In the 1980s, a battle between Iraq and Iran broke out over 1 million casualties, lasted for eight years, and spent more than $200 billion on military expenditures.
This 8-year-long battle can be called a classic "teaching material" that hurt both sides, the border line between the two sides has basically not changed, but a large number of military and civilian casualties and economic losses have been paid out of thin air, and the two regional powers have wasted the national strength accumulated in the past, and have fallen into the economic quagmire of long post-war reconstruction.
Some are worried and some are happy. Although the war caused heavy losses on both sides of the war, two countries became unexpected big winners - China and the United States.
On the battlefield between Iran and Iraq, a large number of Chinese weapons shine together, which has become an "exhibition" of Chinese weapons, from the J-7 in the sky, the Silkworm missile, to the Type 69 tank on the ground, the Type 63 armored vehicle and the Type 56 submachine gun in hand, all kinds of domestic weapons are simply available.
As neutrals in this war, what role did China and the United States play in it? What means have each side used to maximize their own interests? Why is it said that China and the United States are the big winners of the Iran-Iraq War?
To make this clear, we must first start with how this protracted war broke out.
(I) Saddam Hussein's Light Enemy Ventures Forward The Iran-Iraq War has reached a stalemate
The Middle East, where Iran and Iraq are located, has been a battleground since ancient times, and from the ancient two-river civilization to the Persians and the Ottoman Empire, this land that gave birth to brilliant civilization has always been plagued by war.
For some time after the end of World War II, Iran and Iraq were at peace with each other and maintained peaceful relations.
Until the outbreak of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, the Shiite Khomeini established a religious Islamic Republic, and the export of the Islamic Revolution and the establishment of Shiite revolutionary regimes around the world became the country's main targets.
Iran's revolutionary exports soon came into the most immediate conflict with iraq, the secular regime next door that advocates secular separation, coupled with Iran's repeated support for the armed struggle of the Kurds in Iraq and the long-standing Arab River border problem between the two countries, making the contradictions between the two countries increasingly irreconcilable.
The last trigger of the war came from intelligence that Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, learned from his own intelligence agents that Iran, mired in a state of fragmentation, would soon fall apart as soon as foreign forces attacked.
So in September 1980, Saddam Hussein officially launched a large-scale offensive against Iran.
About 50,000 well-equipped Iraqi ground troops, driving more than 1,200 tanks, with the cooperation of hundreds of aircraft, crossed the border between Iran and Iran in a mighty way, and advanced into Iran in three ways: north, central and south.
The sudden blow defeated the ill-prepared Iranians, and in less than half a month, about 20,000 square kilometers of land fell into the hands of the enemy.
Despite Iraq's victory, modern warfare is primarily about comprehensive national strength. Iran, several times its territory than Iraq', has greater potential for war, and when Khomeini mobilized and aroused the patriotic enthusiasm of all Iranians, the balance of war began to fall in Iran's direction.
The Iraqi army, which is deep into the enemy territory, is facing the difficulties of insufficient supplies and logistics, and it is already the end of the crossbow, and the local Iranian people have not "eaten the pot pulp to welcome the king's division" as imagined. Soon, under iran's all-out counterattack, the lackluster Iraqi army was gradually defeated. After a year and a half, all Iraqi troops were driven out of Iranian territory, and Saddam Hussein had to come up with a comprehensive ceasefire.
Iraq's successive defeats have caused Iran to have a "I can kill back" illusion, so it hastily organized troops to cross the border between Iran and Iran, ready to seize greater victories, but did not expect that Iraq had already arranged a pocket array, 100,000 Iranian troops fell into the encirclement, bloody battle for 19 days, in exchange for more than 20,000 casualties and a large number of weapons and equipment loss.
At this point, the Iran-Iraq War was plunged into a long tug-of-war for several years.
It is worth noting that in the Iran-Iraq battlefield, the role played by americans was particularly prominent, with several foreign policy changes, allowing themselves to gain enough benefits in it.
(II) The Two Irans Compete with Each Other, and the United States Gains Americans Who Wave Left and Right
On the surface, the Americans strictly observed neutrality, claiming that "in order to safeguard the vital interests of the United States in the Persian Gulf, they hope to end the war at an early date." But in fact, it secretly helps the weaker side of the war, with the actual goal of achieving a regional balance of power.
When the war situation first benefited Iraq, the Americans feared that Iraq would grow bigger in the Middle East, and secretly helped the Iranians as sworn enemies. These include acquiescing to Iran's acquisition of U.S. weapons and spare parts through third countries and supporting Israel's $250 million worth of weapons to Iran.
Then-US President Jimmy Carter spoke directly of Saddam Hussein as an intruder, opposing any attempt to dismember Iran.
Dramatically, when the war took a sharp turn for the worse, moving in the direction of Iran, the Americans turned to iraq, and relations between the two sides quickly warmed up.
After Iran began its counteroffensive, then-US Defense Secretary Weinberg publicly told the media: "If Iran wins in the war, it will certainly not be in the interests of our country." ”
Saddam Hussein also seized this opportunity to improve relations with the Americans and change the radical anti-American posture of the past.
From the provision of military intelligence, economic assistance, and various combat materials, including the sale of armaments, the Support of the Americans for Iraq is not insignificant.
Among them, in 1982 and 1983, the US government successively approved the sale of 60 Lockheed L-100 aircraft and 60 civilian helicopters to Iraq, continuously transfusing blood for Iraqi air operations.
The most ironic thing is that the Americans even tolerated Iraq's use of a variety of nerve gases, including mustard gas, against Iran to repel the Iranian attack, causing heavy damage to Iran.
It should be pointed out that although the Americans stand on Saddam Hussein, if they can obtain sufficient benefits, they will not refuse to negotiate with the "evil regime" of Iran, even at the risk of losing the face of the United States.
In 1986, the shocking "Iran-Contra" incident occurred, when US President Ronald Reagan was revealed to have engaged in a scandal involving a trade involving 2,000 Tao anti-tank missiles with Iran. At the same time, intelligence from iraqi forces was provided to Iran in exchange for the safety of U.S. hostages in Lebanon. This has disappointed many allies in the United States.
Of course, the greatest gain of the Americans in this war is not only these arms benefits, but the most important thing is that the Americans have successfully made the two regional powers fight each other with all their strength, invisibly minimizing their threat to themselves.
Before the war, Iraq was one of the best oil welfare states in the Middle East, with per capita GDP reaching a high of $3,000 in 1979.
As a result, a big war was fought, from creditor countries to debtor countries, owing nearly 80 billion US dollars in debt to Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and other countries. Oil revenues are less than one-fifth of what it was before the war, and the direct economic damage caused by the war to Iraq amounts to more than $240 billion, thus lagging iraq's economic development by at least 20 years.
Iran's losses are equally staggering. According to statistics, Iran suffered 1.08 million casualties and captured, oil production fell from 6 million barrels before the war to 2 million barrels after the war, the once prosperous border cities were destroyed by air battles, the elite soldiers accumulated during the Pahlavi dynasty were lost, and the ideal of exporting the Islamic Revolution was ruthlessly shattered.
It can be said that by maintaining the undefeated balance of power between the two Sides, the Americans have successfully achieved the goal of weakening the two countries, making Iran an "orphan" of the international community, leaving Iraq saddled with a huge amount of debt, and through the operation of escorting the oil fleets of the Gulf countries in the later stages of the war, the military influence in the region has been enhanced and the sphere of influence of the United States has been expanded.
In addition to the United States, Chinese also benefited greatly from this war, especially the arms industry received snowflake orders, making China the fourth largest arms exporter in the world in the 80s.
(3) The cannon sounded golden ten thousand
During the Iran-Iraq War, high-intensity fighting put great pressure on the respective arms logistics of both sides, but the two countries themselves are relatively backward in the development of their arms industries, in order to maintain their respective combat capabilities, they spend a high price of $10 billion every year to buy arms from abroad, which accounts for almost a quarter of the world's entire arms trade.
So, which seller in the international arms market can win the favor of the two Irans?
On the surface, the weapons of developed countries in Europe and the United States and the weapons of the Soviet Union should be the objects of competition between Iran and Iraq, but leaving aside the high price, the complex and esoteric operating system alone has caused the two Iranian armies a lot of headaches, and it is quite uneconomical to spend a lot of time training on how to operate these weapons.
Chinese weapons, on the other hand, have overcome these shortcomings. First of all, China's weapons are of high quality and low price and superior performance. Take the J-7 fighter as an example:
After purchasing 80 J-7 aircraft on the market, the Iraqi Air Force equipped the army with Soviet MiG-21 fighters, and unexpectedly found that these fighters were not inferior to the Performance of Soviet fighters, but the price was lower than that of the Soviet Union.
Secondly, as a side branch with deep roots in Soviet weapons, Chinese weapons and Soviet weapons are in the same vein in many places, and in terms of training, use and maintenance, they can seamlessly connect with the Iraqi army with Soviet weapons to a considerable extent, so Iraqis are very keen to buy Chinese weapons.
This is evident in the Type 69 tank. The tank was designed on the basis of the Type 59 tank, which in turn was derived from the T-54 series of tanks equipped by the Soviets in the 1950s.
Due to the simple operation and convenient maintenance, the Iraqis mastered the use of this tank almost immediately.
Although Chinese weapons are not the most advanced, quantity is often more important than quality in the war of attrition, just as the more advanced German Tiger tanks on the Soviet-German battlefield in World War II were ultimately inferior to the higher-yield Soviet T-34 tanks.
Even the best European and American tanks are not cost-effective in this war of attrition, so Iraq has purchased more than 2,000 Chinese tanks, mainly 69 tanks, from China in one go, which accounts for about 40% of the number of tanks in Iraq's heyday.
Moreover, China's arms sales are resolutely free of political conditions. Compared with European and American countries that often use "human rights" as an excuse to impose sanctions on arms sales, China does not attach any political conditions to its customers on the premise of complying with relevant international laws and regulations, and sells cheap weapons to customers as much as possible.
Therefore, on the battlefield between Iran and Iraq, the figure of Chinese weapons is particularly eye-catching. On the Iranian side, it has purchased many Type 63 armored vehicles and Type 63 107MM rocket launchers, J-7BI and J-7N aircraft from China; The Iraqi side has purchased Chinese tanks and aircraft, artillery, submachine guns and other weapons.
Interestingly, Iran's large-scale purchase of Chinese weapons is due to the fact that it has suffered from The Chinese weapons equipped by Iraq on the battlefield.
The Iranians found that the enemy Iraqi aircraft and tanks on the battlefield were very practical, so they wanted to order the same weapons from China.
After all, "all the visitors are guests", but considering that China's arms sales to Iran may hurt Iraq's face. As a result, China's trade with Iran is mainly based on third-country intermediaries, such as the Type 69 tank, which is traded through the middleman of North Korea.
According to the history of the 617 factory that produces tanks, in just a few years in the 1980s, the 617 factory earned more than 1 billion US dollars in foreign exchange by exporting foreign trade tanks.
It should be known that the fiscal revenue in the 1980s was almost tens of billions of dollars a year, and this income was really a huge amount of money for the military industry that was at that time cutting down on food and clothing and subordinating to economic construction.
With this war, China became the world's fourth-largest arms exporter after the Soviet Union, the United States and France in the mid-1980s, accounting for 12% of the world's total arms export market, a record that has not even been surpassed to this day.