The Iran-Iraq War Hardcover – November 3, 2015

After reading this book, I thought I'd write a review about the actual book, rather than its price, as the other two reviewers (as of the time of this review) have done.Although I read a favorable review of this book somewhere, I was hesitant to read such a long book about the Iran-Iraq War--what little I remembered about the war did not sound promising: stalemate, trenches, gas warfare, child soldiers, rocket attacks on cities, difficult to root for either side...I am very glad that I decided to read the book anyway--it is one of the best military histories I've read in a long time. While the war was indeed a sordid, botched affair marked by all of the factors listed above, and plenty of incompetence by both sides, the book is well-written with a wealth of detail...the author has done a fine job of making this terrible war interesting.The author seems to have done an astonishing amount of research, including listening to the tapes that Saddam Hussein made of all of his important meetings (apparently for posterity...). The author succeeds in turning what could have been a very dull history into a fascinating read full of interesting details, from specific aircraft loadouts and battle tactics to illegal arms trading rings and terrorist tactics. As just one (very sad) example, the author describes how Iran sent its child soldiers into battle with plastic "golden keys" (ordered by Iran from a toy company) , telling them that the key would allow them into heaven if they died in battle; Iran also sent its child soldiers--armed only with their plastic keys and copies of the Koran--into minefields to clear the way for regular troops. Very grim stuff...The maps are pretty good, but as usual, difficult to read on a Kindle.In addition to the military aspects of the war, the author does a very good job describing the war's political/diplomatic/economic context, including terrorist bombings, kidnappings, arms traders, how the war helped cause the fall of the Soviet Union, etc. Both superpowers (the US and USSR), France, the UK, and all of the regional powers (Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.) had difficulty adopting coherent positions towards the belligerents because of conflicting internal priorities stemming from cold war issues, oil price, arms trading profits, religion, terrorism, personal animosities, bureaucratic infighting, etc. The author, who is French, points out several instances where one branch of the French government deliberately undermined other branches in dealings with Iran/Iraq.What didn't I like? My only quibble regards the translation: overall the translation is very good and the text flows very smoothly, but there are some odd turns of phrase--for instance, the term "layouts" is used very often in a military context, although presumably a better English translation would have been something like "positions" or "formations" (difficult to tell from the usage). But this is a very minor issue in what is otherwise an outstanding work of history.Finally, while this is probably obvious, I should point out that this is not the book for someone looking to read about brilliant feats of arms...while a few impressive military achievements are described in the book (as well as some examples of reckless courage), examples of gross military incompetence (by both sides) are encountered much more often.Overall, this is a very good book on the topic, and I highly recommend it to anyone with the slightest interest in Middle Eastern or contemporary warfare.

Pierre Razoux's The Iran-Iraq War provides a comprehensive account of the military aspects of the war. It also presents a detailed overview of the arms sales to either or both countries throughout the war. Lastly, the study shows the political impact of the conflict on both countries, during and after hostilities.The formal beginning of the Iran-Iraq war is 22 September 1980 (when Iraq attacked Iran), and the official end date is 20 August 1988, when Iran accepted the terms of the UN ceasefire. Saddam Hussein's precise objectives for the war remain unclear. Generally, Saddam wanted "to reestablish Iraqi sovereignty over the entire Shatt al-Arab" and "take control of some bordering oil-rich Iranian territory." Saddam's perception that Ayatollah Khomeini "would stop at nothing to bring [him] down" was also a key factor leading to the war.The war had several fronts. There was a territorial war of ground fighting, the air war against critical military assets, a war of cities targeting civilian populations, and an economic war targeting oil facilities and shipping lanes.The Iranian air force was superior to Iraq's. However, at the start of the war, the air force was perceived as loyal to the Shah. Hence, some Iranian pilots languished in jail or were training in American afraid to return to Iran.The political fallout of the revolution also inhibited Iran's military intelligence capabilities. With assistance from American intelligence, the Shah had "an electronic interception system," enabling Iran to "spy on Iraq." There were ground stations "located in Kurdistan and the Zagros Mountains." But as the war started, "most of the technicians employed in running the two ground stations and the three aircraft" had "emigrated or were imprisoned."Early in the war, Iraq gained the capability to "decrypt a significant volume of" Iranian messages. In order "to negotiate his escape to Baghdad," an Iranian officer gifted the Iraqis with "a Crypto-52 enciphering machine," which "the Iranian military high command" used "to communicate with its troops." Iraq, however, was unable to monitor the communications of the Pasdaran, since they did not communicate electronically.Saddam lavished gifts on officers who succeeded in battle. Those who retreated without authorization or showed themselves unprepared for a surprise attack faced execution. In April of 1981, after Iran's successful attack on Iraq's H-3 military airfield, "six senior officers" responsible for the airfield's defense "were arrested and executed."Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's speaker of Parliament, was the key figure in Iran's war strategy. Rafsanjani stood virtually alone among Iran's leadership in wanting to continue the war after 1982. Rafsanjani proved willing to risk high causality rates through human wave assault tactics, often involving very young soldiers.Some of Iran's young soldiers enlisted out of religious devotion. Selected for "suicide missions," these youths were "unarmed, carrying only their keys to paradise and a Koran as they crossed Iraqi minefields to set off the mines and open the way for the Pasdaran." Other boys fought out of "social pressure," seeking "to impress their parents, classmates, teachers, or even their fiancees." Still, other youths joined "to obtain social status," or "gain easier access to higher education."While Iran used young soldiers, Iraq resorted to using chemical weapons. Razoux highlights one Iranian use of such weapons in the war. Iraq, however, used such weapons on many occasions. Napalm, nerve gas, and mustard gas were all part of the Iraqi arsenal. Saddam's authorization of chemical weapons against the Iraqi Kurds at Halabja in 1988 "would provide the grounds for his death sentence." Ali Hassan al-Majid, an Iraqi defense minister, would become known as "Chemical Ali" and face an eventual execution "for his role in the [Halabja] massacre."Both sides in the war would use SCUD missiles. Although relatively inaccurate, these missiles were part of the war on the cities, used to terrorize civilian populations. Iran launched SCUDS at Baghdad, and Iraq fired them at Tehran and other major Iranian cities.Oil exports were the chief means of financing the war for both countries. Both sides attacked each other's oil facilities and tried to disrupt shipping, raising insurance prices. Arguably more economically devastating than military attacks were the economic actions of Saudi Arabia and the United States. With the intent of bringing "the Soviet system to its knees," America convinced the Saudis to increase oil production dramatically, which they did in 1985. Concurrently, America "allowed its currency to drop, further diminishing oil revenue, which was negotiated in dollars."Foreign military sales played a significant part in the war, with some countries selling to both sides. China earned approximately 6 billion in military sales to Iraq and an estimated 3 billion in sales to Iran. "Every other [European] state," except for Ireland, was involved "in selling military equipment to one or often both" sides. "In all, some forty nations contributed to the Iraqi and Iranian war efforts. At some point or other, half of them provided material support both to Iraq and Iran--including the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council."Iraq largely financed its weapons purchases on credit, especially from the Soviets, France, and China. The result was that although Iraq won the war, it was somewhat of a hollow victory since it emerged from hostilities deeply in debt. At the close of the war, Saddam had an army he could not afford to maintain and could ill-afford to disband. Saudi Arabia forgave Iraq's war debt. Kuwait refused to do so "and insisted on maintaining very low oil prices." These actions would lead to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990.Isolated from the international lending market, Iran paid cash to finance the war. This forced rationing on the civilian population. Some Iranian political leaders wanted to open Iran to the outside world. Other leaders advocated an isolationist policy. The Iranian civilian population was trapped in between during the war as it is today.All in all, this was a well-informed study. It is highly recommended for anyone interested in the Iran-Iraq war.

When I read about a military conflict, I can usually find someone to sympathize with. Having finished Pierre Razoux's masterful "Iran-Iraq War" all I could think about was just how much I disliked all the people mentioned in the book. This is the greatest collection of cynics, sociopaths, religious fanatics and greedy industrialists I have ever encountered. Each chapter seemed to be more grotesque than the previous one.Razoux's book is history written at the highest level. It is important because the trauma Iran and Iraq experienced during this eight year war currently shapes much of the conflict that currently rocks the Middle East. If you want to really understand why the United States has been engaged in Iraq for so many years, you have to start with this book. However, if you are looking for the nuts and bolts of the war, this is not your book. Tom Cooper and E.R. Hooton's four volume history of the conflict does a much better job of detailing the battles and military tactics of the war. Tom Cooper's many books on the air war also bring a granularity that many readers will appreciate.I have been reading history for forty or more years. In all that time, I cannot remember a more important or disturbing book. It is a great book and I highly recommend it.

Wonderful and detailed history of a war most Americans know little about but which continues to have profound and negative impact on the region as well as American policy. The book is exhaustively researched on all aspects of the bloody years of fighting and especially well-balanced in its coverage of both sides. While easily accessible to the general reader, war history buffs will enjoy the attention to battle tactics as well as overall strategy on both sides

Das Buch wirkt überwiegend glaubwürdig: Der Autor scheint zu wissen, wovon er schreibt. Auch wenn er Streitfragen erörtert, bleibt es ausgewogen und dem gesunden Menschenverstand verpflichtet. Nur an einigen Stellen schreibt er offenbar Unfug, beispielsweise gibt es keine 13 cm Haubitzen, nur 13 cm Kanonen.Die Schlachten werden ebenso detailliert beschrieben wie die Hintergründe und die diplomatischen Bemühungen um eine Beendigung des Krieges. Der Anhang enthält umfangreiche Statistiken, etwa über Verluste und Lieferungen von Kriegsmaterial.

I believe this book was written by a French journalist and translated into English - in any case, I quite liked the style and the point of view. I was not bored. I read a book about the Boer War a few years ago ( actually, I got 'Boered to Death' part way through and did some serious skimming until reading about the end, but this book kept my interest.It makes the case that, to some extent, Saddam Hussein sort of had to attack Iran, because Iran was exporting its revolution amongst neighbouring countries, and instigating minorities to rebel. But of course neither side were angels. A very full discussion of the complex relationship between major powers and both participants.

Un volume eccellente per chi è interessato a tematiche militari. Ottima analisi per quanti ricercano le radici di una crisi ancora in corso. Di non facile lettura - richiede conoscenze pregresse - sicuramente si rivela proficuo

This is the definitive book on the Iran-Iraq war and well worth owning for anyone with an interest in the topic.It's definitely better than Murray/Woods book because it relies on a much wider series of sources and shows a much better understanding of the war and the political battles within. It's better than Hiro or Cordesman's book because again it has a much wider use of sources (admittedly due to time past). Overall its better is because the author is able to access Iranian sources, its not perfect but its a huge improvement.Perhaps the best chapter in the book is the explanation of the regional international situation. The level of depth and analytical grasp of how and why the regional politics is important (beyond Saudi and Syria) is fantastic and provides a whole new layer of understanding of anyone who is interested in the period. The book also shines some facinating light on Franco-Iranian relations and some of the challenges within.The author really understands the military operations and is able to relay how they were fought clearly to the reader, something which many books to date have not been able to do. The clarity of explanation around the Manjoon battles is particularly good. The author clearly understands the specifics of aircraft mission systems and is able to explain why the various Mirage upgrades and modifications were so important during the war of the tankers. He isn't quite so good on land equipment as he is on aviation but most authors simply focus on the platform rather than the mission systems. The author also gives an excellent account of the various arms dealers of the era which is quite entertaining at times.Where the book particularly shines is its understanding of the internal Iranian dynamics. This understanding, presented in clear and simple terms allows the reader to follow the chain of logic that the author uses to to explain how and why the Iranians operated at crucial moments. The book leans heavily on the 2003 research by research that Woods/Murray in Saddam's war but goes much further by incorporating the Iranian perspective.The book is the first book I have read on the topic that was able to clearly explain the internal battles within the Iranian regime and how they play out during the end game. For the first time I have much clearer idea of why certain people were of interest and how that relates to their role in modern day Iranian politics. So its a must read for anyone trying to figure out some of the political issues in Iran since the end of the war. The author gives a very good analysis of the situation and challenges, especially with the US, since.The appendix is excellent for anyone who is interested in simulation or with numerous facts and figures on the various personalities, formations and capabilities by unit and position. It also an amazing break down of arms imports by country and type during the war. It's proven enormously helpful in the 70 player megagame I am building.

This a very well written and sweeping history of the entire war - Throughly researched and states facts as they happened - The hubris of how leaders with a false sense of ego and importance leads nations into conflicts with no value is what this book is all about