| Abstract | Paranoidnost Sadama Huseina zbog mogućnosti unutarnjeg ustanka u kombinaciji s političkim i osobnim ambicijama prevagnula je u odluci o pokretanju invazije na Iran. Teheran je istodobno nakon revolucije 1979. zauzeo tvrdokoran stav glede Ba'ath režima, čija je sekularnost i marginalizacija šijitskog stanovništva viđena od strane iranskih klerika kao „blasfemija“. U jeku visokih napetosti na obje strane, Irak je preuzeo inicijativu i napao prvi, međutim irački gambit se pretvorio u krvavi osmogodišnji rat koji je ekonomski iscrpio obje nacije i odnio stotine tisuća života. Korištenjem bojnih otrova, napadima na neutralno brodovlje i krvavim (uglavnom) pozicijskim ratovanjem Iransko - irački sukob neodoljivo podsjeća na Prvi svjetski rat, no u slučaju Irana i Iraka bespoštedno žrtvovanje cjelokupnih nacionalnih resursa nije urodilo jasnim „plodovima pobjede“. Rat bez pobjednika kako je poznat Iransko- irački sukob doveo je do nove iračke agresije već 1990. koja je uništila svaku toleranciju SAD-a i saveznika za režim Sadama Huseina. Sjedinjene Države su pritom svojom nekritičkom podrškom Iraku tijekom 1980-ih neposredno dovele do uvjerenosti Sadama o spremnosti Washingtona da podrži svaki njegov potez u regiji. Dalekosežni odjek Iransko – iračkog rata osjeća se u regiji i svijetu i danas, kroz prizmu iransko – saudijske geopolitičke partije na Bliskom istoku i uloge SAD-a u istoj. Rat bez pobjednika imao je jednog definitivnog gubitnika, Sadama Huseina koji je 2003. izgubio i život dok Iran u odmaku vremena postaje izglednim dugoročnim pobjednikom rata koji je uzrokovao propast glavnog protivnika Islamske republike u regiji i jačanje proiranskih snaga na Bliskom istoku. |
| Abstract (english) | Saddam Hussein’s paranoia over the possibility of an internal uprising combined with political and personal ambitions prevailed in the decision to launch an invasion of Iran. At the same time, after the 1979 revolution, Tehran took a stubborn stance on the Ba'ath regime, whose secularity and marginalization of the Shiite population was seen by Iranian clerics as "blasphemy." In the midst of high tensions on both sides, Iraq took the initiative and attacked first, however the Iraqi gambit turned into a bloody eight-year war that economically exhausted both nations and took hundreds of thousands of lives. With usage of war poisons, attacks on neutral ships and bloody (mostly) positional warfare, the Iran-Iraq conflict is irresistibly reminiscent of World War I, but in the case of Iran and Iraq, the relentless sacrifice of all national resources has not yielded clear "fruits of victory." The war without a winner, as the Iran-Iraq conflict is known led to a new Iraqi aggression as early as 1990, which destroyed all tolerance of the United States and allies for Saddam Hussein's regime. The United States, with its uncritical support for Iraq during the 1980s, directly led to Saddam's conviction that Washington was ready to support his every move in the region. The long - reaching echo of the Iran - Iraq war is still felt in the region and the world today, through the prism of the Iranian - Saudi geopolitical party in the Middle East and the role of the United States in it. The war without a winner had one definite loser, Saddam Hussein, who lost his life in 2003 as Iran becames a likely long-term winner of the war that caused the downfall of the Islamic Republic's main adversary in the region and the strengthening of pro-Iranian forces in the
Middle East. |
