I’d been meaning to read this book for a long time and finally got around to it. I’ve repeatedly said that historical parallels are problematic, but what the heck, here goes. Iran-Iraq, from 1980-1988, saw a regional war between unequal powers threaten to spiral out of control, involved energy dependence as a weapon, a lot of miscalculations about opponents, ideological blinkeredness, swinging fronts and stalemate, and human-wave attacks after one belligerent’s technological base for waging modern war was almost exhausted.

Pierre Razoux’s 2015 book is really readable, though a little weaker on Iran because he focusses on the better sources about Saddam’s reasoning, thanks to the US-captured audio cassettes spanning much of his time in power. It’s genuinely refreshing to read an author who is not afraid of confronting his own country’s rapacious and cynical mercantilism in the war, and the horrible cost to French citizens. One can hardly imagine so penetrating an account from an Anglo-Saxon pen. Indeed, the Americans come out of it the worst – completely rudderless and reactive in their responses to Iraqi aggression, and also Iranian desires for recognition to cement their new revolutionary regime.

What else? While 8 years is a long time to be at war, Razoux is able to show how each side had to reinvent its approach to waging war again and again and that the technology, and also metis, of war had become unrecognizable by the end – not least thanks to the flooding of the battlefield with newer Western tech and newer aircraft. At the same time, the old chestnut of generals fighting the last war is given stark illustration in the way the Iraqis partially drew on a 1941 plan by the British as a model for their initial (not very successful) ground assault. So despite the war beginning as a poorly coordinated mid-20^th-century regional conflict and ending as essentially a 21^st-century war (because of the entry of modern aircraft and ballistic missiles) belatedness is a key experience: not being up to date on all the resources needed to fight a big war; not considering current economic reality; dismissing basic military theatre requirements like air superiority and logistics; not having the right weapons in the right place at the right time. Some of it does ‘recall’ the disastrous Russian improvision of 2022 after the rush to Kyiv had failed.

Along with belatedness (and attrition of capacity which led to devolution of the Iranian effort into human waves) there is incompetence and purposeful ignorance: failure to acknowledge on the Iraqi’s part the force needed for the task of invading Iran (a massive country with lots of natural obstacles like mountains), a lack of coordination (Iran’s obtuseness regarding its superior airpower), delegation in a negative sense by Saddam (‘just get on with it and bring me results’). Saddam was remarkably ignorant about how his campaign would destabilize the region and affect the US and USSR, even if he was smart in blackmailing and playing Arab countries. However, this ignorance pales in comparison to the Americans’ massive intel failure and woeful response: they were completely wrong in seeing Iraq as Soviet-aligned; the US had no Iranian expertise (no one with Farsi or knowledge of the revolution was allowed anywhere near policy) and misunderstood that the Iranian revolution was not just about religion (ideology) but about state-making and regional recognition. At every turn, Western powers made belated decisions based on poor rationalization, political expediency, and worse.

Like Putin, Saddam quickly realized he’d bitten off more than he could chew. His recourse to terror and war crimes backfired and the war ‘made’ the Iranian post-revolutionary nation and state. A state that is quite capable of reproducing itself today and still strongly shaped by the experience of that war. Of course, it would be a mistake to map Russia-Ukraine onto Iraq-Iran for many, many reasons, not least size, religion, geography, outside aid, etc.

Razoux concludes with something we should pay attention to much more than tech, strategy, tactics, esprit de corps, or demography. After 500+ pages of battles, intrigue and horrible accounts of child soldiers and chemical weapons, he curtly turns to the reader to say that what’s of cardinal importance is none of that stuff, but instead the economic war. Only when Iran’s capacity to make money from oil was significantly degraded (they had no access to credit), and only when Iraq was mortgaged to the hilt and also threatened with significant economic repercussions, did the conflict end. Pretty much where it started.

Once again, most historical comparisons are downright dodgy. However, the Iran-Iraq war certainly led to the destabilization of the whole region and untold damage to both countries whose societies became exhausted by war. Certainly, Charles Tilly was right: “war makes the state”. (what he actually meant was that war transforms states in quite unpredictable ways) But which one is Ukraine? Is it Iraq – which transitioned to a hyper-modern, and quite effective militarized state where even the leader was in some respects beholden to the army? [spoilers, the US couldn’t put up with that, even as it had recently turned a blind eye to Iraq committing some of the worst atrocities since WWII]. Or is it Iran? Steeled in blood, collective suffering defines national identity and leads to consolidation around what is a factionally-divided revolutionary government (and not universally legitimate at that). Iranian domestic politics today is still the politics of a war that ended 36 years ago.