War by Proxy: The Iraq-Iran War – for ‘Compass’ 1980
Introduction 21 June, 2025
This is the first of a series of articles on Iran, tracing the genesis of the current brutal and unequal war of aggression of Israel – aided by the USA – upon Iran.
First of all: All progressive peoples the world over condemn the latest war turn of the Israeli state and its USA partner – or boss (it is difficult to distinguish at times) – against the state of Iran.
To go further than a condemnation of the current and latest war of aggression by Israel, it helps to understand the background. This is especially important to point out to those who argue that Iran as a theocratic anti-democratic state, and thus should not be supported in this war. It is obvious, however, that it is the people of Iran who must be supported, and that includes the defense of their independence from Israeli and USA attack.
Moreover, this war can only be understood in context. How did we get here?
Answering that involves understanding the way in which the Iranian theocratic mullah state began. Moreover, it is essential to see how this current war of unequivocal aggression continues the imperialist wish to re-draw the map of the Middle East.
We have pointed out this intense desire to re-draw the map in several previous articles. At the end of this reprint will be placed some links to other recent relevant pieces by MLRG. This desire to re-draw the map of the Middle East, it must be remembered, has been a constant feature of the imperialists since they established the state of Israel.
The story can be picked up in the “Rogers Plan” of 1970-1971. To remind us of the more recent machinations of the USA imperialists in relation to Iran, we republish this ‘Communist League’ (UK) paper from 1980. The complexity of the internal struggle in Iran is shown by Bland here.
We have separately also dealt with the subsequent USA and Israeli iteration of the ‘re-drawing map’ plan led by Condolezza Rice plan in in “Theses on Kurdistan Part 2” 2019 at: “Theses Kurdistan 2”. Portions of this will be summarised in a shorter separate piece to be placed here.
The ‘Communist League‘ article below, also reminds us of the events of “Reagangate” and the comprador nature of the Iran despotic theocratic regime. This is detailed by W.B.Bland below in an abbreviated, and perhaps ‘architectural’ manner. It might therefore be queried by some.
Hence, it is necessary to cite in this introduction further material, to buttress how perceptive Bland was. This additional material comes from the bourgeois nationalistic democrat – Abu al-Hasan Bani Sadr – identified by Bland as being a representative of the national bourgeoisie.
The erstwhile comprador for the USA, and corrupt, vicious regime of the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (Shah from 1941-1979) – was finally about to fall.
The national bourgeoisie shared a ‘dual power’ with the comprador theocrats led by Ayatollah Khomeini.
The USA planned that the succeeding power in Iran would at least include elements favourable to the USA. They therefore covertly supported the the other part of the dual power – namely the mullahs. With the aid of the USA, the Bani-Sadr national forces were undermined by the theocrats, and finally exiled:
“Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, Mohammad Husseni Behesti, and Khomeini… proposed structural plans. . . Beheshti’s plan called for the formation composed of 3 individuals… under the direction of Revolutionary Council, this committee would take charge of the country… This plan was merely a modification of the one described by William H.Sullivan, the last US ambassador to Iran. In his book “Mission to Iran” (1981) Sullivan tells how he, Bazargan and Mousavi Ardebili, Khomeini’s representative, had agreed in January 1979 to establish a stable regime in Iran, based on an alliance between the clerics and the army”.
Abū al-Ḥasan Banī Ṣadr; from interviews with Jean-Charles Deniau;
“My turn to speak : Iran, the revolution & secret deals with the U.S.”
Brasseys’ for Macmillan, New York; 1991; p.8, 15.
“Consolidating the mullahs’ power was not Khomeini’s only reason for trusting the hostage affair to parliament, There was talk within the government of deals being made prior to the American elections. I have proof of contacts between Khomeini and the supporters of Ronald Regan as early as the spring of 1980. Khomeini’s justification of a “no-show” (at the United Nations – ed) was the end result… the sole purpose of which was to handicap Carter’s re-election by preventing the hostages’ release before the American elections in November 1980. Rafsanjani, Beheshti, and Ahmed Khomeini played a key role in proposing this agreement to the Reagan team…”
Bani Sadr; Ibid; p.28
Only towards the close of the Iraq-Iran War – a war by proxy – did the US Government take a markedly pro-Iraqi stance. This despite a so-called “official neutrality”. So much in favour was the USA by then of Iraq, that it was commented that:
“The Reagan administration’s gradual tilt toward Iraq is beginning to look like a full-fledged embrace. The USA deplored the use of chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds… but declined to take up the issue of chemical weapons as a violation of the Geneva Convention rules of war at the UN.”
New York Times 24.04.88.
At a later stage, the Iranian mullahs turned the state into a comprador state on behalf of the Putinite Russia and China. We will trace those steps in a subsequent article.
Current slogans of the movement must be –
STOP THE ISRAELI WAR OF AGGRESSION AGAINST THE IRANIAN PEOPLE! FOR A PEOPLE’S REVOLUTION IN IRAN! –
DOWN WITH THE THEOCRATIC REGIME!
WAR BY PROXY: The Iraqi-Iranian War
W.B.Bland for Compass Journal of Communist League, UK, October 1980.
AT THE END OF SEPTEMBER 1980, THE CONTINUING FRONTIER INCIDENTS BETWEEN THE NEIGHBOURING STATES OF IRAQ AND IRAN, BLAZED UP INTO A FULL-SCALE UNDECLARED WAR, WHEN IRAQI FORCES INVADED IRAN.
The Iraqi government declared its war aims to be
1) To establish Iraqi sovereignty over the Shatt al-Arab waterway, leading into the Gulf and forming Iraq’s only outlet to the sea; and
2) To establish Arab (i.e., not necessarily Iraqi) sovereignty over the three strategic islands of Greater and Lesser Tumbs and Abu Musa-in-the Strait of Hormuz (occupied by Iran in 1971).
In these days of imperialism in decay, it is rare for a local war between two underdeveloped states to occur unless it serves the interests of one or other of the big imperialist powers.
Viewed as a “war by proxy”, the war between Iraq and Iran might seem at first glance to be one between a Soviet-backed Iraq and an American-backed Iran, since Iraq has a Treaty of Friendship with the Soviet Union and most of its arms are of Soviet origin, while most of Iran’s arms are of US origin.
Such a conclusion would, however, be erroneous.
Since the arming of these states by the respective superpowers, each has changed its’ international orientation.
Iraq has moved out of the Soviet neo-imperialism into that of US imperialism, while the regime in Iran has adopted a stance, which appears to be anti-American.
Although the United States has declared its “neutrality” in the war, the Iraqi invasion of Iran is in fact, openly supported by certain Arab states which are dependent upon US imperialism:
“The countries publicly supporting Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt – are all moderate and pro-West”;
(“Sunday Times”, September 28th, 1980; p.13).”
On September 30th, after the war was well under way, the US government agreed to send four Airborne Warning and Control Aircraft (AWAC’s) to Saudi Arabia, which was publicly supporting Iraq, while:
“The Carter Administration is going through with plans to supply Jordan with 100 tanks. . . This follows strong Jordanian backing for Iraq.”
(“Financial Times , October 9th., 1980; p. 44).
On the other hand,
“Iran claims to have turned down an offer of military assistance from the Soviet Union in its war with. . . Iraq. . . The offer of assistance was said to have been made by Mr. Vladimir Vinogradov, the Soviet Ambassador to Iran, to Mr. Mohammed Ali Rajai, the Prime Minister.”
(“Financial Times” October 6th., 1980; p.1.)
However, the Soviet Union’s satellite Arab states of Syria and Libya are reported to be secretly sending arms by air to Iran secretly because the strength of Arab nationalism is such that they consider it inexpedient to be seen supporting a Persian against an Arab nation.
THE “ISLAMIC REVOLUTION” IN IRAN
By the end of 1978 – above all when the working class moved into action in the oilfields – it had become clear that mass opposition had grown beyond the power of the brutal pro-American regime headed by the Shah to control. The more far-sighted representatives of the ruling landlord and comprador bourgeois classes saw that there was a real danger of their wealth and power being swept away in a national-democratic revolution led by the national bourgeoisie.
In order to save themselves, therefore, the representatives of these ruling classes strove to take over the leadership of the revolutionary movement so as to divert it into the channels of what was called an “Islamic Revolution”, one which would be limited in scope to the replacement of imperial regime by (at least in the initial period) a dictatorship of the reactionary Moslem clergy.
In the month following the departure of the Shah in January 1979, therefore, an “Islamic Republic” was established which took the form of a dual power. One facet of the apparatus of power was in the hands of the mullahs and ayatollahs, headed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, controlling the government, the parliament, the judicial system, and the para-military “Revolutionary Guards”. The other facet of the apparatus of power was in the hands of the national bourgeoisie, headed by Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, controlling the Presidency and the regular armed forces. The mood of the masses was such that the clergy, to retain their influence, were compelled to mouth anti-American slogans.
Despite its “anti-Americanism”, the new regime in Iran was acceptable to Washington as a short-term measure, since it enabled the landlords, and comprador bourgeois to save themselves from the wrath of the Iranian people, and it was upon these classes that any future neo-colonial regime dependent upon the USA must be based.
In the long-term, however, the requirements of Washington in relation to Iran could only be met by a new military dictatorship which could resume open dependence upon the USA.
However, a successful military coup required that the Iranian masses should become dissatisfied with the existing regime.
The Khomeini regime introduced a series of measures of the most reactionary character: women were forced to wear the chador (the full-length black veil), polygamy was legalised for men, the right of divorce was removed from women, and the minimum age for the marriage of girls was reduced from 18 to 13.
But such mediaeval measures were not enough. The US imperialists needed some pretext to exert maximum pressure upon Iran if discontent was to reach the point where a military coup would be likely to be successful.
On October 22nd, 1979 the US government provocatively admitted the hated ex-Shah to the United States, and on November 4th, “in reprisal” the US Embassy in the Iranian capital of Tehran was occupied by “students” loyal to Khomeini and a number of its diplomats detained as “hostages“, allegedly for the return of the ex-Shah and his wealth to Iran.
The principle of the inviolability of diplomats and diplomatic buildings is a cardinal principle of relations between civilised states and this terrorist action was quickly opposed by President Bani-Sadr on behalf of the Iranian national bourgeoisie, as:
“A move which further reduced the government’s prestige both in Iran and abroad.”
(“Keesing’s Contemporary Archives”, Volume 26; P. 30,150).
“The incarceration of the 52 American hostages is largely to blame for Iran’s failure to win any effective friends in its struggle against Iraq, according to a senior aide to President Bani-Sadr. President Bani-Sadr, according to sources close to him, would like to send the hostages home immediately, thus erasing what he regards as the biggest single blot on the record of Islamic Iran. But, as in so much else, the President cannot impose his will, and the real extremists, who include Prime Minister Mohammad Ali Rajai, hold sway.”
(“Daily Telegraph”; 6 October l4th 1980; p.4).
Like all acts of terrorism, the taking of the hostages assisted the forces against which it was said to be directed. It enabled the Carter Administration to build up an aggressive nationalist hysteria at home, to mobilise international opinion against Iran, to freeze Iranian assets in the US, to launch a military “rescue” operation against Iran, and to blockade the country.
The blockade placed Iran in the position where it was unable to obtain spare parts for its predominantly American military equipment so that, in the event of war, it could (in the opinion of the Pentagon’s “military experts”) offer only short-term military resistance to an invader. Then, so went the plan – in the circumstances of ignominious defeat and the reactionary character of the Khomeini regime, the climate would become highly favourable for a military coup by “patriotic” and “progressive” officers.
IRAQ MOVES “WEST”
In July 1968, a military coup established in Iraq a military dictatorship headed by Major-General Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, representing primarily the Iraqi national bourgeoisie. The al-Bakr regime moved the country out of its former orbit of dependence to US imperialism, but internal and international pressures compelled it to seek dependence in doing so on the principal rival of the USA, Soviet neo-imperialism, which became Iraq’s main source of “aid” and arms.
But during the early 1970s, the US imperialists undertook a radical reorientation of their foreign policy in the Middle East. As the Communist League (then the Marxist-Leninist Organisation of Britain) pointed out during the Middle East war of October 1973:
“By the summer of 1970 it had become clear to the most influential section of the United States imperialists that it would be essential for the USA to import large quantities of oil in the next few years from the Arab States in the Middle East. This meant that full support of Israel against the Arab states was no longer in the best interests of the US imperialists.
From this time on, the US imperialists made their position clear to the Arab Middle East governments. They would endeavour to persuade the Israeli government to withdraw ‘voluntarily’ to the boundaries existing before the war of 1967. And if those attempts failed they would hold back (without discontinuing entirely) their military aid to Israel and would tacitly approve an all-out war on the part of the Arab states against Israel provided,
1) the Palestine national liberation movement was effectively liquidated: and
2) the representatives of Soviet imperialism were expelled from the Arab states.
In 1970 and 1971 the US government pressed its ‘peace plan’ through visits to the Middle-East by Secretary of the State, William Rogers, Assistant Secretary of State Joseph Sisco and diplomats Donald Bergus and Michael Sterner.
Meanwhile, using as a pretext the hijacking of several airliners by Palestinian commandos, in September 1970, King Hussein of Jordan launched a large-scale offensive against the Palestinian national liberation forces within Jordan; this offensive was resumed in July 1971, after which Hussein announced that the resistance forces within Jordan had been completely liquidated.
In April 1973 the government of Lebanon, using as a pretext the Israeli commando raid against Palestinian guerrillas near Beirut in February, launched an offensive against the Palestinian national liberation forces within Lebanon. The attack ended in May after the guerillas had suffered heavy casualties. Meanwhile, the Egyptian government took action against the representatives of Soviet neo-imperialism.”
(“The War in the Middle East in: “Class against Class”. October,1973; p.3).
This reorientation of policy on the part of the US imperialists had repercussions throughout the Middle East. It led in Iraq, as in Egypt to a split in the ruling Arab capitalist class, but by the spring of 1975, the pro-US wing had emerged victorious. In March 1975, an agreement was signed between Iraq and Iran by which the front between the two states in the Shatt-al-Arab was moved from the eastern bank to mid-channel. In return, the Iranian government ceased its support for the Kurdish national liberation movement within Iraq, and enabled the Iraqi government forces to wage a successful offensive against the Kurdish liberation forces.
In May 1975, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, who had now brought Egypt into relations of dependence upon US imperialism, visited Iraq and was granted loans of $115 million.
From this time, Iraq moved into ever closer dependence upon US imperialism and unleashed its war against Iran in September 1980 as a proxy for the American imperialists.
THE US WAR AIMS
The principal aims of the United States imperialists in its proxy war against Iran are as follows:
Firstly: to bring about the transfer of the control of the strategic oil routes in the Gulf area (and if possible some of the oilfields at present in Iran) from the now “unreliable” state of Iran to the now “reliable” (i.e., pro-American) state of Iraq;
Secondly, to bring about the overthrow of the present “unstable” regime in Iran by a military dictatorship, basing itself on the Iranian landlord and comprador bourgeois classes, which would restore Iran to the position of dependence upon US imperialism which it “enjoyed” under the Shah. The “Economist” expresses the first of these war aims succinctly:
‘The State Department expects Iraq to continue to occupy Iranian territory…
Once the fighting scales down, as diminishing Iranian spares and fuel may compel it to – America’s short-term aim… will force Iran’s (?unclear in original -Editor) acceptance of it”.
(‘The Economist”, October 4th., 1980; p. 36).
With regard to the second of these US war aims, “The Times” notes, that Princess Ashraf, sister of the late Shah, and Shapour Bakhtiar, the last Prime Minister appointed by the Shah, have in recent months made a number of trips to Baghdad, the Iraqi capital, and that on October 2nd.; Bakhtiar left Paris by a special Iraqi Airways plane for a secret destination.
(“The Times”, October 3rd., 1980; p. 8).
The newspaper further reports that a committee of former Iranian generals, headed by Field-Marshal Aryana, Chief of Staff under the Shah, has been set up in London to plan a military regime for Iran, since:
“. . . the generals are confidently predicting the Khomeini regime in Tehran will be toppled in a military coup.”
(“The Times”, September 26th., 1980).
And the “Financial Times” agrees with this analysis:
“Sadam Hussein‘s (Hussein succeeded al-Bakr as President of Iraq in July 1979 — Ed.) private hope must be that by striking a blow of this order deep into the heart of Iran he will instantly expose the pretensions of the quarrelling mullahs, the Islamic clergymen, to be actually running the country, and that their system will collapse in favour of a military or neo-military regime more moderate in its domestic and international policies.”
“Financial Times”, September 23rd, 1980; p. 4).
as does Egypt’s pro-American President:
“President Anwar Sadat has forecast an Iranian army coup against Ayatollah Khomeini . . . The Egyptian leader hinted that the US had already been in touch with several senior officers of the old regime.”
(“Financial Times”, September 26th., 1980; p. 4).
But to date, the US war aims have not been achieved. The hard-pressed Iranian forces have fought back doggedly to resist every inch of the Iraqi advance:
“The big surprise for Western military observers has been the performance of the Iranian forces.”
(“The Times”, September 26h., 1980; p. 5).
As always, the imperialists underestimated the importance in war of the spirit of men who believe they are fighting for the independence of their country against a foreign invader.
Furthermore, the American-backed Iraqi invasion has had one effect opposite to that intended: it has strengthened the position of the Iranian national bourgeoisie relative to that of the reactionary clergy:
“Within the space of two or three weeks, the President, who has assumed command of the Iranian armed forces, has become a national hero. This surge in popularity appears to rankle with the President’s opponents, the Islamic fundamentalists”.
(“The Times”, October 9th., 1980; p. 8).
This change in the balance of power within Iran has brought about conditions where negotiations are proceeding between the Iranian and United States governments on the release of the American “hostages”. With the American Presidential election only a few days away, the Carter administration has declared its willingness to make concessions demanded by Iran short of giving significant military assistance to that state.
The war continues at the time of writing.
Communist League 1980
