinian land. When it comes to the second bill, it targets Ma’ale Adumim, a massive settlement east of Jerusalem that splits the West Bank in half, severing its north from its south.

Although the votes were close, with one passing 25–24 and the other 31–9, their meaning was profound. As per the reports, both bills were introduced while U.S. Vice President JD Vance was visiting Israel, symbolizing open defiance of Washington’s diplomacy. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hesitated to endorse them publicly, but pressure from his far-right allies, led by Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, is relentless. Their ideology is clear: no Palestine, no partition, and hence no peace.

Gaza’s Agony: A Genocide in Real Time

While politicians in Jerusalem debate annexation, Gaza’s population fights to survive. The UN Commission of Inquiry has declared Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide, which is a deliberate, systematic, and aimed effort at destroying a people. Till now, more than 67,000 Palestinians have died. Thousands have been displaced, and entire neighborhoods lie flattened. Hospitals function without power while aid convoys are bombed before reaching the hungry.

The International Court of Justice ordered Israel in January 2024 to prevent acts of genocide and ensure humanitarian access. None of those orders was respected. Moreover, the siege tightened, and starvation was made a weapon. Against this backdrop, annexation of the West Bank reads not as policy, but as a strategy that seems to be the second half of a single campaign to erase Palestine from existence.

Illegality Beyond Dispute

When International Law is brought into the limelight, Israel’s annexation efforts are null and void. Even the ICJ’s 2024 advisory opinion confirmed that Israel’s occupation and settlement expansion violate the Fourth Geneva Convention. The United Nations has repeatedly reaffirmed that any attempt to acquire land by force is illegal. States are required not to recognize or assist such measures.

Yet, Israel continues to act with impunity. Roads, checkpoints, and segregated zones have already turned the West Bank into an archipelago of isolated enclaves. The annexation of Ma’ale Adumim would cement that reality, rendering a future Palestinian state geographically impossible. As it was observed,

“Israel no longer hides its intent, and the map of occupation is clearly being turned into a map of sovereignty.”

Washington’s response has been familiar: sharp words, soft hands. Vice President Vance called the Knesset vote an “insult,” with a warning that it endangered the fragile Gaza ceasefire framework. Yet, U.S. military aid, which is nearly $3.8 billion annually, continues without condition. American arms still supply Israeli jets, and U.S. vetoes still block UN resolutions calling for accountability.

This pattern of contradiction has defined U.S.-Israel relations for decades, including public condemnation and private protection. Israel acts knowing that Washington’s rebukes will never reach the language of sanctions. It is diplomacy without deterrence, and therefore, carte blanche.

The Ceasefire Framework

As Gaza starves, diplomats continue to negotiate the truce. According to reports, the ceasefire plan includes a phased release of Israeli hostages, the freeing of about 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, and gradual Israeli troop withdrawals from urban centers. However, each new bulldozer digging into West Bank soil makes these efforts meaningless.

How can peace talks survive when one side expands the very occupation at their root? How can trust grow when homes are demolished under the shadow of negotiation tents? Consequently, the annexation vote mocks every word written in ceasefire communiqués.

What Lies Ahead

Inside Israel, Netanyahu faces a dangerous balancing act. His far-right allies threaten to topple his coalition if he slows annexation. Western allies warn of isolation if he proceeds. The prime minister’s hesitation is tactical, not moral. Whether annexation happens now or later, the machinery of occupation keeps grinding forward.

Internationally, legal pressure is rising but somehow easing, especially after the announcement of the so-called “truce”. The UN Human Rights Council urges accountability, while the European governments debate sanctions against settlers and arms-export suspensions. However, power still shields Israel from the consequences of law. The ICJ’s rulings carry moral weight, yet enforcement remains elusive. Until action matches outrage, international law will remain a promise unfulfilled.

Annexation during genocide is the moment when the world’s excuses run out. Law, morality, and history converge here. If the international community turns away again, the phrase “never again” will lose its meaning forever. And in the dust of Gaza and the stones of the West Bank, humanity itself will stand accused.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending