The Invasion of Kuwait – Reprint from August 1990
THE INVASION OF KUWAIT
Republished MLRG.online 24 June, 2025
This material was written by W.B.Bland, and was first published by:
COMPASS – Journal of The COMMUNIST LEAGUE (UK); in No. 88a, August 1990.
Then re-printed by ALLIANCE MARXIST-LENINIST as a constituent part of:
ALLIANCE ISSUE Number 2; “The Gulf War – The USA Imperialists Bid To Recapture World Supremacy”; April 1992 (See Alliance ML April 1992 Iraq).
This Communist League article was thus first placed on web October 2001
Introduction June 24, 2025
In the aftermath of the October 2023 Hamas attack upon Israeli civilians and military – the destruction of the lives and infrastructure of Gaza in a ‘watch on your cell phones’ genocide ensued. The most inhumane starvations were inflicted upon the people, after the main bombing was performed. The Palestinians of the West Bank also came under renewed attacks.
While the Israeli state and its military and other agencies did the killing, the imperialist powers funded it and fuelled Israel’s military might. These other powers ensured suppression of those protesting the Israeli outrages upon Palestinians.
Having devastated the Palestinians, and intimidated, killed civilians and diplomats and soldiers of other Middle Eastern states, the Israelis bombed Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, Iran.
In the latest phase of its’ lust for hegemony Israel in collaboration with the USA – bombed Iran and killed Iranian citizens and leading representatives. We have published on this current (and ongoing – despite a so-called ceasefire) war upon Iran (See: What is behind the massive, savage attack upon Iran? at 23 June, 2025. and: ” Arbeit Zukunft: “Stop the War on Iran!” at 22 June 2025)
In these circumstances, earlier imperialist misdeeds of the USA in the Middle East, revolving around Iraq are relevant to recall. This article is one of those from the Communist League that we will be re-publishing.
Editors, MLRG.online, June 24, 2025
THE INVASION OF KUWAIT
In May 1990 Iraqi President Saddam Hussein accused Kuwait of stealing Iraqi oil from an oilfield on the Iraqi-Kuwait border, for which he demanded compensation of $2.4 billion.
(‘Sunday Times’, 5 August 1990; p. 9).
Then, in July, Saddam accused Kuwait and other Gulf States of deliberately depressing the price of oil and of breaking OPEC quota agreements at a cost to Iraq of $14 billion.
(‘Sunday Times’, ibid.; p. 9).
Kuwait rejected the charges.
ON 2 AUGUST 1990 (at 2 a.m. local time) IRAQI TROOPS EQUIPPED WITH TANKS AND HEAVY ARTILLERY INVADED KUWAIT.
The Iraqi force of 100,000 dwarfed the Kuwaiti army of 20,000 AND OCCUPIED THE COUNTRY WITHIN A FEW HOURS.
Kuwait
Kuwait has an area of 18,000 square miles and a population of 1.7 million, 60% of whom are non-Kuwaitis. The currency is the Kuwaiti dinar.
A British protectorate from 1899, its boundaries were arbitarily drawn by the British imperialists in 1922. In June 1961, however, Britain recognised the country’s independence. Six days later Iraq claimed the territory of Kuwait on the dubious grounds that it had once a part of the same province of the Ottoman Empire as Iraq. Thousands of British troops were sent at once to prevent any annexation of Kuwait by Iraq. In August the British troops were replaced by an Arab League force, and the withdrawal of the British troops was completed by October.
In September 1963 Iraq received a (Pounds Sterling PS) PS30 million loan from Kuwait, and in October recognised Kuwait’s independence:
“Kuwait . . purchased Iraqi recognition”.
(‘Guardian’, 3 August 1990; p. 2).
The ruler of Kuwait was the Emir, Shaikh Jabir al-Ahmad al-Jabir al-Sabah, who succeeded to the throne in December 1971.
In August 1976 the Emir dissolved the National Assembly, suspended four articles of the Constitution and imposed restrictions on the press. The National Assembly was not allowed to meet again until March 1981.
In July 1986 the Emir again dissolved the National Assembly and imposed restrictions on the press, announcing that henceforth he would rule by decree. In August he dissolved the local councils.
Kuwait’s wealth originally came from its oil, but the revenue from this has been invested, mainly abroad, and Kuwait now possesses
“an investment portfolio of about PS54 billion”,
(‘Guardian’, 3 August 1990; p. 3).
held mainly in Britain, Spain and the USA. As a result:
“Kuwait is now thought to receive about half its income from investments.
This, in fact, was a key reason why the Kuwaitis were happy not merely to accept, but to contrive, the low oil prices which exasperated President Saddam Hussein. What Kuwait lost in petroleum revenues it gained in share earnings”.
(‘Guardian’, 4 August 1990; p. 6).
A few crumbs from these immense earnings have been passed to the ordinary people:
“The oil riches are divided among the people to varying degrees. Certainly, the rulers have the palaces and the Cadillacs, the pomp and the worldly pleasures, but the people have lives of affluence undreamt of by their fathers.
Kuwait itself, with the highest per capita income in the world, tile absence of any form of tax, and such perks as free health care (including overseas consultation) and education up to foreign university level, was a prime example of how the system operated”.
(‘The Independent on Sunday’, 5 August 1990; p. 17).
Despite this very limited sharing of wealth, the Arab peoples have little sympathy for the fate of the ruling Sabah dynasty in Kuwait:
“While the rulers may feel deeply about the fate of the Sabah family, the people do not”.
(‘The Independent on Sunday’, 5 August 1990; p. 17).
The Puppet Government
On 3 August Iraq announced that it would start to withdraw its forces from Kuwait on 5 August, a promise which was greeted with scepticism abroad.
In fact, a puppet ‘Provisional Free Government of Kuwait’ was installed in Kuwait by the Iraqi occupiers, Kitwaiti sources claiming that
“all nine members of the ‘provisional government’ were Iraqis”.
(‘The Independent on Sunday’, 5 August 1990; p. 1).
A ‘popular army’ was also set up comprised, according to Kuwaiti sources, of
“Iraqi citizens”.
(‘Guardian’, 6 August 1990; p.3).
“The popular army will be made up of Iraqi soldiers without their shoulder flashes”.
(‘The Independent on Sunday’, 5 August 1990; p. 17).
At the ‘request’ of this puppet government, on 8 August IRAQ FORMALLY ANNEXED KUWAIT.
International Reaction
On 2 August the United States, Britain and France froze Iraqi and Kuwaiti assets, and the Soviet Union suspended arms deliveries to Iraq.
(‘Financial Times’, 3 August 1990; p. 1).
On 3 August the UN Security Council condemned the Iraqi invasion, and the Soviet Union and the United States issued a joint denunciation.
On 6 August the UN Security Council called on all member states to impose an economic blockade upon Iraq and occupied Kuwait, except for:
“medical or humanitarian purposes and, in humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs”. (‘Guardian’, 7 August 1990; p. 3).
On 9 August the UN Security Council unanimously declared Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait null and void.
(‘Guardian’, 10 August 1990; p. 1).
The Counter-measures of US Imperialism
The Gulf regimes are extremely valuable sources of oil, and therefore have always been regarded as of strategic importance to United States imperialism. Since the Middle East regimes ceased to be dependent upon British imperialism (an era which dates from the overthrow of the Iraqi monarchy in 1958), the US imperialists have pursued a double strategy in relation to the regimes in and near to the Gulf area:
In the southern Gulf area, where populations are relatively small and politically backward, a strategy of backing up the corrupt autocratic sheikhdoms;
In the northern Gulf area, where populations are relatively larger and more politically advanced, a strategy of seeking to accentuate the contradictions between the states, of backing one state against its rivals (e.g., over the whole post-Second World War period, backing Israel against the Arab states; in the Gulf War against Iran, backing Iraq against Iran).
The US intervention in the Iraq-Kuwait affair was, thus, not a consequence, as President George Bush claimed, of ‘principled US opposition to aggression’. One has only to recall the recent aggressions by the USA in Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama, and Libya — to say nothing of the connivance of the USA at Israeli aggression over forty years — to realise that this claim is blatant hypocrisy.
The real cause of the US opposition to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was that:
IT BREACHED THE US BALANCING POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST, THE POLICY OF PREVENTING ONE STATE FROM BECOMING THE DOMINANT POWER IN THE REGION.
However, US military experts concluded that A MILITARY OPERATION TO RETAKE KUWAIT WOULD BE IMPRACTICABLE:
“It is not conceivable for the US to launch a conventional ground war to retake Kuwait”. (‘Guardian’, 4 August 1990; p. 6).
“A counter-invasion of Kuwait is considered out of the question”.
(‘Financial Times’, 4-5 August 1990; p. 2).
The US hope, therefore, was that the sanctions approved by the UN Security Council could be pressed to the point where they brought about:
“An internal crisis in Iraq which will end with Saddam’s removal from power. The United States is striving to create a situation in which Saddam Hussein cannot win, and in which, therefore, the relatively rational elements in the Iraqi party and army will be under increasing pressure to depose him”.
(‘Guardian’, 9 August 1990; p. 17).
US Military Intervention
To be effective, however, the cutting off of Iraq from its oil markets required not merely a naval blockade of the Persian Gulf to prevent the passage of tankers carrying Iraqi oil, but the closure of the two pipelines carrying 90% of Iraqi oil:
1) through Turkey to the Turkish port of Dortyoi;
2) through Saudi Arabia to the Saudi port of Jeddah.
On 6 August the pipeline through Turkey was shut down by the Iraqi government:
“due to marketing difficulties”;
(Financial Times’, 7 August 1990; p. 2).
and the United States placed intense pressure upon Saudi Arabia to shut down the other pipeline passing through its territory.
The Position of Saudi Arabia
Embracing 70% of the Arabian Peninsula with an area of 849,000 square miles (larger than Belgium, Denmark, France, both Germanies, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Spain combined), Saudi Arabia has a population of 15.4 million. The world’s largest exporter of crude oil with the world’s largest oil reserves, its oil production 97% of which comes from the state-owned ‘Arabian American Oil Co.’ (Aramco) in 1980 was 251 million tonnes from 14 oilfields. Its currency is the rial. The capital is Riyadh, with a population of 1.5 million.
Ruled dictatorially by the old and sick King Fahd ibn Abdul Aziz, who came to the throne in May 1982. Saudi Arabia has no legal political parties and elections are unknown. Its domestic government is dominated by the royal family:
“5,000 princes fill virtually evey key position”,
(‘Guardian’, 10 August 1990; p. 2),
a royal family which is notorious for its:
“Corruption in business matters. Any foreigner who does business in Saudi Arabia must have as a partner a native, preferably a member of the royal family, who will do nothing but sign his name to papers and routinely insist on a large percentage of any contract as a kickback”. (‘Sunday Times’, 5 August 1990; p. 12).
Whereas the Iraqi armed forces have a strength of over 1 million, the Saudi armed forces, largely equipped by the USA and Britain, have a strength of only 72,000, and the government has relied for its security on US protection, to maintain which it has pursued a policy of subservience to US imperialism:
“Saudi foreign policy consists largely of support for Washington in the Middle East”.
(‘Sunday Times’, 5 August 1990; p. 12).
On its own Saudi Arabia would have been unable to resist an Iraqi blitzkrieg, since
“the roads are excellent and ideal for tanks”.
(‘Sunday Times’, 5 August 1990; p. 1).
On 5 August Iraq pledged that it would not invade Saudi Arabia only provided there was no interference in the pipeline through Saudi Arabia, and in these circumstances Saudi Arabia felt unable to accede to US pressure to shut down the pipeline:
“They (the Saudi Arabian government — Ed.) have already made it clear that they will not agree to the American request to shut down the pipeline”.
(‘Guardian’, 6 August 1990; p. 19).
The US Military Intervention
In these circumstances, on 7 August, with the agreement of the Saudi government, the US government ordered the immediate despatch of 4,000 paratroopers to Saudi Arabia. Too small for serious defensive – much less offensive – action, this symbolic force was intended to deter Iraq from attacking Saudi Arabia – and, it was hoped, to encourage that country to block the pipeline through its territory.
These US troops were the advance guard of a force intended to reach 50,000:
“The US deployments are expected eventually to number 50,000 troops”.
(‘Guardian’, 10 August 1990; p. 1).
and to be a multinational force. It was, however:
“a multinational force in name only”.
(‘Financial Times’, 9 August 1990; p. 2).
At the time of writing only the closest allies of the United States have sent ground forces to participate in the US-sponsored intervention force, and these contingents have been purely of a token character.
Apart from Saudi Arabia, the Arab states have maintained an extremely lukewarm attitude towards the US-sponsored intervention and have refused to participate in it:
“Although the Arab League on 3 August condemned Iraq for its invasion of Kuwait, 7 of the 31 members abstained (Djibouti, Iraq. Jordan, Mauritania, the Palestine Liberation Organisation, Sudan and Yemen).”
(‘Financial Times’, 4-5 August 1990; p. 2).
“Iraq can perhaps find some comfort in the refusal of any Arab country to follow Saudi Arabia’s lead in joining the ‘multinational force’. Observers atttributed the reluctance to the considerable popularity which President Saddam has undoubtedly earned among wide segments of Arab public opinion, deeply hostile to the idea of Arab governments collaborating with the US”.
(‘Guardian’, 10 August 1990; p. 1).
noting that the US interventionist is:
“. . a foreigner who, through his long-standing support for Israel, is apt to be seen as the very embodiment of great power arrogance and oppression”.
(‘Guardian’, 10 August 1990; p. 2).
The former British Ambassador to Iraq, Sir John Moberly, writes:
“The relative indifference to the long-drawn-out agony of the Occupied Territories is contrasted with the rush of international activity and armed forces movements where the territory of an oil-rich sheikhdom is concerned”.
(‘Evening Standard’, 10 August 1990; p. 3).
and there was general agreement that the US intervention had increased the prestige of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein among the Arab peoples:
“Since the US forces began pouring into Saudi Arabia, Arab public opinion is moving in President Saddam’s favour. . . .
Arab popular anger at the alliance between the US and the Gulf rich seemed to be widespread and growing. It was most visible in two countries, Jordan and Yemen”.
(‘Guardian’, 11 August 1990; p. 1).
The Arab League Summit
It was in this situation that on 10 August a summit meeting of Arab League was held in Cairo at the invitation of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. The meeting, attended by an Iraqi delegation, was described by King Husein of Jordan as:
“The last chance to avert a slide towards war”.
(‘Times’, 9 August 1990; p. 3).
In fact, the aim of the pro-US Arab States was to use the Summit to bring about THE DESPATCH OF AN ARAB FORCE TO BACK UP, WHILE REMAINING SEPARATE FROM, THE US INTERVENTION FORCE.
Thus:
“Twelve of the twenty Arab League members voted to send a force to protect Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, and to demand an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. They also endorsed United Nations sanctions against Iraq. . . .
Baghdad immediately denounced the Arab League plan as ‘implementing the American will’.
(‘Guardian’, 11 August 1990; p. 1).
Iraq, Libya and the PLO voted against the resolution, while the other states abstainied or were absent.
The Moral Position
IRAQ IS A CAPITALIST DICTATORSHIP (although its capitalism is not monopoly capitalism, not imperialism) AND ITS INVASION OF KUWAIT WAS UNJUST.
But should military confrontation occur between Iraq and the US-dominated forces of intervention — which may well occur – this would not mean that the US forces were waging a just war.
The UN resolution on the invasion approved only economic sanctions, not military action, against Iraq. But even if, under American pressure, the Security Council were to authorise mititary action, this would not make such a war just, any more than the endorsement. of the Korean War by the Security Council, in the absence of the Soviet Union, made that war just.
It is impossible for imperialist powers to wage a just war of liberation. Indeed, President Bush has defined one of the US aims as:
“The restoration of Kuwait’s legitimate government”,
(‘Independent’ , 9 August 1990; 1).
that is, not the liberation of the Kuwaiti people from their reactionary, corrupt, dictatorial rulers but the RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THEIR RULE.
Today the principal enemy of the peoples of the world is imperialism, and the justice or injustice of any war depends on whether that war tends to weaken or strengthen world imperialism.
Marxism-Leninism determines the justice or injustice of any war, not on the basis of who fired tile first shot, but on whether the war effort of each belligerent tends to WEAKEN OR STRENGTHEN WORLD IMPERIALISM.
ANY WAR BETWEEN A NON-IMPERIALIST STATE AND AN IMPERIALIST STATE IS A JUST WAR ON THE PART OF THE NON-IMPERIALIST STATE (because its war effort tends to weaken world imperialism); AND;
AN UNJUST WAR ON THE PART OF THE IMPERIALIST STATE (because its war effort tends to strengthen world imperialism).
Thus, despite the original unjust Iraqi invasion of Kuwait:
A WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST BETWEEN IRAQ AND THE US-DOMINATED FORCES OF INTERVENTION WOULD BE A JUST WAR ON THE PART OF IRAQ — A WAR WHICH SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY PROGRESSIVE PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE WORLD — AND AN UNJUST WAR ON THE PART OF THE FORCES OF INTERVENTION — A WAR WHICH SHOULD BE OPPOSED BY PROGRESSIVE PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, WHO SHOULD URGE THE PEOPLES OF THE STATES RANGED ON THIS SIDE OF THE CONFLICT TO TURN THEIR WEAPONS AGAINST THEIR OWN RULERS.
Re-published 24, June 2025
