American Geographical SocietyGeopolitical Origins of the Iran-Iraq War Author(s): Will D. Swearingen Reviewed work(s): Source: Geographical Review, Vol. 78, No. 4 (Oct., 1988), pp. 405-416 Published by: American Geographical Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/215091 . Accessed: 28/12/2012 20:49 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . American Geographical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Geographical Review. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded on Fri, 28 Dec 2012 20:49:04 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Stanford University. Nonterritorial conflicts also had key roles. one million refugees. but territory has been the measure in assessing their outcomes. Control of disputed land is the primary means of demonstratingprevailing power. According to Iran and most observers. He is currently a visiting scholar at the Hoover Institution. * DR. SWEARINGENis a research assistant professor of geography at the Technology Application Center. Technology Application Center. 1987). Another group contends that this dispute was a pretext for the escalation of hostilities of other sorts. New Mexico 87131. when Iranian forces shelled Iraqi towns and villages along the middle border region of the two countries. attacks on oil shipments in the Persian Gulf. Iraq was the aggressor: the war started on 22 September. and the total cost to date may exceed $300 billion.. and thousands of prisoners of war. because they fail to address the full range of causal factors. University of New Mexico. SWEARINGEN The origins of the Iran-Iraq war are geopolitical in two essential ways. ABSTRACT.' The once prosperous economies of Iran and Iraq are seriously crippled. One group of analysts argues that the primary cause was the dispute about the 105-kilometer-long Shatt al-Arab boundary. In the eight years since the outbreak of hostilities. The estimated toll includes more than one million dead. 1 Anthony H. University of New Mexico. which began in September 1980. and full recovery from war damage will probably take more than a decade. A geopolitical analysis encompasses virtually all the relevant factors:ones intrinsically territoriallike the boundary dispute and those of a different nature. for drafting the maps. but the origins of the conflict are not. were a direct cause of contention. The possible effects of the war on both regional stability and international security are understood. Cordesman. The Iran-Iraq War and Western Security 1984-87: Strategic Implications and Policy Options (London: Jane's Publishing Co. T HE Iran-Iraq war. 9-10.GEOPOLITICAL ORIGINS OF THE IRAN-IRAQ WAR* WILL D. and the sensational aspects of the conflict have tended to obscure the origins of the war. This content downloaded on Fri. has become the bloodiest and most destructive military conflict since World War II. including the Shatt al-Arab boundary and five other zones. 28 Dec 2012 20:49:04 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . THE WAR According to the government of Iraq. the conflict started on 4 September 1980. Both explanations of the war's origins are inadequate. The war costs each combatant country as much as $1 billion monthly. Territorialissues. when Iraqi forces * I thank Amy Budge. This article first outlines the chronology of the conflict and then examines its underlying causes from a geopolitical perspective. all of which were nonterritorial. the intervention of the United States and other nonregional governments. Albuquerque. J. Iraq and Iran: Roots of Conflict (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.3 Since the fall of the Iranian monarchy and the onset of the Islamic revolution in January 1979. 4Tareq Y. MERIP Reports 125-126 (1984): 9. 28 Dec 2012 20:49:04 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 22. Chronicle of the Gulf War.: Princeton University."8 Sophisticated weaponry has been misused with regularity-for example. in The Iran-Iraq War: New Weapons. each side displayed a high level of military incompetence.: Transaction Books. New Brunswick. Hillal Dessouki. N. 9. and armored forces as well as 363 violations of its airspace. From the outset. 1985).000) but fewer combat aircraft(approximately 330 versus 450). New York: Praeger.J. The Iran-Iraq War: Islam Embattled (New York: Praeger. 2 Nasser This content downloaded on Fri. 1982). 5William 0. where Iraqi forces penetrated deep into Khuzistan and captured a strip seventy to one hundred miles wide along the western border of this province (Fig. and incitements to revolt. terrorism.6 The main one was in the south. Lebanon. both sides engaged in hostile propaganda. 1984). 21-22. 3 J. in The Iraq-Iran War: Issues of Conflict and Prospects for Settlement (edited by Ali E. The Iranian Position.000. 1981). the two combatants were more or less evenly matched. infantry.900 versus 2. Center of International Studies.the Iraniangovernment was unwilling to negotiate a resolution.406 THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW launched a full-scale invasion of Iran. Iraq and Iran: The Years of Crisis (London: Croom Helm.4 At the outbreak of warfare in September 1980.7 A Pentagon official remarked that the war was "a case of the incompetent fighting the inept. the Iraqi government called for a cease-fire and issued a set of demands that was promptly rejected. 1983).2 Iraq asserted that it had suffered 544 violations of its borders and airspace during essentially the same period. Six days into the war and without a stranglehold on Iran.7 November 1980.5The Iraqi invasion of Iran in late September established three fronts. A Strategic Analysis. Until mid-July 1988. sabotage. in The Regionalization of Warfare: The Falkland/Malvinas Islands. Moeini. tanks as stationary bunkers. 200. and the very narrow penetration of Iran there posed no crucial threat. 1982). the issue of which country did what to the other on a specific day or at any location is largely irrelevant. Each country had regular armed forces numbering approximately 250. 30. M. 1). 7Arthur Campbell Turner. 8 Wall Street Journal. those events in September 1980 merely represent the breaking point in an escalation of tension that had been under way for many months. Iraq had more tanks (nearly 2. Princeton. Grummon. 157-158. Khuzistan is significant because its ethnic composition is primarily Arab and because it contains the principal oil reserves and refining operations in Iran. The other two fronts were in the central and northern border regions. Abdulghani. and the Iran-Iraq Conflict (edited by James Brown and William P. Iran contended that between March 1979 and September 1980 it had experienced 434 attacks by Iraqi artillery. Iraq seems either to have had no clearly formulated strategic goals for its invasion or to have fallen so short of achieving them that they remain a mystery. Nationalism and Religion: Iran and Iraq at War. Staudenmaier. N. 6 Stephen R. In that context of overt hostility. relations between the two countries had steadily deteriorated. Old Conflicts (edited by Shirin Tahir-Kheli and Shaheen Ayubi. From the present perspective. Ismael. Besides territorial violations. Snyder. Dilip Hiro. 28 Dec 2012 20:49:04 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . The first was the Iraqi offensive that began on 22 September 1980 and ended by March 1981.1-Theater of conflict. That counteroffensive was This content downloaded on Fri. The second phase consisted of a year-long stalemate during which Iraq held approximately 14.(Manda1. The third phase. /' Khnan 9sr-e Khonoqin t Shirin K Ke3rmonshoh I RAN Naft Khaneh .*< Boghdad Zarbatiyab. beginning in March 1982. was marked by an Iranian counteroffensive that drove Iraqi troops from the occupied territory and even penetrated a short distance into Iraq.tlMron f DezfulI PROVINCE .407 IRAN-IRAQ WAR As Suloymoniyah Kirkuk 4 If. The war has proceeded in five distinct phases.000 square kilometers of Iranian territory but was unable to advance.Ahvaz Basr oKhrramshahr Abadan Shatt al-Aroa /s Iraqi-held Territory March 1981 / / KUWAIT / 0 0 km miles \ PERSIAN/ARABIAN GULF 100 1o0 l SAUDI ARABIA FIG. D. Iraq has been able to fend off Iran by superior access to new armaments. bloody battles with minor territorial gains. E5. This phase has essentially shifted the battleline back to the prewar boundary. as it has been throughout history. the conflict has degenerated into a brutal war of attrition with resemblances to World War I: trench warfare. have been fighting for centuries over their border. Iraqi and Arab in name and reality. began with the unexpected Iraqi recapture of occupied territory southeast of Basra. A survey of the historical evolution of 9 Hiro. and strategic strikes against cities and vital oil installations. continued to April 1988. Yet few analysts have predicted the turns of events in the war. 5-12.C. Middle East and Africa. 1' Claudia Wright. This content downloaded on Fri. (2) The most recent boundary treaty. Its government was forced to accede to the treaty by Iranian promotion of a Kurdish revolt that threatened to dismember Iraq and to deprive it of its primary oil-producing region. ORIGINS OF THE WAR Some analysts contend that the war started primarily over a boundary dispute. became president of the country in 1978. occasional use of poison gas. still under way. "The war was an extension of the politics of border negotiations by means of a military siege. was a source of deep humiliation to Iraq. (5) Iraqi justification of occupation of Khuzistan emphasized that control of this strategic region would compel Iran to recognize Iraq's territorial rights and to renegotiate the 1975 treaty. In exchange for Iran's pledge to stop supporting the revolt. Outmanned. signed in 1975."10(4) After the Iraqi capture of the western part of the oil-rich province of Khuzistan. 18 September 1980. Iraq gave up a large portion of the vital Shatt al-Arab waterway."11 Together the evidence that the Shatt al-Arab boundary issue was the cause of the conflict is compelling. 28 Dec 2012 20:49:04 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Implications of the Iraq-Iran War. Foreign Affairs 59 (1980-81): 287. The fifth phase. Hussein saw his opportunity after the overthrow of the Iranian monarchy brought about a debilitating purge of the military and a paralysis of the economy. During the past five years. particularly the Shatt al-Arab waterway. Washington. (3) The abrogation of the 1975 treaty by Iraq five days before its invasion of Iran had the umistakable character of a declaration of war.408 THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW spent by late fall 1983.9The fourth phase. a key condition for its return was restoration of Shatt al-Arab to the pre-1975 status. or their predecessors. long.. Hussein vowed. "This Shatt shall again be. Neither side seems able to muster the force to inflict a decisive blow. (1) Iran and Iraq. 10 Foreign Broadcast Information Service. he vowed to redress the boundary situation. When Saddam Hussein. characterized by stalemate. the chief Iraqi negotiator. footnote 6 above. the war was an Iraqi attempt to recover territory ceded in 1975 and to restore national pride. and at least five pieces of evidence support the interpretation. According to this interpretation. The only prediction that can confidently be made is that resolution of the conflict must address its origins. and 1975 (Fig. 2). in Essays in Political Geography (edited by Charles A. 211-223.13 Though not specifically mentioning the Shatt al-Arab. In 1639 the Ottoman Empire and Safavid Persia signed the first treaty to define a border in the region.12 The key treaties from the current perspective were those of 1639. 13-20. The United Kingdom. 351-353. From a point approximately four miles above the mouth of the Karun River to a point almost one mile below it. 13 Alexander Melamid. London: Methuen. Thus a border zone.IRAN-IRAQ WAR 409 the boundary reveals why Iraq might have gone to war over this issue. 1937. the boundary was defined according to the loyalties of villages and nomadic tribes rather than to geographical reference points.4 This treaty ostensibly allocated the Shatt al-Arab to the Ottoman Empire. footnote 13 above. The result was a significant territorialloss for the Ottoman Empire and later for Iraq. was created between the Zagros Mountains on the east and the Tigris and Shatt al-Arab waterways on the west. As was then customary. aiming to facilitate its oil industry. The first treaty addressing this frontier was concluded in 1535 between the Persian and Ottoman empires. Additionally Iran was granted right of free passage on this waterway. That treaty recognized Ottoman control over what would become the modern state of Iraq and attempted to establish a boundary between the opposing empires. Iran received Abadan Island. The United Kingdom planned to develop steamship navigation on the Tigris River and the Shatt al-Arab. 28 Dec 2012 20:49:04 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . The Shatt al-'Arab Boundary Dispute. 1913. played a crucial role in effecting this change. The frontier between Iran and Iraq has been subject to dispute for nearly five centuries. footnote 12 above. Oil had been discovered in southwestern Iran in 1908 by an agent of the predecessor of British Petroleum. Daniel Pipes. the boundary was shifted to the middle of the Shatt al-Arab. Subsequent treaties confirmed the provisions of the Treaty of Erzerum. and Russia hoped to build a road linking its southern territories with Baghdad. 2. Middle East Journal 22 (1968): 351. 1968). in The Iran-Iraq War. 1847. Development of the deposits required a good port to receive drilling and other heavy equipment. The great powers wanted a more precise definition of the Ottoman-Persian boundary to ease the expansion of their imperial interests in the region. Ismael. A Border Adrift: Origins of the Conflict. The Evolution of the Boundary between Iraq and Iran. this treaty has provided the foundation for all subsequent boundary discussions. and former Ottoman territory on the eastern bank of the Shatt al-Arab. Pipes. The United Kingdom and Russia were parties to this treaty. Fisher. but an important modification appeared in 1913. footnote 5 above. rather than a precise boundary. British ships had to anchor in Turkish territorial waters off Khorramshahr to discharge the equip12 Vahe J. The Treaty of Erzerum in 1847 directly addressed the issue of the Shatt al-Arab. Sevian. Seventeen additional treaties have been signed since then. This content downloaded on Fri. however. 14 Melamid. That year a treaty granted Iran a five-mile stretch of territorial waters in the Shatt al-Arab opposite Khorramshahr. 13-14. footnote 4 above. other small islands in the waterway. This content downloaded on Fri.. By that time the political alignments had fundamentally changed. a circumstance that involved Turkish customs officials.unsy . ment. and Iraq had become a British mandate in 1920 and then an independent country in 1932. British economic interests and behind-the-scenes control remained influential. 2 The FIG. had come to power in Iran in 1921. ~~~RAN~~I A IRAQ _ - <.410 THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW KborkKhobahr l. However. A similar boundary shift occurred in 1937. The United Kingdom prevailed on Iran and Iraq to rearrange their boundary off Abadan so that an improved port could handle additional oil exports from Iran. 28 Dec 2012 20:49:04 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . St A NILAN mm1847S. The United Kingdom enlisted Russia in an effort to pressure Iran and the Ottoman Empire to redefine their boundary. Reza Khan.2-The Shat Ari al b Shatt al-Arab boundary. C--D 1937 Fc. The present-day port of Khorramshahr was developed in waters transferred to Iranian jurisdiction by the 1913 treaty. A strong ruler. Levy and Mike Froelich. In 1978 Hussein.. he repeatedly called for the overthrow of Hussein. 73-74. Since the outbreak of the war. This content downloaded on Fri. where he had been living in exile for thirteen years. the territorial loss was trifling. In sum. Time. Perceptions and Conflict Resolution. 16 Bulliet. it is most convincingly interpreted as a struggle for status as the dominant regional power. 127-143.. Secondly."16In this interpretation four nonterritorial factors are the keys to understanding the conflict. "Anyone who believes that .. will also be convinced that Israeli-Palestinian discord centers on sharing the waters of the Jordan River. Measured in square kilometers. The idea that past border conflicts adequately explain the origin of the Iran-IraqWar is both an illusion and a legalistic sham. with strong support from the United States. it is easy to understand why Iraq might have gone to war in 1980 when it felt that power and opportunity were in its favor... Causes of the Iran-Iraq War. the one condition for ending it about which Iran had been inflexible was the banishment of Hussein from power. the psychological effect was enormous. at the behest of the shah. in The Iran-Iraq War. For reasons stated previously. expelled Khomeini from the holy city of Najaf in southern Iraq. had emerged as the dominant military power in the Gulf region. Given this legacy and the especially humiliating characterof the 1975 treaty. Jack S. Again Iraq lost territory. However. Iran. the entire Iran-Iraqboundary along the Shatt al-Arab was shifted to the thalweg. . and the rearrangement again came at the expense of Iraq.15 One analyst has argued. 28 Dec 2012 20:49:04 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Firstly. or the rivalry between Sunni and Shi'i Muslims. Iraq is almost entirely a landlocked country. the personal animosity between Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollah Khomeini has become manifested in state policy. the nearly five centuries of conflict over borders have commonly been viewed as a reflection of ethnic animosity between Arabs and Persians. Before 1979. Bulliet. However. the boundary was shifted to the thalweg. the Shatt al-Arab is the heart of the conflict . footnote 5 above. The evidence strongly supports this interpretation.IRAN-IRAQ WAR 411 Along a four-mile stretch of the Shatt al-Arab opposite Abadan. The last important boundary change occurred in 1975. When Khomeini came to power in Iran in 1979. or the deepest part of the river. in Regionalization of Warfare. footnote 15 above. footnote 7 above. . and it regards the Shatt al-Arab as its primary connection to the outside world as well as the raison d'etre of its claim to the status of a Persian Gulf power. On each occasion. 65-81. Yet many observers assert that the boundary issue was only a pretext and that the actual causes of the war were of a different nature. the loss resulted from political coercion by external powers. In Iraq a 15 Richard W. in four different treaties Iraq suffered a significant loss of some of the most important of its national territory. 412 THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW goal of the Ba'th Party after 1968 was to make the country the great power of the Gulf region. he has advocated not only the overthrow of the Hussein regime but also the establishment of a true Islamic state in Iraq. With almost 60 percent of the Iraqi population consisting of Shi'i Muslims. The Sunni Muslims are clearly the minority in the country. antimodernist sentiments and stresses a return to the true Islamic values of the past. Iraq also had aspiration to be the predominant Arab power in the Middle East. But if the invasion was to bring about his downfall. In addition to the 60 percent of the population that is Shi'i. Middle East and Africa. This explanation is perhaps more convincing than the Shatt al-Arab boundary dispute by itself.C. As practiced by the two countries. However in two ways at least. The war therefore represents a clash between two mutually exclusive types of legitimacy. The latter interpretation was confirmed by a deputy prime minister of Iraq who remarked that one of his country's objectives was "to prove in battle that it is stronger than Iran and fully capable of defeating it. in post-shah Iran Islamic fundamentalism prevails. presented a threat to this minority. these ideologies are in direct conflict.. 205. Arab nationalism is secular. 29 September 1980. The purpose of the attack on Iran was to discredit Khomeini and his revolution. The ruling Sunni Arabs thus constitute only 20 percent of the population. and the Islamic revolution in Iran. Fourthly. E3. Firstly. the rulers of Iraq fear a Shi'i rebellion. two different and opposing sets of values.17 This condition was evidence that Iraq was posturing to become the leader of the Arab countries and the regional superpower. it fails to address adequately the origins of the war. D. 18 Cited in Abdulghani. the result has been the exact opposite: it enabled the new clerical regime to consolidate its political control and to rally the Iranian population against a common enemy. the ruling Sunni Muslims cannot emphasize religion. One condition for withdrawal from Khuzistan was that Iran relinquish three Arab islands in the lower Gulf that the shah's navy had forcibly occupied in 1971. and demonstration of its strength by invading an enfeebled Iran and recapturing Arab territory advanced that goal. and Iraq sought to fill the power vacuum that was created by the fall of the shah."''8 Thirdly. the prevailing ideology of Iraq is Arab nationalism. 17 This content downloaded on Fri. The taking of western Khuzistan and other early Iraqi victories were proclaimed as the greatest military triumphs of the Arabs over the Persians since the Battle of Qadisiya in 636. 28 Dec 2012 20:49:04 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Shi'i Muslims in both Iraq and Iran regard Khomeini as their foremost political and religious leader. Washington. Instead they stress Arab unity and socialism. Foreign Broadcast Information Service. Islamic fundamentalism in Iran plays on anti-Western. chiefly Shi'i in character. Since his advent to power in 1979. footnote 3 above. The majority of analysts considers these nonterritorial factors to constitute the true explanation of the Iran-Iraqwar. 20 percent is Kurds who are Sunni but who zealously retain their ethnic identity and have long been a secessionist group. The combined political weight of these problems far exceeded that of the dispute over the Shatt al-Arab. even in combination they fall short. The border straddles a large oil-bearing structure. 16-17. a geopolitical explanation adequately encompasses virtually all relevant factors. Besides the Shatt al-Arab boundary dispute. it does not account for other crucial disputes between the two countries. created much hardship for Iraqi riverine settlements. D. much of the prewar 1980 shelling of Iraqi towns and villages.: Gower. that had been equally Foreign Broadcast Information Service.K. like the Shatt al-Arab explanation. Salah Al-Mukhtar. which included the diversion of an entire stream in 1959. In the middle border region there was an intense dispute over the strategic heights of Zain al-Qaws and Saif Saad south of Qasr-e Shirin. Iraq went to war to capture or recapture territory for its symbolic importance. U. for the International Institute for Strategic Studies. In the second. a total of approximately 550 square kilometers of territory that Iran had forcibly annexed from Iraq. 20 Robert Litwak. including the principal episode on 4 September. Almost thirty rivers and streams rise in Iranian mountains. Analysts who have emphasized territorial issues as the cause of the war have focused almost exclusively on the Shatt al-Arab. Who Started the War?. 28 Dec 2012 20:49:04 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . flow into Iraq. five years later it had not done so. territorial issues were a direct cause of the war.C. E4. in The Iraq-Iran War. that underlies this disputed area. Secondly. 11-12. Both explanations are too limited and restrictive. Increased Iranian diversion of water from these streams. when in fact the struggle represented significantly more. Other crucial territorial problems either have been ignored or have been given insufficient attention. Nita M. Secondly. this event started the war. Firstly. and then drain chiefly into the Tigris River. None of the boundary treaties had addressed this problem. already exploited by both countries. footnote 2 above. 19 This content downloaded on Fri. 18 September 1980.'9 However. GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS The origins of the Iran-Iraqwar were geopolitical in two key ways. Middle East and Africa. Security in the Persian Gulf 2: Sources of Inter-State Conflict (Aldershot. In contrast. acquiring or controlling territory or resources was an explicit political goal. came from these heights. territorial gain was a means to achieve other political ends. To add injury to insult.20 A second territorial dispute concerned water rights to rivers shared by the two countries.IRAN-IRAQ WAR 413 it treats the Shatt al-Arab dispute as a pretext for the war. One of the main objectives of the September invasion of Iran was to recapture these heights. The issue had greatly strained diplomatic relations in recent decades. there were at least five other major territorial issues. Oil was also a part of this conflict. Renfrew. The Iraqi Position. In the first instance. 1981). Washington. In the Iraqi interpretation. One of the conditions in the 1975 treaty was that Iran would return this territory.. ForeignPolicy 66 (1987): 99-103. the Gangir. with the exception of one concerning a small frontier stream. 64. western Khuzistan had been part of what would become Iraq. Historically Iran long laid claim to southern Iraq. might have led to war. the Shi'i are heavily concentrated in southern Iraq.24By 1980the Iranian government was again instigating Kurdish rebellion to jeopardize Iraqi sovereignty over the northern oil-producing region. whose role has been ignored or misinterpreted by most analysts. the concern is for the territory and its resources.22 The third territorialissue involved the Kurds. 22. 21 22 This content downloaded on Fri. 100. Khomeini was a "turbanned shah. However. footnote 19 above. MERIP Reports 125-126 (1984): 16.K. Evolution of the Shatt al-'Arab Boundary Dispute (Wisbech. Al-Mukhtar. At the core of the government's fear of a Shi'i rebellion was a similar territorial issue. including gassing entire towns and villages. by itself.23The disdain of the Iraqi government for the Kurds themselves has been expressed. This issue. 2 April 1988. the United Kingdom ceded all of the Pipes. after World War I. Checkmate in the Gulf War. Under the Ottoman Empire. Khuzistan indirectly was a final important territorial issue underlying the Iraqi invasion of Iran. 25 Ghassan Salameh. The Kurds are concentrated in northern Iraq. footnote 7 above. Richard N.25Iraq countered with a preemptive invasion of Khuzistan. Because Iraq has a significant Shi'i majority." pursuing age-old Persian expansionist policies under the guise of Islam. Iraqi capture of this province was an effective counterthreat to dismember Iran. a counterbalance to the Kurdish concentration in the north. outside Iran. More likely than Shi'i overthrow of the central government is loss of the Shi'i south either to Iran or to a new state that would be closely allied with Iran. Schofield. the primary oil-producing region of the country. 23 Renfrew. In 1975 Iraq was forced to sign a humiliating treaty to stop Iranian support of Kurdish rebels that threatened Iraq's loss of northern territory. 28 Dec 2012 20:49:04 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . by strong military reprisals. 24 New York Times. At Karbala and Najaf are two of the holiest shrines in Shi'i Islam. the danger of rebellion among the group is a vital concern to the ruling Sunni Arab minority. which was perceived to be strategically significant because of its largely Arab population. however. Turner. footnote 19 above.21 The importance of this factor was established in the Iraqi proposal to end the war in its early days: a key demand was increased Iraqi rights to the waters of these streams. U.414 THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW divided in 1914 but without a specific mechanism for distributing its waters. footnote 12 above. Kurdish nationalism has long embodied a secessionist threat. the export of the Islamic revolution by Iran into southern Iraq was a thinly disguised attempt to exert old territorial claims. The status of Khuzistan has been a point of contention between the two countries for more than sixty years. and the region has the largest concentration of Shi'i.: Middle East and North African Studies Press. To Iraq's government. in part. 1986). 24. including many Farsi speakers. 154. From the Iraqi perspective. To force renegotiation of the boundary. 23. In 1960 Iraq helped establish a popular front as part of an irredentist campaign to detach the Arabic-speaking portion of the province from Iran. which Iraqi forces captured after intense house-to-house combat with Iranian Revolutionary Guards. One of the surprises of the war was the reluctance of the Arabic-speaking people of Khuzistan to embrace the Iraqis as liberators. Iraq invaded and captured western Khuzistan. and by the late 1960s Hussein was a driving force behind that campaign. would help elevate Iraq to leadership in the Arab world. but its psychological importance was large. 157-159. there was no attempt to cut the transportation lines to Tehran or Isfahan. and its origins were geopolitical in another key way: territory as symbol.27 Iraqi military strategy was ambiguous during the invasion. 14. With the exception of Khorramshahr. the growth of nationalism bestowed a highly charged significance to the disputed lands along the Iran-Iraqborder. During the twentieth century. The territorial loss in 1975 was also an embarrassing display of Iraq's failure to become the preeminant regional power and the leader of the Arab world. an area with both strategic importance as a bargaining lever and symbolism because of the Arabic-speaking population. Wresting this region from Iranian control.26 This interpretation seemed to be confirmed by the change of place-names to their historical Arabic forms immediately after the Iraqi invasion. For example. In addition to Iraqi concern about the essentially landlocked status of the country. This content downloaded on Fri.IRAN-IRAQ WAR 415 province to Iran. The progressive diminishment of Iraqi control there by treaty had little actual economic effect. the potential benefits of acquiring Khuzistan must have been considered by the Iraqi government before the September 1980 invasion of Iran. After 1975 Iraq ostensibly dropped its claim to the region and its support of the Khuzistan rebel movement. symbolic action than a concerted effort to repossess territory. Moeini. footnote 2 above. None has acquired greater symbolic value than the Shatt al-Arab. a behavior that the Shi'i population of southern Iraq duplicated in response to the invading 26 27 28 Murray Gordon. Nonetheless. the Iraqi invasion of Khuzistan in 1980 raised speculation that repossession of the province was an ultimate goal of the Iraqi government. 28 Dec 2012 20:49:04 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . even temporarily. footnote 12 above. given the oil wealth and the additional coastline along the Persian Gulf that come with sovereignty over the province. there was no full-fledged drive to take other key urban centers. loss of the territory represented a tangible symbol of subjugation and humiliation by imperial powers and an ancient rival. This pattern raised speculation that the invasion of Khuzistan was more a strategic. Nonetheless. The actions of Iraq in 1980 were an attempt to redeem itself and to recover its national pride by recapturing the Shatt al-Arab. Conflict in the Persian Gulf (New York: Facts on File. Pipes.28 Territory and resources were direct geographical factors in the Iran-Iraq war. 1981). Resolution of the conflict will almost certainly have to address origins. Territory is the currency with which the outcome of conflicts on these other levels is assessed. historical rivalries. Both governments greatly miscalculated the strength of ethnic and sectarian ties. Examination of the origins of this war eight years after its outbreak is not simply an academic exercise. and formulation of foreign policy toward the two countries requires an understanding of the conflict and its sources. The factors that most analysts cite to explain the origins of the warpersonality differences between leaders.416 THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW forces from Iran. and conflicting ideologies-all have an important geopolitical dimension. 28 Dec 2012 20:49:04 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . and control of them was to demonstrate prevailing power. In sum. Acquiring territory with symbolic value is a primary means of achieving other political goals. The real significance of the Shatt al-Arab derives from its role as a key symbol in the complex set of rivalries that exist between the two countries. This content downloaded on Fri. the origins of the Iran-Iraqwar were essentially geopolitical in two important ways: the immediate objects of dispute were territories.