Saddam's Response To The Iraq War

Osama is the main suspect that U.S. officials say could be behind the hijacking attacks and other numerous international terrorist assaults. These attacks were the result of a “holy war”, declared against the United States by Osama Bin Laden. Laden's anger with the United States in 1990 from the decision by Saudi Arabia to allow the U.S. to stage attacks on Iraqi forces in Kuwait and Iraq. After the U.S. victory, the U.S. military presence became permanent. In a CNN interview with bin Laden in 1997, he said the ongoing U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia is an "occupation of the land of the holy places.” (Anti-Defamation League, “Osama Bin Laden: Profile”). He left Saudi Arabia in 1991 after a feud with the Saudi monarchy, taking assets that had grown to an estimated $250 million with him. In 1996, bin Laden issued a "fatwah," which is a religious ruling urging Muslims to kill U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and Somalia. Another fatwah in 1998 called for attacks on American civilians. These terrorists are not born as killers, but are made through Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist training

In September of 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, in the beginning of the eight year Iran-Iraq war. Iran was paranoid that Iraq’s leaders had “ambitions….in terms of expansion and regional hegemony”. 2 The invasion justified their fears. At first, we “did not have good relations with Iraq, which was had been close to the Soviet Union”.3 Although “not an ally of Iraq”, the United States believed that “Saddam Hussein should not be allowed to be defeated by a radical Islamist, anti-American regime”.4 There was speculation that the U.S. had given the Iraqis “the green light to launch war” against Iran.5 This would have been plausible because if Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq, could seize oil-rich territory, the U.S. would then have “access to Iranian crude”.6 The United States also wanted to terminate the radical Khomeini government and with the prospect of Hussein capturing Iran’s main source of revenue, this was probable. Because of this, “over the next decade Washington would play an ambiguous role in the Iran-Iraq War.”7 Not only was Iraq receiving U.S. support, but Iran was too, despite the fact our relations with them were

“Remove all of the baggage- all of the ideology, the history …and look in purely geostrategic terms… it’s hard to figure out why the United States and Iran would necessarily be in conflict. In fact during the Shah’s era, before 1979- recognizing that there were all kinds of other problems- the Unites States and Iran worked together splendidly at the strategic level” ( qtd. in Addis). Initially, the United States and Iran maintained amicable relations but resentment rose in Iran over time toward the Americans. The Iran-contra with the United States lasted for more than a century, conflict beginning in the late 1800s until 1980. The Iran Hostage crisis on November 4th, 1979, served as the

Iran was a major supplier of oil and in 1977, President Carter went there to celebrate the shah’s rule. This caused internal opposition against America and in 1979, a revolution ensued, over-throwing the shah and declaring Iran an Islamic republic. Because of Carter’s close relationship with the shah, he allowed him to seek medical treatment in the US. As a result of this, Khomeini, Muslim cleric who over-threw the shah, followers attacked and invaded the American embassy in Tehran, seizing 66 hostages. This directly shows that Carter’s bleeding heart policy was not always successful and led to a rapid fall in this popularity. Another failure, sometimes referred to as a greater crisis than WWII, of Carter’s foreign policy also began in 1979 and was initially seen more as America losing power because of Carter’s policy, not a direct result of anything he did. In 1979, the Soviet Union sent thousands of troops to Afghanistan to support a government threatened by an Islamic republic. In the end, Afghanistan became Soviet Vietnam, “an unwinnable conflict whose mounting causalities seriously weakened the government at home.” However, when Carter funneled aid to Muslims in Afghanistan to fight against the Soviet Union, an alliance formed that had unexpected consequences. This aid essentially helped Islamic fundamentalists, also known as the Taliban, rise to power in Afghanistan and America has been fighting them ever

The terrorist focus on the citizen of America instead of the military. Soviet left Afghanistan in 1989, Osama went back to Saudi Arabia to set up fundraising for complicated mission. They took away Osama-bin-Laden passport and disregard his offer for the Arabs to guard the border after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. Due to bin Laded getting upset, bin Laden said,”It was al-Qaeda, not Americans, that would prove to be master of the world. A bomb exploded in the hotel in Aden Yemen, American troops, on peacekeeping missions. This hotel housed American troops on their way to peacekeeping mission in Somalia. there were no Americans did in the blast, but two Austrian tourists

In the early hours of the morning of 2 August 1990, Iraq commenced with an invasion of neighbouring Kuwait. The conflict between the two Gulf states was extremely short given both Iraq’s significant military superiority, as well as Kuwait’s inability to effectively anticipate the invasion. The invasion met immediate international condemnation with the United Nations Security Council passing Resolution 660 condemning the invasion on the same day. Iraq occupied Kuwait for just under 7 months, eventually being driven out of Kuwait in late February 1991 by an international coalition force led by the United States. This essay seeks to identify the principal motives behind the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. To ascertain the major causes for this conflict, this paper will elaborate upon the context of the

On August 2nd, 1990 Iraqi military forces invaded and occupied the small Arab state of Kuwait. The order was given by Iraqi dictatorial president Saddam Hussein. His aim was apparently to take control Kuwait's oil reserves (despite its small size Kuwait is a huge oil producer; it has about 10 per cent of the world's oil reserves ). Iraq accused Kuwait, and also the United Arab Emirates, of breaking agreements that limit oil production in the Middle East. According to Saddam Hussein, this brought down world oil prices severely and caused financial loss of billions of dollars in Iraq's annual revenue.

The involvement of America in Iraq and Afghanistan was ill-timed, and it was not the best way to respond to the 9/11 attack by Osama Bin Laden. The rationale of the Bush administration to invade Iraq was that Saddam Hussein had supported Osama Bin Laden’s attacks. However, this claim made no sense going by the fact that Osama had nothing but disdain for the peculiar regime of one Saddam Hussein. Additionally, the complaint by the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein was hiding dangerous weapons of mass destruction turned to be false since the administration had no evidence to prove it. It later came to be known that President Bush had given an order to officials of the United Nations investigating the regime of Saddam Hussein for weapons

President George W. Bush’s “axis of evil” speech undermined support of Iranians who argued for better relations with the United States. When Bush made that speech in 2002, Mohammad Khatami, a reformer, was the president of Iran (Freedman 473). The United States sanctions against Iran have helped to further the Abadgaran regime’s agenda by giving justification to a group that is desperate for it; the sanctions have allowed them to consolidate their power and further oppress Iranians who go against the government’s policies. Iran’s current state is best described in Lawrence Freeman’s A Choice of Enemies:

There was a lot of opposition to invading Iraq based on the idea of the fact it had really nothing to do with national security but with Iraqi oil. Iraq has the third largest petroleum reserve to themselves put a target on their head. With the Bush administration denying one of the reasons for war was for oil and there was the threat of WMD’s made critics suspicious because a lot of middle eastern countries and other countries dominated by a dictators like Kim Jong Un in North Korea, Fidel Castro in Cuba and Hassan Rouhani in Iran were trying to develop and possibly already have WMD’s at the time but no sanctions or threats of war were opposed on them like Iraq. Even though the Bush administration denied anything to do with oil in Iraq there was still a threat that the Iraqi regime could threaten oil

Since the early 1900s the United States has been embroiled in Iranian affairs, something that would have great effects both in 1979 and now. The United States’ interest in Iran was originally spurred by the discovery of oil, but due to the Cold War U.S. interest in Iran grew even more for strategic reasons. To continue to exert their influence in Iran, the United States, through the CIA, installed shah Pahlavi as ruler. The shah was a cruel and strict dictator and was eventually overthrown and exiled. In place of the shah, an Islamic Republic came to power under the rule of Ayatollah Khomeini.

government officials that were identified as conspirators against the Ba’ath party. (5) His ruthless and brutal dictatorship would bring his country to war with neighboring Iran from 1980 to 1988. Initially a territorial dispute, Hussein would cite Iran’s Islamic fundamentalism as his motives for continued combat and Iraq’s use of chemical weapons. (6) The war resulted in more than 100,000 combat deaths and drove Iraq deep into debt. The military annex of Kuwait in 1991 was intended to absolve Iraq of this financial responsibility to it’s neighbor. (7) The United Nations Security Council, in particular the United States, responded with force to drive Saddam Hussein’s army

Another key characteristic of moral panics is the manifestation of a disproportionate or distorted threat. The threat is necessary to increase public fear, which in turn hinders opposition to the leader's policy. This was clearly evident in the escalation to war, where the Bush administration constantly overstated the danger presented by Hussein's continued rule. When the issue was weapons of mass destruction, the administration fabricated evidence wholesale. British intelligence plagiarized graduate student reports in its fabled ‘Saddam dossier.' When the issues were ties to terrorist organizations, a dubious story about Saddam's agents meeting Mohammed Atta in Prague was circulated and attained the level of concrete fact, at least as far

On September 11, 1990, President George Herbert Walker Bush outlined the reasons why America had the duty to intervene in the Persian Gulf. On January 1991, the United States went to war in what was named Operation Desert Storm to stop the dictator Saddam Hussein, who had invaded Kuwait and was moving towards Saudi Arabia. President Bush believed that the United States, together with other twenty nations, had to put an end to inhuman behaviors and to aggressions brought upon countries by dictators. America had to maintain its role of economic power in the world and protect world’s precious resources such as oil. It was necessary to help Kuwait’s government by making Iraqi forces back down and leave the territory. In fact, Iraq was putting at sake the security of the Persian Gulf, and something needed to be

To many observers of contemporary international relations, Iran and its behavior in the international arena appear somewhat perplexing. Kenneth Pollack has described the “Persian Puzzle,” and the “labyrinth of U.S.-Iranian relations;” Stephen Walt has described Iran as a “riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma;” and Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations has testified that “the Islamic Republic of Iran remains one the most poorly understood regimes in the Middle East,” and that their foreign policy is “often inconsistent and contradictory.” A Google search of the terms “Iran enigma” returns dozens of pages of articles exploring the complexities of Iranian statecraft, rhetoric, and ideology. But despite decades of relations prior to the 1979 revolution and an unknown number of undisclosed diplomatic contacts between the United States and Iran post-1979, most Americans—and perhaps more importantly those at the highest levels of government—simply don’t understand present-day Iran on the level required to successfully engage the revolutionary state. Indeed, some former U.S. national security officials, like Columbia University professor Gary Sick, who served on the National Security Council for President Jimmy Carter in 1979, have stated that the U.S. was wholly unprepared to deal with the new Islamic Iranian state, which was a "new