By supplying both sides, did the US keep the Iran/Iraq war

[GHOSTDANCER]

going on, on purpose to plunder their oil reserves of both these countries? Iran and Iraq would of have been selling promised oil for arms right? I know this crippled Iraq, not sure about Iran.

[EVDebs]

1. Sheeeze. After Vietnam, Henry Kissinger talked the Shah of Iran

into buying what was left of US munitions, and the Shah could pay for them using jacked up oil prices. That started in earnest after the 1967 Arab/Israeli war and again in 1973 when they went at it again...Soon oil prices, and post Vietnam inflation (you have to pay for a war with taxes or inflation or both as with the 1967 tax surcharge and inflation).

Next came the 1979 Iranian Revolution and US lost its cold-war listening posts in Iran used to spy on the Soviets. Our diplomats were held hostage.

In order to even the score we armed Saddam's Iraq see "Spiders' Web" by Alan Friedman. We armed him well. GHWB even went to Egypt to pass along bombing instructions to Saddam's people as the book shows.

Don't know if our military's planning had that much foresight, but currently Playboy magazine has a map showing Middle East bases/deployments and Christian Science Monitor 3/19/02 had a map of 'oil and military presence in Caspian and Middle East region' and these didn't just spring up after 9-11-01 if you know what I mean.

[indepat]

7. I seem to recall Kissinger saying it's a shame they both can't lose

[txaslftist]

2. Well... we really only supplied the Iraqi side, although

we were fighting against the weapons we had supplied to the Shah. Of course, Iran would have won decisively and early without our support of Saddam's much weaker (initially) force.

Who the hell knows what the motivation was, probably some cold-war pablum, but probably not oil.

[illflem]

3. As far as I know except for the Iran contra deal

we mainly supplied arms and advice to Iraq. The US was still pissed at Iran for the ouster of the Shah and the hostage taking.

[tkmorris]

4. Yes and maybe no

At the time IIRC it was widely accepted as common knowledge that the US was keeping the war balanced, and thus prolonging it. Their motivation for doing so is another matter. It was suggested (and I believed this one at the time) that the US did not want either country to completely subsume the other or it would upset the balance of power in the ME.

Of course, aside from concerns about war escalating in the ME were concerns that any one portion of OPEC would become too powerful. If Iran and Iraq were to merge they would have weilded extraordinary power over the United States by controlling so much of the oil that we need.

[Just Me]

5. Yes. The answer is: "YES". eom

[coreystone]

6. MY Friend Today, My Foe Tomorrow.....and, forget about the History!..eom

[GHOSTDANCER]

8. Thanks everyone! n/t