Reflections on Genesis

The book of Genesis is the first book of the Hebrew Bible, or, as it is more commonly called: The Old Testament. Genesis is also the first book of the five books of Moses, known to the Jewish people as the Torah. This first book of the Bible is appropriately titled Genesis, for its name has the meaning of "beginnings" or "origins," for it provides for us the story of the creation of the world and takes us back in time to the birth of human civilization. Believed to have been written by the holy prophet Moses, the book of Genesis takes us on a journey through a series of events transpiring over the course of a few thousand years. Beginning with the creation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, the fall of mankind, the story of Noah and the great Flood, then down to the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and finishing off with the children of Israel settling in the land of Egypt, the book of Genesis has much to say about life during the most ancient of times. Apart from the stories of Biblical characters and all their drama, Genesis also presents a detailed genealogy of the people who populated the earth, going all the way back to the first man, Adam. The intent of this work is to present a concise overview of the history of our ancient ancestors and to also provide commentary on the intimate role that God played in the personal lives of the patriarchs and prophets of old, a saga that in turn would alter the course of human history and reveal to mankind the benevolence of our divine creator.

Now the account of the LORD God creating the entire world in just six days is found in the first chapter of Genesis. However, in Genesis chapter two, a more detailed description of the creation of Adam is given, and it is also here that we are introduced to the Garden of Eden for the first time. It would seem that the purpose of Genesis chapter two was intended to provide a recap of the events found in chapter one. Genesis chapter two also goes into much detail concerning the initial creation story while also incorporating additional elements of creation that are absent in chapter one. Thus, the entire Biblical creation story is laid out in two chapters, not just one. The reason for this may be that an overview of creation was intended to generally cover all of God's handiwork, while an additional chapter was needed to go into further detail concerning things of greater importance.

Following directly from the creation stories of Genesis chapters one and two, we come to the story of the serpent tempting Eve to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, beginning in chapter three. But as we read in chapter two, even before Eve was created, God instructed Adam not to eat of this particular tree, for God tells Adam that the day he eats of it, he will surely die. Since Eve was not present when the law of Eden was given to Adam, it must be assumed that Adam told Eve about God's law after the Lord brought forth the woman from the side of man. Now it is interesting to note that the serpent chose to tempt Eve and not Adam. It would seem that the devil was looking for a weak spot in order to get the man and woman to break God's law. If the serpent had come to Adam first, the man might not have listened. But through a deceptive dialog with the woman, the devil managed to get Eve to break the commandment by promising her that the fruit would give her wisdom and that she would become like God Himself, knowing both good and evil. The devil literally messed with the woman's mind, tricking her into doing something that was not in her best interest. But even worse to say of Eve was that instead of repenting for her sin, she gave the forbidden fruit to Adam, knowing full well that it was wrong. However, though Eve was deceived, Adam knew better. So instead of obeying God, Adam chose to listen to the woman, thus directly transgressing the law of his creator.

Concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, it is traditionally believed that the forbidden fruit was an apple. Yet the Fathers of the Church have something else to say. Though the forbidden fruit is not directly identified in Genesis, a clue as to the type of tree Adam and Eve sinfully ate from is hinted at when they lost their innocence. For the Bible tells us that after Adam and Eve partook of the fruit, their eyes were opened and they knew that they were naked, and they went on to use fig leaves as a means to cover their nakedness. This points to the fig tree as being the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and not an apple tree, which is more broadly and commonly assumed. Another place in the scriptures that alludes to the fig tree being the forbidden fruit is taken from the New Testament. For in Matthew 21:19 it is written that Jesus, "...saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away." Could Jesus have cursed this fruitless fig tree in response for what happened in the Garden of Eden several millennia before His incarnation? It would seem that the Lord cursed the very thing that was instrumental in plunging the world into sin. Thus, the Lord cursing the fig tree may have served as a testimony of Christ's triumph over sin and death.

Returning to Adam and Eve, it is apparent that, through their disobedience, the Lord expelled the sinful couple from Paradise. Through their sin, death enters the world, something foreign to the very nature of the life-giving Spirit of God. No longer will man live in bliss and eat freely from the trees in the Garden of Eden. Now that sin and death have entered the world, the earth becomes cursed and brings forth thorns and thistles. Now man will be forced to eat bread by the sweat of his face. Paradise is lost, and pain and suffering will replace the joys of Eden. From here on, mankind will live in exile. But before Adam and Eve fell from grace, many wonder just how long the world's first couple lasted in the Garden before they were cast out. From the patristic texts, there are conflicting writings that teach that Adam and Eve were living in Paradise for as long as forty days or as short as six hours. Forty being the number of days Jesus was tempted in the wilderness, and six being the number of hours Christ hung upon the cross. Though it is not clearly defined in units of time, what can be safely interpreted is that the length of Adam and Eve's sojourn in Eden was indeed quite brief.

Continuing on our journey through Genesis, we now arrive at the famous story of Cain and Abel, as found in the fourth chapter of this Biblical book of beginnings. As part of the collective consciousness of Western culture, it is generally understood that God accepted Abel's offering and rejected Cain's sacrifice, leading Cain to rise up and kill his brother out of envy. However, what is generally misunderstood in this story is the significance of each of the brothers' sacrifices. As Genesis tells us: Abel was a keeper of sheep and offered a lamb, while Cain was a farmer and offered up crops or vegetables. This has led many believers to assume that God prefers meat offerings as opposed to grain offerings. Because of this misunderstanding, many feel that God treated Cain unfairly. But in reality, the reason why God rejected Cain's offering and accepted Abel's was because Abel offered up the best of his flock to the Lord, while Cain offered up an inferior quality of the produce that he possessed. So the two differing sacrifices had more to do with the offering of first fruits versus the offering up of leftovers.

The fact that Cain did not offer up a sacrifice of his choice crops unto the Lord reveals the darkened character and negative mentality of Cain. For Cain did not give the proper glory to God due to his sullen spiritual disposition. Furthermore, Cain was humiliated when he saw how God accepted his brother's sacrifice but rejected his. Cain was possessed with so much pride that he went to the extent of killing his own brother out of jealousy, for Cain could not bear the pain of his severely wounded ego. Even when God confronted Cain, questioning him about what had happened to Abel, Cain demonstrated how hardened his heart had become by disrespectfully replying to the Almighty, "Am I my brother's keeper?" As a result of Cain's fallen countenance and unrepentant heart, God cursed Cain from the earth, which received his brother's blood. For now, the ground would not yield to him the fruits of the earth as it used to. Cain told God how unbearable his punishment was, but the curse still stuck. So Cain went out from the presence of the LORD and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. 

After Cain was driven out, the Bible tells us that he begot a son with his wife and named the child Enoch. Cain went on to build a city and named it Enoch after his son. It was at this time that the earth became split into two camps. A righteous bloodline and a wicked bloodline. For after the death of Abel, Adam and Eve would conceive another son, whom they named Seth. This Godly child would serve as a replacement for Abel, for it was at this time that men began to call upon the name of the LORD. Now, beginning with Seth, there would stem from him a series of ten righteous men who preserved a holy lineage while the rest of humanity became so corrupt that God decided to destroy the earth and all life upon it with a global flood. For the people in the antediluvian era became so depraved that God regretted that He had made man in the first place, but Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. So God would preserve humanity and all animal life on the ark that Noah built in order to survive the Flood. It was like God pressed the reset button and started all over again. After the waters subsided, God promised Noah that He would never again destroy the earth with a flood and declared that whenever he sees the rainbow in the clouds, he would remember the covenant that He established between man and all of creation.

In the years following the Great Flood, the Bible says that the whole earth was of one language and of one speech. And as they traveled together, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and dwelt there. It was also at this moment when the people decided to build a tower whose top might reach unto heaven and to make a name for themselves so that they wouldn't be scattered abroad throughout the face of all the earth. However, this act of defiance only kindled God's wrath once more. Wishing to put an end to the devices of the children of men, God came down and confused their languages and scattered them abroad throughout the face of all the earth, and the people ceased their building endeavors. Thus it is known as Babel, or the Tower of Babel, because there the Lord confounded the languages and scattered the people abroad upon the face of all the earth. These events concerning the Tower of Babel occur in the eleventh chapter of Genesis, and it is also midway through this chapter where the generations of Shem are recorded. Shem’s descendants are listed all the way down to Abram, who further on in Genesis will come to be known as the patriarch and prophet Abraham.

Now Abraham and his family originally hailed from Mesopotamia in the region of Haran but later moved to the land of Canaan, an area known today as the territories encompassing the modern state of Israel and parts of southern Lebanon. For the one true God spoke unto Abraham and instructed him to leave his father's house and travel to a land which the Lord would show him. For God promised that He would bless Abraham and make of him a great nation, and that through him all the families of the earth would be blessed. God also promised Abraham that one day his descendants would be as numerous as the stars of heaven. Abraham believed the Lord, and the Lord counted his faith unto righteousness. However, Abraham’s wife, Sarah was barren, and they had no children. So, out of a lack of faith, Sarah gave her Egyptian handmaid to Abraham in order that he might raise up seed with her. But later, the Lord promised that Sarah would conceive, and through this child, the future nation of Israel would be established. For the son of Abraham and Sarah was named Isaac and he went on to father Jacob who would be given the new name of Israel by God Himself. Israel fathered twelve sons who would become the twelve tribes of Israel.

The book of Genesis comes to a close with the patriarch Israel and his family settling in Egypt in an area known as the land of Goshen. For Israel's favorite son, Joseph, was previously sold into slavery by his jealous brothers. But through divine providence, the family was united once more, and through Joseph's spiritual gifts, he was able to save Egypt and all the surrounding lands from a severe famine that lasted for seven years. And when Israel was close to death, he gathered his sons together and prophesied over them, telling them of the things that would befall their descendants in the last days. Joseph too, would utter a prophecy concerning the fate of his brethren while he was dying. For Joseph said to his brothers, "...I die: and God will surely visit you, and bring you out of this land unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence. So Joseph died, being an hundred and ten years old: and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt" (Genesis 50:24-26).

Thus ends the amazing sacred historical history book Genesis. As an Orthodox Christian, I believe wholeheartedly in the truth of the stories told in Genesis. However, there are many skeptics out there who don't believe, with some members of the Church included in this trend of unbelief. Sadly, even some priests disbelieve in the genealogies of Genesis and, as a result don't give the body of Christ the proper support. For Jesus Himself spoke of Noah and the Flood, as well as Adam and Eve, and Christ even mentioned Abel. So it is clear that the testimony of Jesus Christ confirms the validity of Genesis as a true story. The fact that Christ confessed the reality of Genesis should give us Christians the inspiration to believe in the accounts of the Old Testament. For without the book of Genesis, there would be no book of Revelation. God's plan for the salvation of the world begins in the Old Testament book of Genesis and finds its fulfillment in the Gospel of the New Testament. Both the Old and New Testaments complement one another through the utterance of prophecies and the fulfillment of holy promises that indeed come to pass. The foreshadowing of things to come is also evident in Genesis, as are all the typologies that link the entire Biblical record together into one book of two parts. And this righteous record has stood the test of time and will continue to stand strong throughout the ages. For as Christ said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35).

Waiting for Jesus

 

For nearly 2,000 years now, devout Christians from all walks of life have been eagerly and anxiously awaiting the predicted second and glorious advent of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Although this final event in world history is looked upon by believers as a means to their salvation, the Day of the Lord will also be terrible and dreadful for unrepentant sinners. Even faithful Christians view this day with fear while at the same time hoping earnestly for the Lord's mercy. None of us will be able to avoid Judgment Day, and we will all be forced to give an account to Jesus as to how we lived our lives and how we spent the time granted to us while here on earth. The books will be opened, and we will all have to give an answer for every idle word spoken and every deed acted upon; we shall even be held accountable for all of our sinful thoughts. So, due to our sinful nature, it is understandable why we don't want to even think about Christ's second coming. We may even go to the extent of blocking out the reality of Judgment Day from our conscience by choosing not to believe in Jesus and the Bible altogether. But no matter how much we attempt to deceive ourselves, all of us will eventually have to face the music.

Now, during the years of His earthly ministry, Christ Himself made a promise to all of his disciples and followers, foretelling how He would indeed one day come back at the end of this present world's history in order to judge mankind and renew creation. And this prophecy, which Jesus uttered, dealing with His return and the end of the age, is recorded in the 24th chapter of the Gospel according to St. Matthew. Additionally, in the 4th chapter of the first Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians, St. Paul reveals the nature of Christ's second coming and also touches upon the resurrection of the dead, a most awesome event that will occur simultaneously with the Lord's return when Christ comes back to judge both the living and the dead (1 Thessalonians 4:16–17). But the key book in all of the New Testament, which provides the most insight concerning the second coming of Jesus Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come, is none other than the book of Revelation, also known in Greek as the Apocalypse.

The book of Revelation goes into great prophetic detail by describing events that have already transpired in the ancient past and also speaks of things that have not yet happened but will truly find their fulfillment at some point in the near or distant future. The occurrences of this present age are also revealed, and in turn, many of these predictions have already come to pass, or more accurately, are currently and continuously being fulfilled. For the Fathers teach that after the loosening of the seven seals by Christ, as found written in Revelation chapter 6, the results or consequences of these broken seals have taken shape all throughout history and will continue to unfold until the end of time. Ever since this chain of events has taken place, due to the loosening of each seal, the events run their course until they are finished and then start once more, going all the way back from the beginning to when the seals were initially broken. And this theory, which teaches that the opening of the seven seals repeats itself in cycles now and all throughout the ages until the second coming of Christ, is appropriately titled the "cyclical theory."

However, it is not my intention to personally interpret the book of Revelation. For an ominous warning is given in the last few verses of Revelation that should make us all reconsider and resist the temptation to privately interpret this most mysterious and prophetic book. For concerning the prophecies of Revelation, it is written, "...If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life..." (Revelation 22:18–19). So, here we can clearly understand that interpreting the book of Revelation is quite a dangerous thing. For it is better to read and keep the words of this prophecy to ourselves, an action that will result in a blessing (according to Revelation 1:3), rather than making the grievous mistake of adding to or taking away from the meaning of these mysteries, which will only lead to perdition. Over the years, the private interpretation of the book of Revelation has resulted in a myriad of false doctrines and the creation of literally thousands of heretical Christian sects, all of which differ in their theology.

One such false and dangerous doctrine is that of the Rapture, a belief held by many Protestant Christian Evangelicals, which teaches that all true Christians will be taken up into Heaven prior to the Great Tribulation, also known as the seven-year era of the Antichrist. This type of thinking is fueled by the belief that God will not allow His people to suffer and go through the trials that non-believers will go through during the reign of the Antichrist. These Protestant denominations base their theology on a couple of New Testament scriptures, which they say points to the Lord's protection of his holy ones. The first scripture that they bank on for their end time deliverance is the quote from 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, which states that when the Lord returns to resurrect the dead, those Christians who are alive on the earth at that time will also be "caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air." The other scripture used to support the Rapture theory is taken from Revelation 3:10, which reads, "Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth."

Looking at these scriptures from a historical perspective, we can see that Christ, in Revelation chapter 3, was speaking to people living nearly 2,000 years ago and was not addressing people in the future who were not as yet born at the time when Christ made His promise to the Church of Philadelphia. Also, in 1 Thessalonians, Paul was simply making the point that when Christ returns, all those Christians alive at the moment of the Second Coming will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air at the end of time and not any time before that. Just as Christians were martyred in the early history of the Church and beyond, so too will Christians living towards the end of history suffer as well. If God allowed the Saints to be mercilessly tortured in the past, God will also allow His servants in the future and in the present times to go through trials and tribulations and even death for the sake of not denying Christ. For example, all of Christ's Apostles were killed except for St. John, so if Jesus allowed His closest friends to experience pain and suffering, what makes us wretched Christians in this sinful generation think that God will mystically deliver a people with so little faith and such great sin from passing through severe hardships?

The fact of the matter is that all people will have to endure the Tribulation, both Christians and non-Christians alike. Yes, we will all be given a clear choice: either deny Christ and take the mark of the beast or die. But the good news is, all of us who refuse to receive the mark, due to our love for Jesus, will be granted the crown of martyrdom and will live forever in the kingdom of heaven along with the prophets, the angels, all the Saints and especially with Christ Himself. The pain that we will feel will only last for a few moments, but afterwards we will receive an abundance of God's grace and experience divine bliss for all of eternity. Yet even though this trade-off is more than fair, many of us don't understand why God would allow the people He loves so much to go through so much suffering. Even Christ, the Son of God, while on the cross, asked God the Father why he had forsaken Him (Matthew 27:46). Though this truly is a mystery, it should not give any of us the excuse to write God off as being unjust or evil. For we know from reading the Bible that God is good, the devil is evil, and that mankind is sinful. And because of man's sin problem, all other problems in the world can be traced back to mankind's disobedience towards the Almighty.

So, on Judgment Day, every person who has ever lived will be resurrected and brought before the great white throne of the Lord Jesus Christ, and we will all be held responsible for our thoughts, words, and deeds. But before that day comes, it is best that we all prepare for this harsh and inevitable reality. Through our personal repentance and the struggle to cease sinning, God will forgive us and grant us much mercy. However, after we die, there won't be any time left for us to get our house in order. So, before we die, let us repent and seek the kingdom of heaven. For the more we devote ourselves to Christ, the more the Holy Spirit will draw near to us, and we will then begin to experience heaven in this life, even before we die. Conversely, through our disobedience to God and His commandments, our time on earth will become hell, and when we die, we will take our sins with us and suffer the horrors of hell eternally. I say this with pain and love for all of humanity, for though these words are somber, the blessings of heaven and the torturers of hell are a reality. Personally speaking, I am a great sinner, but I do have hope in the Lord's mercy as I go about my personal repentance. And what should give us all hope in regard to our salvation is a saying of the Fathers, which reveals to us that heaven is full of repentant sinners.

Concerning the Day of the Lord, scripture tells us that Jesus will come as a thief in the night, but blessed is the man who watches and takes the necessary precautions so that he will not be found unprotected (Revelation 16:15). Scripture also informs us that, on top of the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment, the entire universe will be transformed. For as it is written in 2 Peter 3:10, "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." It is also interesting to note that in Genesis 3:17, God cursed the earth due to sin entering into creation at the beginning of time, but at the end of time, God will re-create this once fallen world and transform all of creation into something new and incorruptible (Revelation 21:1). For when Christ returns, the first heaven and the first earth will pass away, and there will be a new heaven and a new earth. The righteous will be given glorified bodies that will not be subject to decay, a body similar to that of the risen Jesus. For as it is written, "...when he [Jesus] shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2).

God is love, and there is no unrighteousness in Him, so if we end up in a bad place, it will not be the Lord's fault, for the Lord cannot be wrong. Instead, it is due to sinful choices and an unrepentant lifestyle which will lead to one's downfall. It will be nobody's fault but our own if we are condemned to everlasting torment on the last day. Death will come to us all, but by patiently enduring all the trials of life through faith in Christ and by keeping the Lord's commandments, this in turn will attract the grace of God and keep us from falling by the wayside. God has given us free will to either resist temptation or fall into sin. The choice is ours, and what we reap is what we sow. For on the day of judgment, no lawyer on earth will be able to deliver us from the judge of judges. But the Orthodox Church has provided the remedy for man's sin problem through the sacraments, which have been handed down from the Fathers, who were given grace from the Apostles, who were personally ordained by Christ Himself. For through the gift of the Holy Spirit, no genuine believer can ever walk alone. In addition to the grace of God within us, we also have a cloud of witnesses in heaven who pray without ceasing for the salvation of the world. Therefore, let us begin to follow Christ so that we may be included in the sheepfold of the good shepherd. For the Lord comes quickly, even so, come, Lord Jesus.

References: 

Mitilinaios, A. Revelation: The Seven Seals, Vol. II. (Dunlap, CA: Zoe Press, 2014).

Zondervan. The Holy Bible, King James Version. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2009).

World War I & The Fall Of The Ottoman Empire

 

Introduction

When most people reflect upon World War I, the first thing that comes to mind is the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, which triggered the start of the great war. However, a key element of World War I that is not so easily remembered or even discussed is that of the Ottoman Empire and the events which took place in what today we call the Middle East. While war was being waged on the continent of Europe, war broke out in the areas of Palestine, and the territories of modern day Iraq. World War I would eventually topple the monarchies of Europe and dissolve the Ottoman Empire into what we know today as the country of Turkey. But to better understand the role the Ottoman Empire played in World War I and its relationship to Europe, we must first refer to when the Ottomans rose to power and their geographical origins.

An Overview of The Ottoman Empire

The origins of the Ottoman Turks can be traced back to the Turkic peoples who migrated from the steppes of Central Asia to the eastern parts of Anatolia, in what is today modern Turkey, beginning in the 11^th century AD. It was also at this time that these semi-nomadic tribes adopted the religion of Islam, which originated in the desert of the Arabian Peninsula in the mid 7th century AD. The first clash between Christian Byzantium and Islam came in 636 AD, when the Arab Muslims surged out of Arabia and ran headlong into the territories of the Byzantine Empire. During this time, the Byzantine Empire covered much of present day Turkey, Armenia, Jordan, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. When they first encountered the Muslims, the Byzantines had just concluded a very long and costly war with the Persians, who themselves were exhausted and would soon fall to advancing Islamic armies. The Byzantine Empire, however, would prove more difficult for the Arab Muslims to overwhelm – for even in her weakened state Byzantium was still very strong. Only a combination of unrelenting pressure from without, and disorder from within caused the topple of the Byzantine Empire by the Ottoman Turks with the Siege of Constantinople on the 29^th of May, 1453. The areas controlled by the former Christian Byzantines would be taken over by the Muslim Turks, who would now rule this territory and reestablish it as the Ottoman Empire.

The Ottoman Empire in the 20^th Century

At the turn of the 19^th/20^th century, a new Turkish political party known as “The Young Turks” was formed. One of the main goals of the Young Turks was to drag the Ottoman Empire out of its old Oriental spirit and traditions and transform the nation into a modern, strong, and stable European-style state. Germany had favorable positions within the empire, sponsoring the Berlin-to-Baghdad Railway, which began construction in 1888. The Germans managed all of Constantinople's electricity generating plants, its gasworks, its munitions factory, and its arsenal, and the Kaiser's subjects occupied almost all of the skilled technical positions. And during the World War I, Germany and the Turks were also allies.

World War I

Franz Ferdinand was the Archduke of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Royal Prince of Hungary and of Bohemia, and from 1896 until his death in 1914, was the heir to the Hapsburg throne. On Sunday, 28 June 1914, at approximately 10:45 am, Franz Ferdinand and his wife were killed in Sarajevo, the capital of the Austro-Hungarian province of Bosnia and Herzegovina, by Gavrilo Princip, a Serbian nationalist and one of a group of assassins organized and armed by a secret society known as the Black Hand. And this event led to a series of events which eventually triggered World War I.

What did Franz Ferdinand do to prompt the Black Hand to select him for assassination? A possible answer can be suggested by a “secret treaty” made between the Vatican and Serbia, which would have annexed Serbia to the Vatican State and imposed cannon law on that non-Catholic country. When the treaty became known, Archduke Ferdinand, “Roman Catholic heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne,” was targeted for assassination. The Encyclopedia Britannica confirms the nefarious means and ends of the Black Hand: It “used terroristic methods to liberate Serbs subjected to Hapsburg or Ottoman rule and was instrumental in planning the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand...the society was formed in 1911, and its membership was primarily made up of army officers with some government officials. Within Serbia it dominated the army and wielded tremendous influence over the government.” The aim of the Black Hand was to unite all the Slavic southern states into one federation, which could only be achieved through the death of Archduke Ferdinand. And five weeks following the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, World War I began.

Jihad (Holy War)

At the outset of the war the Russians fought with a skill and a tenacity that startled the Germans, and now Berlin was no longer content for the Turks to remain neutral. The result was that the Germans chose to follow what they termed the “Jihad” (Holy War) strategy. Planning to incite uprisings across the entire Muslim world, which were subject to “infidel” European powers. On November 14, 1914, the German “Holy War” strategy paid off. In Constantinople, Mehmed V acting as both Sultan and Caliph of all Islam, issued a fatwa calling all Muslims worldwide to rise up against: British, French, and Russian “infidels” and wage a holy war against them. The Russians were the first of the Allies to react to the Ottoman declaration of war. It was at this time that four battalions of Armenian troops volunteered to serve with Russian forces advancing into Turkey, in order to fight (and hopefully defeat) their Turkish oppressors. And this Armenian uprising was one of the first steps of what would eventually lead to the Armenian Genocide in 1915.

The Armenian Genocide

The Armenian Genocide, also known as the Armenian Holocaust and, traditionally by Armenians, as Medz Yeghern (Great Crime) was the Ottoman government's systematic extermination of its minority Armenian subjects from their historic homeland within the territory constituting of  present-day eastern Turkey. The starting date is conventionally held to be 24 April 1915, the day Ottoman authorities rounded up and arrested some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople. The genocide was carried out during and after World War I and implemented in two phases: the wholesale killing of the able-bodied male population through massacre and subjection of army conscripts to forced labor, followed by the deportation of women, children, the elderly and infirm on death marches leading into the Syrian desert. Driven forward by military escorts, the deportees were deprived of food and water and subjected to periodic robbery, rape, and massacre. The total number of people killed as a result has been estimated at between 1 and 1.5 million. Other indigenous and Christian ethnic groups such as the Assyrians, Greeks and other minorities were similarly targeted for extermination by the Ottoman government, and their treatment is considered by many historians to be part of the same genocidal policy. The majority of Armenian diaspora communities around the world came into being as a direct result of the genocide.

Raphael Lemkin was explicitly moved by the Armenian annihilation which led him to coin the word genocide in 1943 and define systematic and premeditated exterminations within legal parameters. The Armenian Genocide is acknowledged to have been one of the first modern genocides, because scholars point to the organized manner in which the killings were carried out in order to eliminate the Armenians, and it is the second most-studied case of genocide after the Jewish Holocaust. Turkey, the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, denies the word genocide is an accurate term for the mass killings of Armenians that began under Ottoman rule in 1915. However, in recent years Turkey been faced with repeated calls to recognize what happened to the Armenians as genocide. To date, 23 countries have officially recognized the mass killings as genocide, a view which is shared by most genocide scholars and historians.

Russia, Britain and France

On January 3, 1915, Tzar Nicholas of Russia urged Britain and France to attack the Turks. Now the Young Turks had got their country into a war which was too big for them. For the British won the battle of The Suez Canal against the Turks in 1915. Turkey called for an Arab uprising in Egypt against the British, but the Egyptian Arabs were indifferent. The British military or Royal Navy, long understood the Ottomans were poised to threaten Great Britain's oil fields and refineries in Persia (modern day Iran). For Britain's war effort and it's very survival was dependent on the Navy, which needed the fuel from Persia. Troops from India helped Britain in the Persian Gulf to drive the Turks out of Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq), and the city of Basra was captured as a result.

Enter: T.E. Lawrence “Lawrence of Arabia” - Arab name = El Aurens

Thomas Edward Lawrence was born in Wales in 1888, and would ultimately graduate from Oxford University in 1910 with first class honors in history, and then wanted to become an archaeologist. Four years of fieldwork for the British Museum followed. Later at a dig at Carchemish, on the banks of the Euphrates river, is where he was introduced to Arab culture and language. It was there that he developed an affinity with the Arabs. For he began to dress like a Bedouin, and his diet and personal habits also became Arabic. In his notes he mentioned how he believed the Arabs to be “morally superior,” to Europeans, yet at the same time he believed the Arabs to be “intellectually inferior,” to Europeans. Incorporating his admiration and goodwill towards all things Arabic, and his connections to the British government, Lawrence was able to assist the Arab cause in fighting the Turks by supplying the Arabs with weapons and other types of military support. Through his leadership in the Arab revolt against the Turks, Lawrence would go down in history as none other than, “Lawrence of Arabia.” In the Arab Peninsula Sharif Hussein was in open rebellion against the Turks. His goal was a separation of Arabia from the Ottoman Empire, bringing an end to the Sultan's Hegemony. When the Ottoman Empire declared war on the Allied Powers in 1914 the whole Arabian Peninsula, as well as some parts of Palestine and Syria were waiting for the opportunity to breakout in revolt. On November 14, 1914 when Mehmet Resad issued Jihad against the Allies Hussein refused, saying “the holy war is doctrinally incompatible with an aggressive war, and absurd with a Christian ally, namely Germany.” On January 1, 1916 the Arab revolt was openly declared.

Now Lawrence's legacy was not what he accomplished but, what he almost accomplished, yet ultimately failed to do, that of redrawing the map of the Arab Middle East. What he hadn't counted on, and of which he had no knowledge of, were the machinations of three men: Sir Mark Sykes, Francois George-Picot, and Arthur Balfour. Sykes and Picot were coauthors of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which was concluded on May 16, 1916. The agreement was a secret compact between Britain and France to which Russia assented. Under the agreement, when the Ottoman Empire was partitioned: Britain would be given control of an area that included the southern half of modern Iraq, modern Jordan, and a small area around Haifa allowing access to the Mediterranean Sea. Southeastern Anatolia, Northern Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon were to go to France. Russia was to get Constantinople, the Turkish straits, and the Armenian provinces. But what stopped the drawing up/dividing of the Middle Eastern territories by both Lawrence and Sykes-Picot was The Balfour Declaration.

The Balfour Declaration

Arthur Balfour, the British foreign secretary, who issued a statement on November 2, 1917, committed Great Britain to support the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, a long-held ambition among Zionists and, in doing so, would plague the Palestinians to this day. Balfour sent the letter to Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild, the most prominent figure in Britain's Jewish community. This document stated that the British government viewed with favor “the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.” The second part of the declaration stated, “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” The second provision in the Balfour Declaration, protecting the rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine, seems to suggest that the British government believed that the majority of the inhabitants of Palestine were already Jews, this sentence being the usual reservation to protect the rights of minorities. In fact, when the Balfour Declaration was issued, Jews formed only seven percent of the population of Palestine, “non-Jewish communities” constituting ninety-three percent.

When considering the careless diplomacy of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration, it is necessary to remember the war situation in 1917. Russia had ceased to fight and the whole strength of Germany, Austria and Turkey was turned against the Allies. When the Balfour Declaration was issued, the continued independence of Britain and France themselves hung in the balance. The best, or perhaps the only hope of being able to repulse the expected German offensive in the spring of 1918, was to secure the entry of the United States into the war. The British government was advised that this could most easily be achieved by conciliating Jewish opinion, in view of the powerful influence exerted by leading Jews in America. Zionist policy throughout showed a remarkable contrast to that followed by the Arabs in one respect. The Zionists always accepted whatever concessions they could get and, having consolidated the ground won, immediately began to work for more. The Arabs repeatedly rejected compromise solutions and insisted on all or nothing. The Balfour Declaration was so vaguely worded that it could mean everything or nothing. The Zionists nevertheless accepted it and immediately began to use it as a lever to get more.

The Mandate for Palestine, allotted by the League of Nations, consisted principally of provisions in favor of the Jews. Although Jews only constituted seven percent of the population, the word Jews or Zionist appeared twelve times in the Mandate. The Arabs, who formed ninety-three percent of the population, were not even mentioned once.

Britain Fights the Turks

The British fought the Turks again at the Suez Canal and were able to push the Turks up through the Sinai desert, and then finally north of Jerusalem. Jerusalem fell from Ottoman control on December 8, 1917 to British forces led by General Allenby. Allenby formally entered Jerusalem through the Jaffa Gate, the traditional entrance used by the city's captors. Allenby presented himself as a pilgrim not a conqueror, for he passed through the gate on foot, rather than mounted on horseback on December 11, 1917.

1917 - 1918

In November 1917 the Bolsheviks toppled the provisional government of Russia and began negotiating a separate peace with Germany and Austria-Hungary. Allenby continued to fight the Turks, this time to take Damascus, and in September of 1918 he succeeded. Not long afterward, a surge of Lawrence's Arab troops charged into the city, and began the myth that they alone had captured Damascus. The following day, the Arabs proclaimed Faisal Ibn Hussein the king of Syria. The capture of Damascus essentially brought an end to the war in Palestine. The Turks had had enough: The Young Turk leadership conceded that the war was lost. The Turks asked General Townsend to serve as an emissary to request an armistice with the Allies. The Allies agreed. Mehmed VI designated Raouf Bey to be his chief negotiator. Raouf met with British admiral Somerset Arthur Gough-Calthorpe and on October 28, 1918 they signed the cease-fire. The terms of the armistice were harsh, but the Turks had little choice other than to accept. Turkish forces had to withdraw to the interior of Anatolia, where the Ottoman army was to be immediately demobilized, and the Allies would reserve the right to occupy any Turkish territory “in case of disorder.” The sick man of Europe was now deceased, for after nearly five hundred years of rule in the region, the Ottoman Empire had finally fallen.

When the Turks decided to stop fighting on October 28, no one in any of the Allied capitals could claim it was unexpected; the only real surprise was that the Turks had held on as long as they did. After all, the whole edifice of the Central Power's alliance was crumbling before the eyes of the world. Even as Raouf Bey and Admiral Gough-Calthorpe were sitting down in Agamemnon's wardroom, the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary had already begun disintegrating, bringing an end to nearly five hundred years of Hapsburg rule in Central Europe. Bulgaria had quit a month earlier, signing an armistice with the Allies on September 29. Only the Germans fought on, but even they would reach the end of their strength before another week had passed. Berlin asked for an armistice on November 8, three days later it was signed and became a reality.

The War Ends

The Allies issued conditions that had to be met before they would agree to any armistice, namely the demands for the Kaiser in Berlin and the Emperor in Vienna to give up their thrones. The war approached a resolution after the Russian government collapsed in March 1917, and through the Bolshevik revolution in November brought the Russians to terms with the Central Powers. On 4 November 1918, the Austro-Hungarian empire agreed to an armistice. After a 1918 German offensive along the western front, the Allies drove back the Germans in a series of successful offensives and began entering the trenches. Germany, which had its own trouble with revolutionaries, agreed to an armistice on 11 November 1918, ending the war in victory for the Allies.

In February 1919 French General Franchet D'Esperey rode into Constantinople on a white horse – like Mehmed the conqueror did in 1453. Every Turk understood its meaning. Mustafa Kemal did not like the terms given by the Allies. Kemal joined the Committee of Union and Progress and supported the Young Turks. He believed in the need for the empire to undergo drastic and dramatic reform. On March 18, 1920 he announced that a new Turkish legislative body, the Grand National Assembly, would convene in Ankara where it would assume sovereignty for the Turkish Nation. On April 20, 1920 the new assembly gathered for the first time, assuming for itself full government power and naming Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) as its first Prime Minister.

Greco – Turkish War

An armistice between the nationalists, Italy, France, and Britain was signed in Mudanya, on October 11, 1922; the Greeks acceded to the armistice three days later. On July 24, 1923, the treaty of Lausanne, Switzerland was signed, and the great war between the Ottoman Empire and the Allied powers officially came to an end. The treaty guaranteed the independence, autonomy, and territorial integrity of Turkey. Under the treaty a provision was made: that of a population exchange between Greece and Turkey. The “Convention concerning the exchange of Greek and Turkish populations,” would deport the ethnic Greeks living in Turkey back to Greece and the Turks in Greece back to Turkey.

The House of Osman

The Sultanate had become distant and detached from the Turkish people. The time had come, in the considered opinion of the new Turkish government, for a clean slate. The Sultanate was officially abolished on November 1, 1922, even before the conference of Lausanne was convened. On October 13, 1923, the Grand National Assembly transferred the seat of Turkish government from Constantinople to Ankara; on October 29, 1923, the assembly formally dissolved the Ottoman Empire, installing in its place the Republic of Turkey. In summation, the true aim of the first world war was the overthrow of monarchies and the triumph of the world republic.

Bibliography

• Butler, Daniel Allen. Shadow of the Sultan's Realm. (Dulles, Virginia: Potomac Books, 2011).

• Daniel, John. Scarlet and the Beast, Vol. 1. (Tyler, TX: JKI Publishing, 1995).

• Glubb, Sir John. A Short History of the Arab Peoples. (New York, NY: Barnes & Noble Books, 1995).

• Kinross, L. The Ottoman Centuries. (New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers Inc., 1977).

• McMeekin, S. The Berlin-Baghdad Express: The Ottoman Empire and Germany's Bid for World Power. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2010).

A Modern History of Iraq & Iran

 

Introduction

The story of Iraq and Iran stretches the span of recorded history. From ancient Babylon (Iraq), to ancient Persia (Iran), these two cultures have made their mark in the pages of world history. The attempt of this work is to present a modern history of these two civilizations, beginning with the Iranian Revolution in 1979, to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq in 2003. To understand the situation that the countries of Iraq, Iran, and of America face today we must first look back to when these conflicts first arose. That being said we could have begun a great deal earlier, but 1979 is a good place to start. 

 

Ayatollah Khomeini & The Iranian/Islamic Revolution - 1979

On 1 February 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini arrived in Iran, with nearly 3 million people lining the streets cheering him on. Previously Khomeini had been expelled from Iran in 1964, for voicing personal attacks against Mohammad-Reza, the Shah of Iran. However, by the time of his exile, Khomeini had attracted a dedicated, loyal and well organized group of followers. During this time the Shah's popularity was diminishing. The events that would ultimately overthrow the Shah and bring Khomeini to power, began with protests and strikes over the 19 August, 1978 fire at the Rex Cinema in a poor district of Abadan that claimed the lives of 400 people. The outcry was so strong because the doors of the theater had been locked, reportedly to keep out gate-crashers, and because the fire department showed up late and bungled extinguishing the flames. Rumors spread that SAVAK (Iranian secret police) had plotted the fire.

As the protest intensified, the Shah declared martial law. Nevertheless, on 8 September 1978, thereafter known as Black Friday, a massive demonstration was held in Jaleh Square in Tehran in defiance of martial law, which turned violent after marchers called for the ouster of the Shah and the return of Ayatollah Khomeini. As a result the army fired on demonstrators, and guerillas in the crowd fought back. It was the bloodiest incident thus far, and showed that an armed insurrection was a definite possibility.

During this time Khomeini was in Iraq, and the Iranian government pressured Saddam Hussein to expel him from his sanctuary in Najaf. After Khomeini was refused entry into Kuwait, the Shah approved that Khomeini take up residence in Paris, in order to isolate the cleric. However, this “exile” proved to open stronger communications between Khomeini and his followers.

The effects of the Rex Cinema fire, Black Friday, and the removal of Khomeini to Paris brought about a more militant edge to the Shah's opposition. Also on 5 November 1978, severe rioting took place in Tehran. The British Embassy was attacked and government offices were ransacked. The next day, the Shah made a televised speech announcing the formation of a military government, with a policy of cracking down on the opposition. However, instead of arresting opponents and rioters, the government jailed former officials and the head of SAVAK. The opposition could tell that the Shah was already defeated.

Many explanations for the Shah's strange behavior have been offered. It later became known that he was suffering from a terminal cancer, so depression or medication may have clouded his judgment. In any case, the Shah's options after November were dwindling rapidly. So, on 1 January 1979, the Shah announced he was going on “vacation.” He left Iran on 16 January. Originally planning a trip to the U.S. he changed plans and went to Egypt. With the Shah's departure and the arrival of the Ayatollah Khomeini, the Iranian Revolution would soon become the Islamic Revolution.

The Iran Hostage Crisis

On 22 October 1979, the United States admitted the former Shah, then dying of cancer, to the country for treatment. This created a storm of protests in Iran. Then on 4 November 1979, a group of students affiliated with the Islamic Associations of the University of Tehran, calling themselves “Followers of the Line of the Imam,” took advantage of the situation and attacked and seized control of the American Embassy in Tehran.

Thus began the Iran Hostage Crisis, which lasted 444 days. At that time President Carter manipulated the overthrow of the Shah – contrary to the advice of Israeli intelligence, which asserted that instead of improving the country, it would give impetus to Islamic Fundamentalists. The Islamic Fundamentalists wanted to kill Egypt's leader, Anwar al Sadat for the peace treaty he signed with Menachem Begin of Israel, and presided over by U.S. President Jimmy Carter in 1979. Sadat was later assassinated in 1981 as a result. The Islamic Fundamentalists also wanted to kill Carter's chance at re-election. They felt if the hostages were released early, Carter would be put back in office.

During the time of the hostage crisis, Iraq invaded Iran on September 22, 1980. At first glance the war was over Iraqi claims that Iran had violated provisions of the 1975 Algiers accord, which recognized the thalweg (main navigation channel) of the Shatt-al-Arab waterway at the border between the two countries. Iraq resented the agreement, which it accepted in order to stop the Shah of Iran, Mohammad-Reza, from supporting Kurdish rebels in Iraq. Iraq called for its revision shortly after the Iranian revolution in October 1979. The conflict was also believed to be a modern expression of hostilities between Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Persia (Iran), that can be traced back to Antiquity. Iraq's decision to invade Iran was also made with an eye toward building stronger relations with the United States.

Contrary to U.S. intelligence estimates, Iranian forces did not collapse as projected, and Iraq's assault quickly bogged down. Instead of destabilizing the new regime, Iraq's invasion ended up helping it consolidate power as Iranians rallied to the defense of their country. The Carter administration made it clear that it was not after a decisive Iraqi victory. Instead, it initially saw Iraq's invasion as a way to pressure Iran to release the U.S. hostages prior to the November 1980 U.S. presidential election. So, in the first of many double crosses, after initially encouraging an Iraqi invasion, Carter and other officials began signaling Iran that the U.S. was prepared to help its war effort if it would release the embassy personnel.

On October 18, Carter said that Iraq had gone beyond its initial goal and that the U.S. wanted “any invading forces withdrawn.” Ten days later, Carter stated that if the Americans were released, the U.S. would airlift $300 - $500 million worth of arms to Iran which had already been ordered and paid for by the former Shah. Nothing, however, came of this proposal because of secretive meetings and dealings – not in Baghdad or Tehran, but in Washington.

The actions of an organized group of individuals inside and outside the elected government of the United States concocted an alternative and private foreign policy with Israel and Iran without the knowledge or approval of the Carter administration. Their goal: to ensure Ronald Reagan's victory in the 1980 presidential election over incumbent Jimmy Carter.

During the summer of 1980, candidate Reagan's campaign feared Carter was about to pull off an “October Surprise” release of the hostages, which might well guarantee his reelection. So, Reagan's top advisers made a secret agreement with the Islamic Republic: if Iran continued to hold the hostages through November's election and Reagan won, he would lift economic sanctions imposed by Carter and allow Israel to ship arms to Iran. Reagan did win, and on January 20, 1981, just moments after he was inaugurated, Iran released the hostages.

 

The Iraq – Iran War: 1980 – 1988

The Iraq-Iran War was one of the longest and bloodiest conventional wars of the 20^th century. American intervention in it was one facet of a U.S. response to the shocking turn of events in 1979. Washington's goal was protecting the Gulf's pro - U.S. oil sheikdoms. As a target of opportunity, Iran looked vulnerable. Its ties to the United States were destroyed and international isolation was increasing due to the hostage crisis and the Islamic Revolution. If, however, the United States and Iraq thought Iran would fall easily, they were badly mistaken.

In the first days of the war, Iraqi forces captured many Iranian cities, but the Iranian navy and air force struck back at targets in Iraq with much success. On September 28 the U.N. Security Council called for a cease-fire. The Iraqis realizing they were in for more of a fight than they anticipated, were considering the cease-fire, but Iran totally rejected it. In January 1981, the Revolutionary Guards of Iran were augmented by a militia called The Vahid-e-Basij-e Mostazafan. This was the first step in creating what Khomeini called an “Army of Twenty Million” men and women to assure the victory of the Islamic Republic.

In September 1981, the Iranian army drove Iraqi forces back across the Karun River. And in March 1982, the Basij and Revolutionary Guards launched a surprise attack on Iraqi positions, inflicting heavy casualties and pushed the Iraqis almost back to the border. Iraq immediately signaled it was ready to withdraw its troops and end the war. Iran responded with an offensive that pushed back the Iraqis even further.

Iran had taken the war into Iraq aided by hundreds of millions of dollars in arms that were secretly shipped from Israel as part of the Reagan hostage deal. The fall of Basra could have destabilized nearby Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, upset the regional balance of power, and undermined U.S. “credibility” in the region. So, in June of 1982 president Reagan, “decided that the United States...would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.”

In 1982, Iraq was removed from the State Department's list of alleged sponsors of “terrorism.” This made Iraq eligible for U.S. government-backed credits and so-called dual-use-technology, which could be used for either civilian or military purposes. In 1983 the U.S. launched “Operation Staunch” to stem the flow of arms to Iran, the next year, it added the Islamic Republic to the State Department list of “terrorist” states.

The U.S. program of arming Iraq was facilitated by Donald Rumsfeld. In December 1983 and again in March 1984, Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad as president Reagan's special Middle East envoy to assure Hussein of U.S. support and its readiness to restore diplomatic relations, which Iraq had broken after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

Back on the battlefield, faced with relentless fighting from Iranians on the ground, Iraq attacked oil installations and shipping to Iran. One reason Iraq concentrated its air force on Iranian shipping was that the two sides had agreed to a U.S. - brokered agreement not to attack major population centers. The accord was broken in March 1985 as the “war of the cities” began. Iraqi aircraft bombed Tehran and other cities across Iran, while Iran shelled Basra and fired surface-to-surface missiles at Iraqi cities.

In February 1986, Iran staged another major offensive that succeeded in crossing the Shatt-al-Arab waterway and capturing the Faw peninsula. In his New Year's speech, Khomeini proclaimed that the “Year of Victory” was at hand. However, Iraq's superior air force stepped up attacks on Iranian oil installations, shipping and economic infrastructure. As a result the war was becoming sever and started to gain attention on the political and international scene.

Then, in November 1986 news of secret arms deals between Iran and the United States became public. When it was reported that Reagan's team secretly offered Iran arms in exchange for releasing the American hostages, it made the U.S. the laughingstock of it Arab allies, who America had previously pressured not to supply weapons to Iran.

This was also bad news for Iran, because the only way for America to redeem itself in public opinion was by taking a tougher stance against Iran. Iran's installation of Silkworm missiles capable of attacking American warships in the Strait of Hormuz and its mining of the Persian Gulf to damage ships carrying goods for Iraq provided a perfect reason for America to toughen up on Iran. This also worked out for Saddam Hussein, who had plans for bringing the war to an end by internationalizing it.

On July 20, 1987 with support from the United States and the Soviet Union, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 598 calling for a cease-fire. It was accepted by Iraq, but not from Iran. At the same time Iran's economy was collapsing and enthusiasm for the war had diminished. As Iran's military equipment was being depleted, Iraq's was being freshly rearmed. The United States was determined for Iraq to prevail against Iran. Finally and reluctantly, Khomeini agreed to U.N. Resolution 598. He informed the nation on July 20, 1988 that it was a decision “more deadly than drinking poison” but which was necessary “to save the revolution.”

The Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait & Gulf War I: 1990 – 1991

The Reasons for Invasion

After the Iraq-Iran War Iraq found itself indebted to a wide range of creditors. Given the debt repayment burden (amounting to over 50 percent of Iraq's oil income in 1990), the massive costs of reconstruction, the continuing weakness in the price of oil and a military and a civil import bill which far exceeded Iraq's projected oil revenues, a more drastic solution was needed. It was in these circumstances that Iraq tried to increase its oil revenues by seeking to persuade OPEC to raise the price of oil. Saddam Hussein looked to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to help save Iraq from its financial crisis in a number of ways.

They were supposed to co-operate in maintaining a high price for oil, through restraint of their own production and pressure on others. They were asked repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, by Iraq to declare that the $40 billion in financial aid they gave to Iraq during the war with Iran should be considered a grant and not a loan. Iraq also suggested that they should contribute to Iraq's economic reconstruction. The disappointing response received by Iraq from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait led Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait to control the oil fields.

In the early morning hours of August 2, 1990, six elite Iraqi Republican Guard divisions crossed into Kuwait. Four hours and 75 miles later they entered the capital, Kuwait City, and by morning had effectively taken over the whole country. Iraq's invasion meant that, at least momentarily, it's debts to Kuwait were canceled, its border issues were solved, it had deep-water access to the Persian Gulf, and it now controlled some 20 percent of world oil reserves. In a speech on August 10, Hussein justified the invasion as a blow against the legacy of British colonialism.

The Invasion of Iraq by the United States

Washington demanded war, not peace. The last thing President Bush wanted was for Iraq to negotiate its way out of Kuwait with its military intact, its political clout increased, and its weak neighbors intimidated. By September 1990, the U.S. leadership had decided to act.

Between Iraq's invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990 and the end of the Gulf War in late February 1991, the U.S. rejected at least 11 peace proposals from a variety of countries, including Iraq. The day after its invasion, Iraq offered to withdraw if it wasn't condemned or attacked, and announced that Saddam Hussein would meet with King Hussein of Jordan, President Mubarak of Egypt, and King Fahd of Saudi Arabia in Jeddah on August 5 to resolve the crisis. The U.S. immediately, and forcefully, blocked the meeting and wanted its Arab clients not to deal with Hussein. On January 12, 1991, congress voted to give Bush the authority to use force against Iraq. The war began on January 16, 1991 with an unprecedented bombing assault code-named “instant thunder.” The U.S. also used depleted uranium shells in Gulf War I. After the war Iraqi doctors were reporting a surge in cancer deaths and birth defects. What happened in the Gulf War was a form of nuclear warfare.

Disarming Iraq

By the summer of 1991, Iraq admitted it had a nuclear weapons program. Within 6 months of the end of the Gulf War, Iraqi weapons programs were being discovered and destroyed. From 1991 to 1998, UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) sent 500 teams staffed by nearly 3,500 inspectors. These teams examined some 3,400 sites and destroyed billions of dollars worth of weapons and equipment. The inspections did succeed in largely disarming Iraq.

Oil-for-Food

After the Gulf War Iraq found itself under sanctions. The UN attempted to alleviate some of the hardship suffered by the Iraqi population by offering the Iraqi government the opportunity to sell $1.6 billion worth of oil in 1992 to pay for the import of food and medicine. However, Saddam rejected it. Only in 1996 did the Iraqi government agree to the terms of the UN allowing Iraq to sell $2 billion worth of oil every 6 months for the purchase of supplies for its population. The UN would increase the amount of oil to be sold over the next few years after 1996.

The United States and the Iraq Sanctions: 1990 - 2003

The story of the sanctions imposed upon the Iraqi people tells how the United States government took unbelievable measures to prevent humanitarian goods from entering Iraq. Some of the United States' justifications for the sanctions were unfounded and disputed by the international community, and to a great degree there was simply no justification at all. The sanctions were imposed on Iraq from August 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait and concluded after the second Persian Gulf War in May 2003.

The cause of the collapse of every system needed to sustain human life, and what maintained that state of crisis for over a decade, was the destruction from the bombing in 1991. Because of the sanctions the inability of Iraq to import goods that might have allowed the country to rebuild its infrastructure, the economy collapsed and crippled Iraq's capacity to produce oil and generate income.

All three U.S. Administrations (George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush) blamed the harm done by the sanctions on Saddam Hussein in several ways. One, that Saddam Hussein's regime wasted money on building palaces that could have gone to food; that by invading Kuwait, Iraq brought the sanctions on itself; that the sanctions would have been lifted if the regime had cooperated with weapons inspectors; that Saddam Hussein himself probably had billions of dollars and chose not to spend it on his people; that the Iraqi government was smuggling oil and getting kickbacks, and that the Iraqi government was using income from the Oil-for-Food Program to buy arms and luxuries for the elite. The United States maintained that, consequently, there was no reason to remove the sanctions because any damage done was by Hussein's policies not the sanctions.

Despite the claims of the United States and others, the Iraqi government took several important measures to meet the needs of the Iraqi people. The most effective of these efforts were in the area of food, health care, and infrastructure repair. The Iraqi government can truly be criticized for certain measures that did worsen the situation for the Iraqi population. At the same time, however, the Iraqi government's capacity to respond to the crisis, and to mitigate the effects of the sanctions, were crushed by the government's lack of cash and the emotional distress that occurred on many levels.

One of the main goals of the sanctions was to diminish the Iraqi state's income by blocking oil exports. While Iraq was allowed to import humanitarian goods from 1991 to 1996, it could not export oil to generate funds to pay for them. From the end of the 1991 war until 2003, under both democratic and republican control, the overriding concern regarding Iraq was the potential military threat presented by Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.

The sanctions not only crippled the economy but also caused much suffering and great death tolls among the Iraqi population, many of them children. In May 1996 Madeleine Albright was interviewed by Leslie Stahl for 60 Minutes, and Stahl asked about the sanctions: “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children that died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” Albright replied, “...we think the price is worth it.”

In the Fall of 2002, others in congress criticized the sanctions. Representative Bobby Rush, a democrat from Illinois, argued that: “Despite the president's proclamation that America is a friend of the Iraqi people, we cannot insult the American people by ignoring the fact that U.S. - led sanctions have created a hotbed of disease and extreme poverty in Iraq, and war will only plunge the Iraqi people deeper into death and despair.”

 

The U.S. Invasion of Iraq: Gulf War II - 2003

The secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, argued that since Saddam Hussein was still in power, sanctions hadn't produced results and military action was needed. At the end of the debate, congress supported the U.S. attack against Iraq even in the absence of Security Council authorization. Over the course of the sanctions regime, throughout all three U.S. Administrations the consistent goal up to the time of the U.S. invasion in 2003 was to keep Iraq from rearming by bankrupting the state, and to reduce Iraq's society and economy to the most primitive conditions possible and keep it in that state indefinitely.

Many believe that the sanctions imposed on Iraq violated international law. Denis Halliday, the former humanitarian coordinator in Iraq, called it genocide, and one legal expert maintained that “U.S. officials, in initiating and working tirelessly to maintain a program of comprehensive multilateral sanctions against the country and people of Iraq...have committed genocide.” The collapse of Iraq's industrial capacity, and the economy as a whole, triggered massive unemployment, the disappearance of Iraq's middle class, and the standard of living declined to an extreme level. Just to be able to eat, engineers drove taxis and families sent their children to beg on the street.

The United States succeeded in using the Security Council, and binding all UN member states as well, first in order to impose its own agenda – regime change – in violation of the council's resolutions, and arguably the UN Charter; and then to unilaterally impose its own standard – compromising the basic means to sustain life in an industrialized nation for an entire civilian population – in enforcing the measures the Security Council imposed.

The policies and the acts of the United States towards Iraq in the 1990's and 2000's have wrought pain, suffering, destruction and death to the people of Iraq. And the reason for bombing Iraq in 2003 was expressed by George W. Bush during a political rally held on 20^th November 2002. He said, “There is a universal recognition that Saddam Hussein is a threat to world peace. There's clear understanding that he must disarm in the name of peace. We hope he chooses to do so. Tomorrow we'll discuss the issue. We'll consider what happens if he chooses not to disarm. But one thing is certain; he'll be disarmed, one way or the other, in the name of peace.”

 

 

Bibliography

• Daniel, Elton. The History of Iran. (Westport, Connecticut: The Greenwood Histories of the Modern Nations, 2001).

   

• Evans, Michael. The American Prophecies. (New York, NY: Warner Faith, 2004).

• Everest, Larry. Oil, Power and Empire. (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2004).

• Gordon, Joy. Invisible War. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2010).

• Tripp, Charles. A History of Iraq. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007).