Iran's Halabjah

I was not aware of this story about Sardasht - a town in Iran that got stuck between Iraq's and Iran's armies in the 1980s, one more casualty of the chemical warfare that occurred then.

It was about 4 p.m. on June 28, 1987, when Iraqi warplanes began circling the town and dropping bombs. Iraqis frequently strafed the town, which housed Iranian troops and was a suspected stronghold of Iraqi Kurdish insurgents. Eight bombs struck the city.

Residents thought little of the bombing. Then the odors came.

"It smelled of garlic and had the color of dried cement powder," said Mohsen Panahi, who devotes most of his time to bringing attention to Sardasht's victims. "Afterward it smelled of apple."

There are some so eager to blame Iran for regional aggressiveness in developing its nuclear program, but they forget Iran's past. The Iranian people took a heavy beating from Saddam's army, and it's hard for me to suggest why they'd be wrong to develop nuclear and chemical weapons for defensive purposes - just as the U.S. government did during the Cold War. And they didn't forget that the international community largely ignored Saddam's chemical attacks on their citizens and military.

"The Sardasht attack had a profound psychological effect on Iranians," said one Iranian diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity, "and definitely colors the country's view of international law and the U.N. as a protector."

By the mid-1990s, Iran acknowledged that it had developed a sizable chemical weapons stockpile. It also began aggressively pursuing nuclear energy technology. By 2002, it had become clear that the program was part of an effort to develop more advanced technologies that could potentially be used to make weapons-grade nuclear materials.

Although Iran insists it is developing nuclear technology only for peaceful purposes, some say the 1980s war experience convinced the country's leaders that they needed a deterrent against another Sardasht.

"Iran drew the conclusion that the only way to protect itself," Hiltermann said, "was to develop its own weapons of mass destruction."

So what does our government do in response? Threaten Iran with aggressive actions unless it unilaterally disarms in the middle of an unstable region with neighbors holding nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Yeah. That'll work better than talking.

It took years to negotiate with Libya concerning conditions under which it would disarm its WMD program. For some reason, the Bush administration expects that it can just cut to the chase and do a decade's worth of work in a year. Patient diplomacy works, and sometimes things won't come together in your term. Here endeth the lesson.

Comments

[NVH]

J.-Come on man, don't forget all the "good" things Iran was linked to during the 1980's which led the ENTIRE world to give them the finger in Sardasht and let Iraq off the hook. Let's see Beirut, Hezbollah to this day, numerous other terrorist actions linked to their government, supported by their government since the 70's. You read Baer's book, he says all this. How quickly you forget. MAYBE we need to back off a little, but it's like any other gushing wound, you keep the pressure on it until it stops, not cut off the offending limb.

[dk]

You forgot that little Arms for Hostage criminal activity with which Iran cooperated in the 1980's; oh, wait, we were involved with that too. Nevermind.

[Maxtrue]

Libya blinked because of the force being used on Iraq and Afghanistan. During the decade before the "experts" were convinced Libya was simply building an irrigation tunnel..LOL. Did Iran kill Iraqis with chenical weapons? And what does killing Jews in Argentina have to do with Iraq? What does supplying weapons to terrorists have to do with self-defense? Your logic here makes little sense.

[J.]

I'm not suggesting we back off or stop applying pressure to Iran, especially, as you note, their activities supporting terrorism. What I am saying is that 1) it's understandable why Iran wants nukes and chem weapons, given their history (and it's not necessarily to attack US interests), and 2) using overt threats to force a near-term political win won't work as effectively as using quiet diplomacy to work the long-term goal of reducing the proliferation of such weapons.

[BGG]

I recall reading that long before this incident (1983-84 timeframe) Iran had gone to the UN requesting intervention more than once after Iraq started sliming them. The UN ignored them and left them with the obvious choice: develop their own. And lest ye think I'm sticking up for 'em, I'm not -- "it's just business."

[NVH]

J.-Understandable? Maybe. It's the BS rhetoric they spout off with trying to puff up there image in front of all the illiterate Hezbollah volunteers. But I agree, constant diplomacy coupled with a couple of covert incursions to support the up and coming generations and we're all set. Screw the political capital Bush admin might be trying to buy.

[CKR]

Your last point, J., is an important one.

It's only on tv that disarmament happens in a half-hour. In the real world, it always takes years.

You cite Libya correctly. I'll also point out that it took fourteen years for Argentina and Brazil to back away from mutual quests for nuclear arms.