US POLICY TOWARDS THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN DURING THE IRAN-IRAQ WAR (1980-1988)

As for the subsequent deliveries of weapons to the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1985 following the scandal that broke out in the United States, the so-called "Irangate case", they were carried out at a time when Iran, having overcome the difficulties of the initial stage of the war, deployed its armed forces on the line of military operations with Iraq. However, Iran had a large deficit in conventional weapons, and foreign supplies, limited in scale and nomenclature, as well as often outdated designs, did not lead the war out of the impasse[3].Washington's interest in the desired outcome of the Gulf war and repeated interference in its course on one side or another highlighted the tactics of US policy in this war: when Iraqi troops advanced and captured significant areas in the west of Iran, the Reagan administration did not prevent its allies (in particular, Israel, etc.) from selling weapons to Tehran; when the initiative on the fronts began to pass to Iranian troops and there was a clear threat of Iran's military victory over Iraq, Washington used all means to prevent such an outcome. During this period, American companies (Bell, Boeing, etc.) directly or through intermediaries sold large batches of helicopters and transport planes, grain to Baghdad, and US banks, with the blessing of the White House and Congress, provided Iraq with a loan of $ 2 billion.In the light of Washington's current speculations that Iraq poses a threat to the world with its development of various types of weapons of mass destruction, it should be emphasized that during the Iran-Iraq war (1985-1988), American companies took a direct and indirect part in equipping Iraqi enterprises with modern equipment for the production of a wide range of chemicals and biological weapons, and also contributed to the development of the Iraqi nuclear production program. In particular, the technology for the production of strains of anthrax, botulism, as well as mustard gas and other types of biological and chemical weapons was mastered. Then they were produced about 600 tons. As it later became known, Baghdad sent the bulk of these chemical and biological developments for military use. Of particular concern abroad was the work of Baghdad on the creation of nuclear weapons[4]. Therefore, Tel Aviv, taking advantage of the Iran-Iraq war, carried out a preventive bombing of facilities for the development of nuclear substances near Baghdad[5].Although the United States in the 1980s acted as the most active external political and military factor participating in the international affairs of the Persian Gulf, many states from different continents also joined the "pie" from the local war. In addition to European countries, military goods were supplied to Iran and Iraq by Brazil, Argentina, China, the DPRK, etc. Deliveries were carried out on commercial terms. In large volumes, they were intended for Iraq. France was the main seller of electronics and sophisticated equipment to Baghdad, especially for the Air Force, during the Iran-Iraq War[6].But assistance to Iraq was also shown in other areas, especially in the second half of the 1980s.It was during this period — at the final stage of the Iran-Iraq war — that Washington became concerned that its reliance on the Arabian monarchies could turn into a failure if the Islamic Republic of Iran emerged victorious in the war. The US administration said: "If Iran defeats Iraq, it will be a real disaster for US strategic interests, because a victory by Tehran will turn Iran into a militarily dominant power in the Gulf and open the floodgates for so-called Iranian fundamentalism, which will flood all Sunni kingdoms, principalities and emirates. They, in turn, represent the pillars of Arab support for the United States in Western Asia. Therefore, wecannotallowIrantowin"[7].On January 18, 1987, Secretary of State J. In the Senate of the US Congress, Schultz called for preventing the supply of effective types of weapons and spare parts to Iran from third countries that would allow Iranian troops to invade deep into Iraqi territory and then spread to third Gulf countries. Following this, President Reagan made an official statement on the Islamic Republic of Iran: "We will ensure the freedom of passage of the oil flow through the Strait of Hormuz. We also firmly declare our support for the individual and collective self-defense of the members of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Persian Gulf"[8].In the political aspect, the United States has submitted to the UN Security Council two draft resolutions that demanded that the governments of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Republic of Iraq stop the war, and also proposed to prohibit the supply of weapons to one of the two named countries that refuses to accept the UN call for a cease-fire. In essence, these resolutions were in the interests of one side, since Iraq was increasingly losing resources to its opponent in order to withstand any prolonged war.In the military field, Washington has begun to introduce a regime of direct confrontation in the Persian Gulf between the US and Iranian fleets as a new additional means of pressure on Tehran. According to official data published by the US Senate, in the summer and autumn of 1987, there were more than 30 American ships (from the 109th and 70th operational formations, which included an aircraft carrier, cruisers, destroyers, minesweepers and other vessels) and 15 thousand marines in the Persian Gulf and on the approach to it[9]. Naval groups of other Western powers were also present in the Gulf. Their governments explained their actions by the need to stop the tanker war, protect Kuwaiti ships and clean the waters of the Gulf from mines and terror. Thus, in the Persian Gulf and in the nearest water area of the Indian Ocean, the largest American naval strike forces ever operated outside of their normal patrol since the Vietnam War were cruising. Newsweek magazine summarized: "By allowing Iraq to manipulate itself, the United States has actually turned into a silent ally of Baghdad in its war with Iran." The American press, on the whole, openly spoke about other goals pursued by Washington — about "an attractive opportunity to spread its power in the region and gain the rights to establish military bases in the already nervous kingdoms and principalities of the Gulf, to make them show greater readiness to grant the United States the rights to use local military bases and airfields"[10].CONCLUSIONThe Iran-Iraq war gave the United States a reason to increase its military presence in the region, especially after the threats of the extremist wing of the Iranian government to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which all oil exports from the Persian Gulf went. The United States began to intensively arm its allies in the Gulf and organized the protection of ships in international waters. "The war between Iran and Iraq, which began in September 1980, "gave" America a golden chance to deploy the infrastructure of the Central Command of the US Armed Forces in the Persian Gulf region: American aircraft carriers and cruisers appeared in the waters of the Gulf, and American military bases were created in a number of states in the region, designed to ensure a safe and uninterrupted outflow of oil to world markets from this area, engulfed by the flames of the eight-year war".The UK has also perpetuated its military presence in the Gulf under the pretext of protecting its ships. Large loans and military assistance to Iraq were provided by France, which drew up a schedule for repayment of debts by Iraq, taking into account the duration of the war.These measures of the three Western states left no doubt about their intentions to maintain their military presence in the Persian Gulf for a long time, to control the sources and routes of oil export and to interfere in the internal affairs of this region in the future.Large destruction of national economic facilities in Iran and Iraq. This has caused their extreme need to attract external economic assistance, to divert huge sums from the accounts of petrodollar revenues of these countries to reconstruction activities.The political and military tension in the Persian Gulf zone, which was inflated during the Iran-Iraq war, did not return to the pre-war level even after the end of hostilities. This war was essentially a bid to continue a series of such conflicts here. By the end of the war, the largest NATO troops in its history were stationed in the Gulf. The United States has completed the creation of a wide network of bases in the Persian Gulf for conducting large-scale military operations here. Bahrain is the main base of the US Navy in the Middle East, and in Oman, the Americans and the British jointly used bases in Salal, Siba, Turugant and Hasab, as well as on the island of Masira.Source and LiteratureKhamidov Z. Sh. And Iraq Iran: confrontation and coexistence / / The Republic of Iraq in the system of international relations (80 - ies of the XX century-the beginning of the XXI century): Collection of art. M, 2002. pp. 101-102.Far Eastern Economic Review. Hong Kong, 1986. 29 Aug.; Panorama. Milan, 1986. November 23.The Chicago Tribune. 1987. November 8. US policy towards Iran.., US Senate, 100th Congress...Washington: Government Printing Office, 1987. Page 90.US Policy towards Iran.., US Senate, 100th Congress ... Washington.: Government Printing Office, 1987. p. 9.Slinkin M. M. The Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988: the struggle at sea. Simferopol, 2001.p. 202.Monitor of Christian Science. Boston, USA. 1987. 14 Aug.Christian Science Monitor.1987. April 9.