Iraq in World War II. post-war iraq iraq second world war

Introduction

Chapter 1

1 Relations between Iraq and the United States before 1991

Chapter 2. The reaction of the international community to an act of aggression

2.2 Position of the UN Security Council

3 Franco-German position

Chapter 3. The results of the war in Iraq

1 Political and economic destabilization in Iraq

Conclusion

List of sources used

iraq aggression civil war

Introduction

Aggression in Iraq has split the world into sympathizers and protesters. True, many countries were guided by momentary interests, and only a few states based their decisions on such concepts as law and order, security, world stability. The military operation in Iraq was the result of a number of previous political and military events in the world. The September 11, 2001 attacks began new policy USA. The administration of President D. Bush has declared war on international terrorism. The sequence of events initiated by the United States, which influenced the whole world, is as follows: 2001 - the beginning of the war in Afghanistan with the aim of destroying all terrorist training bases; the adoption of an anti-terrorist law that restricts the rights and freedoms of American citizens, 2002 - the creation of a Guantanamo camp for persons involved in terrorism; the adoption by the US National Security Council of the Bush Doctrine, according to which America has the right to wage war on the territory of other countries to overthrow dictators if, in the opinion of the US administration, they threaten the security of the US and its allies; 2003 - as a consequence of previous decisions - the beginning of a military invasion of Iraq. In the wake of mass protests against terrorism after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush government decides that Iraq threatens the security of the United States, and the administration of S. Hussein, according to Washington, has contacts with the international terrorist organization Al-Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction, which can deliver to the terrorists. The consequences and results of the Iraqi military conflict are still not fully understood. The current situation in Iraq raises even greater doubts about the correctness of decision United States on the outbreak of hostilities in 2003. Evidence of contacts between the administration of S. Hussein and al-Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction was never found. The conflict in Iraq showed the emergence of contradictions between the European Union and the United States of America, split the world community into two camps and once again indicated that the United States claims to be the main power of the monopolar world, which imposes its decisions on the world by force.

The purpose of the work is to reveal the topic: "The reaction of the world community to the American anti-terrorist operation in Iraq."

To explore this topic, consider the following questions:

Background of the US invasion of Iraq;

The reaction of the international community to the act of aggression;

The results of the US war in Iraq.

Chapter 1

1Relations between Iraq and the United States until 1991

In order to understand the motives for the US invasion of Iraq, one must go back in time. In 1979, in Iran, which provided the US administration with control over oil supplies in the Persian Gulf, there was an Islamic revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini, who breaks off relations with the United States. And in Iraq S. Hussein comes to power, having decided that he can become the leader of the Arab world. The Americans, having lost influence in Iran, became interested in the huge oil potential of Iraq. Washington at that time did not notice S. Hussein's brutal repressions against the opposition, Kurds and Shiites, just like the development of cooperation between American chemical and biological firms and scientific centers in Iraq, which were then engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction. At the origins of the friendship between the United States and Iraq was D. Rumsfeld, who, being the special representative of the President of America in Iraq in 1983, declared "a significant commonality of interests", and "independent and sovereign nations have the right to do what we or others do not agree with", commenting on the war between Iraq and Iran that began in 1980. In order to prevent the defeat of Iraq in this war, which meant the loss of oil fields in the Persian Gulf by the Americans, D. Rumsfeld during his visit to Iraq assured S. Hussein of military and political support. After the end of the war with Iran in 1988, little Kuwait began to demand the return of multibillion-dollar debts from Iraq invested in military operations. And Iraq, using good relations with the US, decides to settle this issue by force. S. Hussein hoped to use the oil wealth of Kuwait to replenish his treasury, which had been empty during the war years. The capture of Kuwait guaranteed Hussein access to the Persian Gulf and gave him a dominant position in the world oil market. Confident in the neutrality of the United States, in 1991 Iraq unleashed a war with Kuwait, which in fact immediately gave rise to the use of UN sanctions against itself, followed by the use of military force as against an aggressor. Even back then in 1991, the Americans could have overthrown the Hussein regime, but the Shiites could come to power with a pro-Iranian policy, which would again mean a loss of influence on the oil wealth of the Gulf. That is, in 1991, Washington still needed S. Hussein, so his regime was not overthrown then, and he was only placed under an international blockade. By 2001, the situation in Baghdad had stabilized, the embassies of other countries were reopening, and the international community was demanding the lifting of sanctions against Iraq.

2 Consequences of the collapse of the USSR for the countries of the Middle East

In addition to these factors, another important historical aspect must be taken into account, namely, in 1991, the bipolar system of the world collapsed. The USSR, as a single state, ceased to exist. The United States became the only superpower that was stronger than any other country, both economically and militarily. This certainly allowed America to take the post of "world gendarme". The period between the end of the Second World War and the fall of the bipolar world is saturated with the atmosphere of the Cold War, which could not but affect the Middle East. All processes in this region (as in any other) were subject to the confrontation of the two superpowers, the USA and the USSR. After the end of the Cold War, the Islamic world in the Middle East became disillusioned with both the Western model of democracy and Marxism. And this vacuum began to be filled by the Islamic religious ideology, which claims that Islam and a return to its origins will lead to the well-being of the Arab world. This ideology, the low standard of living in these countries, hatred of the culture of the Western world as corrupting the righteous values ​​of Islam led to an increase in extremist sentiments and movements that accuse the countries of the West and the United States, including all the troubles and failures of the Islamic world. . As a result of this ideology, the terrible tragedy of September 11, 2001 occurred, which allowed the Americans to speculate on the theme of the fight against international terrorism. In the wake of public outrage against terrorism, accusations were fabricated against Iraq about the links of the Hussein regime with terrorists and about the creation of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. On March 20, 2003, the American-British invasion of military forces into Iraq begins.

3 Political decision on war

The administration of George W. Bush consisted mainly of members Republican Party, representing the interests of large corporations of the military-industrial complex and oil companies, and his rise to power meant that the US would absolutely not leave the September 11, 2001 attacks unanswered.

The tragedy of September 11 and the further single combat with international terrorism determined the entire foreign policy of the United States recent years- the war with Afghanistan, the adoption of an anti-terrorist law in the US, the creation of the Guantanamo camp, the adoption of the Bush Doctrine, and as a result of this, the US, having started the fight against Islamic terrorism first in Afghanistan, continued this by unleashing a war in Iraq.

America became ready to carry by force the "values ​​of Western democracy" to all countries of the world (Iraq was to become one of these countries). At the same time, a successful Iraqi operation was supposed to satisfy US claims to world hegemony. Such sentiments circulated not only among political elite but also among ordinary citizens.

From the information source "KM.ru": "In October 2002, the UN Security Council rejected two draft resolutions on Iraq developed by the United States and Great Britain. On November 8, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1441 on Iraq, which guaranteed the integrity and independence of Iraq with the requirements to ensure on November 14, the government of Iraq announced its agreement to comply with the requirements of Resolution 1441. On November 18, a team of military inspectors from UNMOVIC and the IAEA began inspections in Iraq. The inspectors did not find significant violations of the sanctions imposed by Baghdad. The United Nations Security Council was presented with a draft joint resolution by the United States, Great Britain and Spain, which stated that Iraq must face the "serious consequences" promised in resolution 1441. On March 18, George W. Bush issued an ultimatum, ordering Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq within 48 hours On March 20, the United States, in violation of the provisions of UN Resolution 1441, beginning Ali intervention against Iraq" .

Chapter 2. The reaction of the international community to an act of aggression

In the presidential message "on events in the country" dated January 29, 2002. George Bush stated that the regimes of Iran, Iraq and North Korea trying to get their hands on weapons of mass destruction represent the "axis of evil" . In particular, Iraq, which has been supporting terrorist groups for years and is trying to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. And if "some governments are timid in the face of terror ... if they are not ready to act, the US will act." This statement of the President had a wide international resonance.

However, the Iraqi operation in 2003 did not receive unanimous approval in the world community, like the operation in Afghanistan. The world has split into sympathizers and protesters. Iran was one of the first to criticize the use of force, despite its hostile relations with Iraq, calling it, in the words of Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi, "unjustified and illegal." Russia, Germany, France and the UN spoke out strongly against forceful intervention in a sovereign state. And over forty states expressed their support for the US decision. First of all, these were countries - traditional allies of the United States - Great Britain, Australia, Denmark, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, the Philippines, South Korea and Japan. Decisions were received from various states of the world about the opposite reactions of governments and peoples to the outbreak of hostilities in Iraq.

1 Reaction of the countries of the European Union

The reaction after the US statement regarding Iraq was mixed. The EU member countries are divided into those who are ready to pursue a pro-American policy towards Iraq, and those who are against military intervention. The position of the United States, as mentioned above, was accepted by Great Britain, Denmark, Portugal, the Netherlands, Spain, and Italy. The US State Department also announced support for his position among other countries (countries of the former socialist camp) such as Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Slovakia, Georgia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and others. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, being members of NATO, also supported the United States . Despite the lack of solidarity on the Iraq issue within the ruling Labor Party and the weak support of the war among the population, the UK took the position of the closest ally of the US in the issue of the outbreak of hostilities in Iraq. However, London's decision on this issue changed: initially, Great Britain advocated the launch of a military operation against Iraq only after receiving evidence of a connection between Iraq and international terrorist organizations. Subsequently, the British administration recognized evidence of a threat and danger from the regime of S. Hussein to the international security of the world community as sufficient grounds. The position of the UK, Portugal and Denmark is not surprising, because these states of the European Union are characterized by a pro-Atlantic policy. For Portugal and Denmark, cooperation between the US and NATO has always been the main guarantor of the security of all EU member states. In Portugal, the government of the “Right” was in power under the leadership of the “Atlantist” X. M. Barroso. The entry of Italy and Spain into the group of followers of the United States was a political choice of the governments in power, rather than an expression of an ongoing political strategy. In Spain, the pro-American government of H. M. Aznar was in power. Italy adopted the American position mainly due to the influence of Prime Minister S. Berlusconi.

It is important to emphasize that in many states that chose the course of war with Iraq, public opinion did not coincide with the positions of state leaders, political disputes and discussions on this issue unfolded. This led in some cases to a division of public opinion and the political elite (Poland), in the UK due to support from public opinion within the ruling party, there were serious divisions, and in Denmark and Portugal it led to re-examinations in Parliament of foreign policy issues. France and Germany were the vanguard of the countries of the European Union, which opposed the solution of the Iraq conflict by military means. This group was joined by countries that usually take positions of neutrality or non-alignment, namely Finland, Sweden, Ireland and Austria. They expressed great concern that a war in Iraq might start without resolutions authorizing the use of force. Sweden stated that this action is a violation of international law. The governments of Finland, Ireland and Austria have decided that only a clear UN decision can authorize these actions. According to polls conducted by the Austrian magazine "News" and the Gallup Institute of Public Opinion, 95 percent of Austrians condemned the outbreak of war and blamed US President George W. Bush for "flouting the opinions, legal norms and prerogatives of the entire world community." As far as Berlin is concerned, a significant role in the formation of German policy towards Iraq was played by the connection between the Social Democratic government and the anti-militarist sentiments of the public. The election campaign of G. Schroeder in the fall of 2002 marked the beginning of a new stage in German-American relations, because during this campaign Schroeder was very critical of US policy. Open opposition to America on this issue was the starting point for the German government. Germany opposed the war with Iraq. In February 2002, French Foreign Minister Y. Vedrin sharply criticized the overseas position, which he spoke of as "simplistic", which led to a deterioration in relations between Washington and Paris. France argued that the United Nations should play a leading role in resolving and stabilizing the Iraqi problem. .

2 Position of the UN Security Council

In October 2002, the United States provided a blueprint for a resolution on the Iraq issue to permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, which was prepared with the UK. The plan provided for an increase in the number of international experts who would inspect facilities in Iraq. To comply with the requirements of the resolution, Iraq was given seven days from the date of its adoption and notification of the UN Secretary General, and 30 days for the transfer to the UN of a list of all objects that are related to military storage programs or the creation of weapons of mass destruction. If at least one requirement of the resolution is not met, then any UN member state can use "all necessary means" to implement it, which in fact meant a unilateral military decision against Iraq. The main opponents of this resolution were Russia, France and China. They spoke out strongly against military aggression against Iraq. After long discussions, on November 8, 2002, all members of the UN Security Council adopted Resolution No. 1441 on Iraq, which allowed international inspections to begin again and the further lifting of sanctions by the international community against Baghdad. The resolution gave the Iraqi government a "last chance" to comply with disarmament requirements. In particular, Iraq was obliged to begin cooperation with the United Nations Monitoring, Control and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the IAEA, which were obliged to begin work in Iraq no later than December 23, 2002. The resolution expressed respect for the independence and regional integrity of Iraq. Based on the adopted document, the international inspectors were obliged to report to the UN Security Council on the results of the inspection 60 days after the start of their work. Thus, the version of the resolution put forward by the United States and Great Britain was radically changed. The final, compromise option became possible largely due to the actions of Russia and France.

The participation of the UN in the reconstruction of post-war Iraq is a special topic. According to Secretary of State Colin Powell, the US did not intend to allow the UN to govern Iraq. "We and our coalition partners would not have taken on this difficult mission if we did not expect to eventually establish complete control over the situation" he said at a congressional hearing. However, the competence of the UN Security Council included a number of issues that formed recommendations for Iraq's way out of the crisis.

According to the US administration, in the post-war structure of Iraq, the UN should have been given a limited coordinating role, but by no means full control over the country. Immediately after the fall of the Iraqi regime, the US exercised primary control over the formation of a new Iraqi government.

American representatives at the UN said that the winning coalition intends to ensure the settlement of Iraq itself at the first stage - until the moment when power can be transferred to the new government of this country. In the implementation of these plans, it is the occupying authorities that will be responsible for changing the situation with all the ensuing consequences. The authoritative newspaper Le Figaro (April 11, 2003) reports: "The victory over Saddam will go entirely to George W. Bush. This war, which began bypassing the UN and with the obvious disagreement of such countries as Russia, China, France and Germany, clearly showed that fifteen years later After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the United States remains the only superpower. .

If the UN fails to include itself among the parties that will really participate in deciding the further development of Iraq, this will mean that the UN will actually slide into the backyard of international politics. Conversely, the success of the UN in controlling Iraq will mean the continuation of the existing order, in which, albeit retroactively, but still it is to the UN, and not to any individual state, that the functions of supreme political control over the defeated country pass.

3 Franco-German position

By the beginning of 2003, the common Franco-German position on the issue of settling the Iraqi conflict was clearly manifested.

On January 17, 2003, French President J. Chirac stated that the US should not take unilateral actions against Iraq, emphasizing that "such actions are a direct violation of international law."

January 2003, during the celebrations on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the signing of the Elysee Treaty - German Chancellor G. Schroeder and French President J. Chirac signed a universal declaration . It spoke of the need for the UN to participate in resolving the Iraqi problem and condemned the start of premature hostilities. The signing of the declaration was followed by a speech by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of France, D. de Villepin, in the UN Security Council, that the introduction of troops into Iraq is absolutely unjustified.

However, despite the general statements, there were certain disagreements between Germany and France regarding the possible use of force in the event that a settlement of the conflict with the support of the United Nations was not feasible. While Berlin rejected any military intervention, expressing a strong anti-militarist and pacifist position, Paris believed that the use of force could only be after obtaining evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

January 2003, The Wall Street Journal published the so-called "Letter of Eight", certified by the leaders of the three candidate countries and five EU member states. In it, the heads of Portugal, Denmark, Great Britain, Italy, Spain, as well as Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary expressed support for all US actions, including military ones, aimed at the demilitarization of Iraq. This statement caused significant complications within the countries of the European Union. Neither France, nor Germany, nor Greece, which chaired the EU at that time, were notified of the preparation of this document. .

February 2003 Russia, Germany and France adopted a joint statement on Iraq. The statement said that UN Security Council Resolution No. 1441 is the basis for completing the disarmament process in Iraq, "and not all the possibilities that this resolution opens up have been used" ... "There is still an alternative to war. The use of force could be the most Russia, France and the FRG are determined to provide all the necessary data to end the process of Iraq's demilitarization in a peaceful way." , stood out in the tripartite statement.

On January 2003, the head of UNMOVIC, H. Blix, told the members of the UN Security Council that international inspectors could not find any evidence of the manufacture or presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The United States of America was dissatisfied with the results of the audit.

On February 2003, US President George W. Bush Jr. and British Prime Minister Tony Blair made a statement in which they accused Iraq of refusing to disarm and comply with the relevant requirements of the UN Security Council resolution.

On February 2003, US Secretary of Defense D. Rumsfeld sharply criticized the UN's attitude to the Iraq issue, saying that the UN was not actively involved in suppressing the extremist-terrorist activities of Baghdad. The US administration did not support the proposal of Germany and France to expand the UN inspection on the territory of Iraq.

At the end of February 2003, the United States, together with Spain and Great Britain, submitted to the UN Security Council a plan for the 2nd resolution on Iraq. In this resolution, the Iraqi regime was accused of non-compliance with the terms of resolution No. 1441. The adoption of this resolution would become a real basis for conducting military operations against Iraq. The plan for a new resolution provoked strong criticism in a number of European states, primarily Germany and France.

March 2003, French President J. Chirac said during a television speech that "whatever the circumstances, France will vote against the new resolution, because to achieve our goal, that is, to disarm Iraq, there is no need for military action " . The Russian Federation also spoke about the likelihood of using the right of veto when voting in the UN Security Council. In the current situation, the United States decided not to put the resolution to a vote because its outcome was clear.

On March 2003, D. Rumsfeld announced that the US-led coalition was ready to start military operations against Iraq without the proper sanction of the UN Security Council, guided by UN Security Council Resolution No. 1441.

On March 2003, the French Foreign Minister proposed holding a meeting of the UN Security Council at the level of foreign ministers of all countries to resolve the issue of the situation around Iraq.

March 2003 in the UN Security Council began closed talks on Iraq. The meeting was originally convened to discuss a French-German-Russian memorandum on Iraq. The document, in force since March 15, called "to do everything possible so that the peaceful path that the Security Council adheres to and that supported by the majority of the international community prevails," and the use of force and military intervention can only be a last resort. Germany, France and Russia were in favor of continuing the inspection process. These countries expressed their conviction that the process of Iraq's disarmament "can be completed in a short time and within the limits of the rules established by the Security Council." Britain's charge d'affaires at the UN, J. Greenstock, said that the plan for an American-Spanish-British resolution would not be put to a vote. British Prime Minister Tony Blair blamed France for the lack of solidarity in the United Nations Security Council on the Iraq problem.

March 2003, German Chancellor G. Schroeder issued a statement condemning the US desire to start military operations against Iraq.

Immediately after the start of military aggression, the German government issued a statement that it was shocked by the US military attack on Iraq. "The news of the start of the war has caused deep concern and dismay to the federal government," the statement said. "Now everything must be done to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe for the Iraqi population."

However, despite all the efforts of the followers of a peaceful solution to problems, on March 20, 2003, the United States, together with Great Britain, began a war against Iraq .

In February 2003, Germany and France, supported by Belgium, did not adopt a plan to act in support of Turkey in the event of an attack by Iraq. In other matters, under pressure from America and its allies, Belgium and Germany withdrew their objections, and the coordination of this issue began in the NATO Defense Planning Committee, in which France does not participate.

On April 2003, an EU summit was opened in Athens, at which the likelihood of developing a coherent position of the European Union on the conflict in Iraq was discussed. Before the summit, French President J. Chirac spoke with US President George W. Bush for the first time since the outbreak of hostilities in Iraq, and German Chancellor G. Schroeder met with British Prime Minister T. Blair . So there was a tendency for Germany and France to iron out transatlantic differences. On April 16, 2003, Great Britain, France, Spain and Germany signed a declaration on the reconstruction of Iraq, in which it was emphasized that the UN should play the main role in the post-war order. However, despite this, there was still a possibility that the UN would be removed from command by the peacekeeping contingent that Washington asked the Europeans to send to Iraq. The Athens summit strengthened the emerging trend: Germany and France called for giving a key role in the management of Iraq to the UN Security Council, while the new members of the European Union supported the position of the US, which was going to independently form an interim Iraqi government.

4 Russia's position in the Iraqi crisis

The unification of Russia with the anti-war coalition of France and Germany in their joint efforts to prevent the outbreak of hostilities in Iraq became difficult decision, which jeopardized the rapprochement between Russia and the United States that began in 2001-2002, as well as personal contacts between the presidents of the two countries, V. Putin and D. Bush.

In September-October 2001, Russia provided huge assistance to the US counter-Taliban efforts in Afghanistan: it allowed military bases to be located in the territory of the former Soviet space, and also provided its services as an intermediary for providing financial assistance to the opposition to the Taliban: the Northern Alliance. President V. Putin was one of the first to express his condolences on the tragic events of September 11 to George W. Bush, and later confirmed the desire to unite the two powers. After Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov announced that Russia would use its veto power in the Security Council vote if a second resolution proposed by the US and Britain was passed that would allow military action against Iraq, the brief rapprochement between Russia and the US came to an end. . At the initial stage, support for American proposals on Iraqi issues largely coincided with Russian economic interests. If at the very beginning of the conflict between the United States, the West and Baghdad, Russia could still hope for a reduction in economic sanctions against Hussein, which would allow leading Russian oil and gas companies to take part in the development of new oil and gas fields in Iraq, then at the beginning of 2003 all hopes were lost. As soon as the final decisions were made that the military operations planned by the US government in Iraq would begin regardless of the positions of other countries, the Russian government actually no longer had any economic interests to oppose the US. Since the beginning of February 2003, Hussein's regime, already in existence last days, canceled an agreement with the oil company LUKOIL for the development of fields in Western Iraq, stating as a reason that the Russian partners allegedly negotiated with the American side, without coordinating their actions with the Iraqi partners. Many experts and politicians suggested not spoiling relations with the United States and thus maintaining access to Iraqi deposits, that is, not using the right of veto. The beginning hostilities in Iraq were not popular among the population of Russia either. Opinion polls provided information that 46% of Russians do not believe that Iraq under the leadership of Saddam Hussein poses a danger to the world, while 75% believe that US policy is aggressive and 71% believe that it is America that most often threatens the entire global world .

In one of his interviews, V. Putin clearly stated that Russia agrees with America's position on the need for "Iraq to fully cooperate with UN inspectors." At that time, the president stressed that "the results of the work of the inspectors do not give any grounds for a tougher position." According to Putin, "the world will be predictable and stable only if it is multipolar." Putin said that the President of France also supports these views. These words determined and marked the beginning of Russia's departure from supporting the US course towards rapprochement with the anti-war coalition of France and Germany. Until the end of 2003, Russia's course of joining the anti-war coalition of France and Germany could look, from a pragmatic point of view, inappropriate and may even be naive. However, since June 2003, when the situation in Iraq occupied by NATO troops began to change for the worse, it became clear that this was not the case. Sunni terror seized the country, various military groups began to resist the occupied troops everywhere, and the struggle of supporters of different religions inside Iraq intensified. And most importantly, intensive searches showed that Iraq at the time of the start of the military operation did not have any weapons of mass destruction. Careful checks showed that there were no attempts to acquire something similar from outside. The war in Iraq in America itself also became unpopular at that time, the government and the president undermined their authority among the population by substantiating the start of a military operation, resorting to obvious lies and using unverified information that they passed off as truth.

Today, many believe that due to the fact that Russia refused to support the US position on the invasion of Iraq, it lost lucrative contracts in oil and gas production in the fields of Iraq. However, a study of the well-known contracts between leading companies in the extraction and processing of raw materials (LUKOIL, Gazprom) with similar companies in Iraq shows that Russia's real losses were in fact not as global as they were imagined by Western experts. No matter how much the opponents of Russia's successful development would not like to see its economic defeat in the Iraqi market, it retreated temporarily and still retained its interests in that country. The confident and consistent stance that Russia has taken on deterring a military invasion of Iraq has given it a perhaps immeasurable but highly valuable advantage. For partners in the Middle East, Russia has maintained friendly relations with Iraq and has not sacrificed close relations for the sake of part of the oil business. This clearly showed the fundamental difference between Russia's foreign policy and the position of the United States. At the same time, one can pay attention to the fact that Russia is not the only country that has suffered economic losses due to the unleashed war in Iraq. In the first years after the war, chaos and disorder reigned in Iraq's oil and gas sector, due to the lack of new sets of laws allowing the development, extraction and sale of natural raw materials. For example: the well-known company Hulliburton, which was one of the main companies protected by the United States, after the outbreak of the military conflict, was able to start developing new deposits only by the end of 2009. And yet, no matter what actions the George Bush government took to oust Russian companies from Iraq due to the fact that Russia refused to support the Iraqi military operation, Russia managed to avoid huge losses, unlike other players and participants when reworking this sphere of influence. On the contrary, Russia's confident and consistent anti-war stance in 2003 helped establish friendly relations with the new Iraqi government. Today, the events of past years are seen better, and, perhaps, the right answer to the question about the reasons for such a decision of the Russian government was the political instinct of President Putin and his team, who were able to determine that concessions to America on that issue would undermine the most important value of the Russian foreign policy, and precisely the inviolability of state sovereignty. Having refused to participate in military occupation, the Russian government has acquired new political and economic difficulties both in the country and outside it, but at the same time it has retained its authority both inside the country and in the Middle East as a state that builds its policy on the priority of solving all problems peacefully, by negotiations and agreements.

This should be remembered today by everyone who thinks and decides what our country should do if suddenly someone again wants to start a military conflict somewhere in Western Asia or the Middle East.

5 Actions of the "coalition of consonants"

According to the Voice of America news outlet: "before the start of the military operation, the United States announced that 45 states of the world support the use of military force against Iraq. 15 of them do not officially announce this, but are ready to provide their airspace for strikes against Iraq. The decision of the United States on the possible use of force against Iraq, as of March 19, 2003, were supported by: Albania, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Hungary, Georgia, Denmark, Spain, Iceland, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia, Colombia, Romania, Portugal, the Netherlands, Macedonia, El Salvador, Slovenia, Slovakia, Philippines, Uzbekistan, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, South Korea and Japan" . Six of them are former Soviet republics.

Military assistance was offered by Great Britain, Denmark, Australia and Poland. Most of the US allies did not send military units of their armed forces to the Persian Gulf zone. Great Britain was the most active in military support of the operation: about 45 thousand military personnel, fleet, aviation, marines and special forces.

The main military base was the territory of Kuwait, which housed the main forces of the US Air Force participating in the operation, over 115,000 American military personnel, about 18,000 British soldiers, tanks, armored vehicles and other equipment. Australia provided about 2,000 troops, transport aircraft and warships. Hungary provided assistance and provided a training camp for Iraqi exiles wishing to fight against Saddam Hussein.

The assistance of other countries consisted mainly in providing the use of their military bases, ports, military equipment, airspace, chemical and biological defense units, or any number of military personnel, mechanics and doctors.

The war was planned to be quick and victorious. The advance of tank columns to Baghdad, the capture of the Iraqi capital, the overthrow of S. Hussein - everything happened at lightning speed, practically without strong resistance from the Iraqi army. On May 1, President Bush announced that the operation was over and "mission accomplished." Soon, however, reality began. As Russian news reported: "The arrest and trial of Hussein was more like a performance.

The Americans entrusted the new regime of the country with passing the verdict, but the fate of the former ruler, it seems, was a foregone conclusion in Washington itself even before the trial began. A hasty trial, and then a public execution on the eve of the Muslim holy holiday of Eid al-Adha. ... A civil war actually broke out in the country, religious enmity between the Sunni and Shiite branches of Islam, inter-clan strife, the danger of the state falling apart.

Nearly 5.5 thousand dead American soldiers, more than 30 thousand seriously wounded. Until now, no one knows the exact data of losses among the civilian population: the most conservative estimate is 170-200 thousand, independent humanitarian organizations declare a million dead .... This war cost the US nearly $2 trillion, years of fighting that left Iraq still unstable today. 10 years of the Iraq war in America are met quietly, because there is no particular reason to be proud.

According to all polls conducted by dozens of sociological services, more than half of Americans consider the Iraq war a mistake. The price turned out to be too high, it is not commensurate with the goals achieved" .

Chapter 3. The results of the war in Iraq

3.1 Political and economic destabilization in Iraq

US President George W. Bush Jr. on May 1, 2003, in his speech entitled "Mission Accomplished" announced the end of the war in Iraq and the beginning of building a democratic society and its economy in Iraq, although in fact at that time military clashes were still ongoing. Periodically, not only coalition troops were attacked, but also representative offices of international governmental and non-governmental organizations. As a result of the terrorist attacks in Baghdad, more than 20 members of the UN mission were killed and more than 100 were injured, the special attorney of the UN Secretary General in Iraq, S. Vieira de Mello, was killed, and a terrorist attack was committed against the representative office of the International Red Cross.

Saddam Hussein's regime was overthrown, but no evidence was found that Iraq owned or developed banned weapons; no evidence was found that Iraq supported al-Qaeda and prepared terrorist attacks against the UK and the US. Consequently, the tasks that the United States and its allies set for themselves were not fulfilled, just as the legality of their actions was not confirmed.

Creating a prosperous and democratic Iraq was not as easy a task as its "liberators" imagined. The war entailed the most negative results for the political, economic and humanitarian situation in the country and the region. In addition to countless human casualties, as a result of the war, the country's infrastructure was broken, including the main communications necessary for life, transport arteries, electricity generation, the foundations of economic activity and the provision of food to the population were violated. In the fall of 2003, George W. Bush intended to request $87 billion. from Congress for the reconstruction of Iraq and the maintenance of an overseas military contingent in Iraq to $79 billion previously allocated in April 2003. Based on data published in September 2003, the United States spent $3.9 billion. per month for the maintenance of the 127,000th army in Iraq. Great Britain and the United States tried to request help in the reconstruction of destroyed Iraq from other UN member countries, even from those who opposed the use of military force. But what really happened? Most of the money for the elimination of the consequences of the war went to American companies, namely, during the occupation (which is about 14 months), American companies signed over 19 contracts with the new Iraqi government worth about two billion dollars, which is 85 percent of the total allocated funds for the development of the country (from the Washington Post). From the funds of the Iraq Development Fund, which was formed from the money from the sale of oil, out of competition, American companies received huge amounts of 15-16 million. dollars to 1.5-1.8 billion dollars. The Bush government has been repeatedly accused by the world community that the military conflict in Iraq was started because of US commercial interests. And what is the result for today? The country's economy is in a deplorable state, thousands of civilians have been killed, new hostilities are in full swing during civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. And besides that, Iraq is now the largest base of international terrorism. Al-Qaeda, with its many offshoots, came to Iraq only after the American occupation. Formally, there is both a government and a parliament in Iraq, but they do not have actual full power, and they cannot manage the situation in the country today, being unable to ensure order and the normal functioning of the state.

A study of the position of the US leadership shows that the orientation towards the use of force in solving the Iraqi problem was adopted long before the start of the actual actions. The main goal of the war was not the disarmament of Iraq, but the overthrow of S. Hussein and his regime. In order to obtain support for the war from the side of the population, the US government used stereotypes regarding S. Hussein and his regime, which exist at the level of the mass consciousness of Americans. The war in Iraq was a continuation of the "war on terrorism" that the United States declared in 2001. However, as many observers today note, the military actions in Iraq led to a deterioration in the situation in the Middle East region as a whole and increased the threat of terrorist attacks against the United States.

2 The Iraqi Civil War today

December 2011, the last US troops left Iraq. To date, the main problem in Iraq is the preservation of the integrity of the country, given the desire of the Kurds to create their own independent state and the ambitious demands of the Shiites for power. The destruction of Saddam Hussein, who relied on the power of the Sunnis, greatly increased the influence of the Shiites in the country. The latest tragic events in Iraq on the persecution of the Sunnis pursued the main goal of squeezing them out of power . The Iraqi people are not satisfied with the actions of the prime minister, in the provinces of Salah al-Din and Anbar there were mass protests against his actions. Various forms of separatism have become a response to the aggression against the Sunnis. So, on October 27, the council of the province of Salah al-Din adopted a declaration granting it "administrative and economic autonomy" similar to that enjoyed by the Kurdish provinces. Similar sentiments are circulating in other Sunni areas. It is important to note that even that fragile balance between representatives of three different political forces has already been broken. The Kurds claim Kirkuk and its oil fields, but the Sunnis and Shiites are not going to give them up. The situation is complicated by the intervention of Iran and Turkey, which have their own interest in the "Kurdish issue." In relations between Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites, the main clashes are yet to come over the division of foreign aid and oil money. At the time of the occupation of Iraq, the Americans planned to build a life here following the example of Lebanon, that is, to give places in power to representatives of all faiths. According to the authoritative publication "News Land": "The Kurds received the presidential portfolio, the Shiites - the prime minister, and the Sunnis had to be content with only the seat of the speaker of parliament" . The president and prime minister had Sunnis as deputies, but this did not compensate for their losses after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime. Most of the Iraqi "Sunni opposition" was under the control of Islamic extremists, and their demands became more and more impossible and tougher each time. From the materials of the information and analytical publication "Century": "The plan of this coalition, in which Salafis, Baathists and outright terrorists intertwined like a snake ball, became clear: either the removal of al-Maliki - and at the same time all Shiites - from power, which is unrealistic, or civilian war and the breakup of Iraq into Sunni and Shiite parts, which are in a state of constant war with each other" . The Sunni opposition in Iraq, in addition to linking up with the Baathists, also received armed reinforcements from radical Islamists who have been tested by combat in Syria and now dream of getting even with the Shiites in Iraq. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which in April 2013 reorganized into the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, rose to its full height behind the protests in the regions inhabited by Sunni Arabs.

Thus, the American scenario of the division of power, as in Lebanon, failed, but the scenario of Lebanese sectarian strife turned out to be the worst.

Conclusion

The Iraqi military conflict revealed the deepest divisions between the European Union and America, and besides, it clearly indicated that there is no common policy towards the United States in Europe. This is due to the fact that the main direction of American foreign policy towards the European Union and the views of the same policy on the part of the European countries themselves do not coincide in many respects. The United States has a military-technical advantage and the ability to actively use both ground and air forces to the fullest extent, therefore, they believe that all issues can be resolved using the military power of their country, thus exerting pressure on those who disagree with their position, like this was in Iraq. On the contrary, most European countries prefer the peaceful political and diplomatic resolution of disputes. The European Union, being the main force in the region, prefers to resolve issues that affect the interests of the region in the first place. America, for many years, has believed that situations of instability or crisis in any country, regardless of its geographical location can harm and even threaten America's security and interests. And to solve these issues and problems, the countries of the European Union immediately begin to be involved. Regardless of different points of view and disputes, there is still a desire for cooperation on the part of the US and the European Union. The Iraqi military conflict has indeed exacerbated the contradictions between America and its partners in the European Union, but not to such an extent that one could talk about the threat of undermining transatlantic solidarity. The consistent and firm stance that Russia has maintained regarding the military solution of problems in Iraq has provided it with an inestimable and important advantage. According to Middle Eastern partners, Russia has remained a friend of Iraq, not giving up allied relations for the sake of a share of the oil pie. This was the main difference between Russia's foreign policy and the United States, which, in the words of Vladimir Putin, "needs not allies, but vassals" .

The consequences of the military actions of 2003 are of particular relevance in today's international situation, when in a situation of tightening contradictions between the West on the one hand and Syria / Iran on the other, Russia again had to do hard choice, on which, perhaps, the formation of the world order in the coming decades will depend in the future.

Today's events in the international arena seem to be a direct continuation of what happened over a decade ago: the United States and its allies are declaring their potential readiness to launch a military strike against any state allegedly possessing weapons of mass destruction. Russia is trying, using all diplomatic methods, to prevent the United States from committing another act of international aggression, torpedoing Washington's aggressive initiatives at the UN against other countries in the region experiencing internal turmoil .

The nations of the world are probably just beginning to realize the threat of American claims to world domination. And the first to feel this danger were the allies of the United States - the Europeans, who are already loudly declaring, firstly, about the destruction of the international legal traditions and rules that have formed over the past fifty years, which have become the basis of European democracy, and, secondly, about the emergence of the situation when the United States, using the oil of the Near and Middle East as an element of influence, will reshape the economies of European countries.

List of sources used

1.Deriglazova L.V. War in Iraq in 2003 as a continuation of the US war against terrorism / L.V. Deriglazova // "History" 2004 11 - 16 p.

2.War in Iraq: reaction in the world. URL #"justify">. Kuznetsov D. V. The Iraqi Crisis. Essay on events. Documents and materials: Textbook. - Blagoveshchensk: Publishing house of BSPU, 2006. 59-60 p.

.Kuznetsov DV Problems of the Middle East and public opinion. In 2 parts. Part II. Iraqi crisis. - Blagoveshchensk, Publishing House of BSPU, 2009. 444 p.

.Lyashchenko A. UN: emotions are replaced by pragmatism. URL #"justify">6. #"justify">. Talaiko T. A. War in Iraq and Transatlantic Relations. Journal of International Law and International Relations 2005 No. 2

.Loiko S. Shock and awe. War in Iraq. - M.: Vagrius, 2003. 253s.

9."Coalition of like-minded people" 30+15 URL #"justify">. Cherkasov A. 10 years ago, coalition troops invaded Iraq. URL #"justify">. War in Iraq 2014 UTL #"justify">. Balmasov S. Iraq after the occupation. URL #"justify">. Pankratenko I. Iraq: war on order. URL #"justify">. "Putin Protects Kazakhstan from International Criticism" URL http://www.gazeta.ru (Accessed 25.01.2012)

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Dedicated to the development of the countries of the Middle East and their relations with the outside world in the second half of the 20th - early 21st centuries this lesson.

background

The Middle East has long been an arena of struggle for the spheres of influence of the Western powers, especially the importance of the region has grown after the discovery of oil fields on the coast of the Persian Gulf at the beginning of the 20th century.

Turkey

The Ottoman Empire - a large state centered in modern Turkey - ceased to exist after the end of the First World War. The territories of the former Ottoman Empire were turned into occupation zones by Great Britain, France, Italy and Greece. However, the national liberation movement of the Turks, led by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, defended independence. In 1923 Turkey was proclaimed a republic. During the Second World War, Turkey remained neutral, which favored its economic development.

Iran

After the end of the First World War in Iran, the monarchy, landlordism, and the huge role of the Muslim clergy were preserved. Iran was heavily influenced by Britain. In particular, the oil fields discovered in Iran were under the control of British companies.

Iraq

Back in 1930, an Anglo-Iraqi treaty was signed, according to which Iraq was in a dependent position from Great Britain. An attempt to renegotiate a similar treaty in 1948 sparked massive popular protests, which were suppressed by government repression.

Developments

Turkey

1952- Turkey moves closer to the US and joins NATO.

1950-1958- stormy the economic growth under the influence of liberal forces coming to power.

Since 1968- political instability. Speeches of workers and students, nationalists, Kurdish separatists.

1974- Turkish intervention in Cyprus. The formation of the Republic of Northern Cyprus, not recognized by anyone in the world except Turkey.

1980- a military coup, as a result of which power in the country passed to the National Security Council. At the same time, the influence of Islam is growing in Turkish society (since the time of Ataturk, the influence of religion in Turkey has been weakened and the influence of the army has been strengthened).

2002- victory in the elections of the moderate Islamist Justice and Development Party, led by Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The Islamists came to power for the first time after decades of liberal domination.

Now the two main rival political forces in Turkey are the Islamists and the military.

Iraq

1955- Under pressure from the West, the Baghdad Pact was signed in Baghdad on the organization of a military-political bloc of Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Pakistan. Caused discontent of the Iraqi people.

1958- military coup. The pro-Western monarchical regime fell. Iraq is declared an independent republic. Abdel Kerim Qasem is in power.

1968- power as a result of a coup d'état passed to the nationalist wing of the Arab Socialist Renaissance Party (Baath). Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, leader of the Ba'ath party, became president. During his reign, all oil resources were nationalized, an agreement on friendship and cooperation with the USSR was signed.

1979- the coming to power of Saddam Hussein, who concentrated absolute power in his hands. The role of ideology is increasing, Hussein claims to be the leader of the entire Arab world and is pursuing a tough anti-Western and anti-Israeli course.

Iraq. Before coming to power Saddam Hussein(See Fig. 2) in 1979 Iraq was a rather weak state, which was a field for the struggle of political and military forces among themselves. Constant upheavals and conflicts did not bring the state's economy to stability and could not calm the population.

Beginning with 1979, new Iraqi leader Hussein establishes a one-man dictatorship, but at the same time carrying out social transformations, establishing good relations with the USSR and striving to become the main force in the region. AT 1980 Iran-Iraq war breaks out, lasting until 1988 and did not bring any visible success to the parties, only heavy human and economic losses.

In the 1980s Iraq fought with Israel, Kuwait and a number of other countries in the region. AT 1991 in response to the war with Kuwait, the United States launched an operation " Desert Storm", during which the Iraqi army was defeated.

After the attacks September 11, 2001 US President George W. Bush accused Iraq and its leader of complicity in terrorism and that, contrary to the UN decision, Hussein is producing weapons of mass destruction. AT 2003 despite the protests of a number of great powers, US and NATO allies invade Iraq, and a month later they smash the Iraqi army. Saddam Hussein will be arrested, convicted and hanged.

Iran. Until 1978, Iran was a hereditary monarchy. Shah of Iran Mohammed Reza Pahlavi pursued a policy of the so-called. " white revolution"- radical reforms aimed at overcoming centuries-old foundations and traditions and at transforming society, its Europeanization and modernization. Women's rights were expanded, enlightenment of the people began, industrial modernization began, and Western values ​​were actively introduced.

The agrarian reform led to the dispossession of many peasant farms. Many peasants moved to the cities to earn money, began to leave for industry, which was still so undeveloped that unemployment and poverty reigned in the cities.

Dissatisfied with their terrible social situation, the population increasingly began to rely on the age-old values ​​of Islam. The role of the clergy increased. In 1978, protests began in the country from students, the clergy, and the urban lower classes. The Shah ordered to shoot at the crowd. The first blood was shed. Many military men, who did not want to bring events to a civil war, refused to follow orders. Early 1979 the shah left the country. The new leader, around whom representatives of the people began to gather, was the one who returned from exile for criticizing the White Revolution. ayatollah(the highest religious rank among Shiites) Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini.

During 1979, the Shah's supporters were crushed, the followers of Khomeini seized the American embassy, ​​because. it was in the United States that they saw the root of all troubles. The country has experienced Islamic revolution- return to the purity of Islam and the Koran (see Fig. 3). In the 1980s Khomeini waged war with Iraq and Islamized Iranian society. Came to power Islamic fundamentalists- Zealous and strict followers of Islamic traditions.

With the death of Khomeini in 1989, the role of fundamentalists gradually weakened. AT 2005 Radical Islamist becomes President of Iran Ahmadinejad, pursuing a tough policy towards the main enemy - the United States.

Bibliography

1. Shubin A.V. General history. recent history. Grade 9: textbook. For general education institutions. Moscow: Moscow textbooks, 2010.
2. Soroko-Tsyupa O.S., Soroko-Tsyupa A.O. General history. Recent history, 9th grade. M.: Education, 2010.
3. Sergeev E.Yu. General history. Recent history. Grade 9 M.: Education, 2011.

1. Academician ().
2. History of wars and military conflicts ().
3. RusOrient().

Homework

1. Read paragraph 26, pp. 290-296 of A.V. Shubin's textbook, and answer question 3 on p. 297.
2. What do you see as the causes of the Islamic revolution in Iran?
3. Why is the USA the main enemy for most countries of the Islamic world?

The coup under the leadership of General Abdel Kerim Kasel and the changed political course of the republic had a sharp impact on the military and economic interests of the United States and Great Britain. A strong blow was dealt to the prestige of the "first powers." So, for example, during the coup, the rebels captured the bureau (headquarters) of the Baghdad Pact with its secret archive and the Anglo-American airfield near Baghdad. The ground personnel of the airfield, numbering more than 1100 people, after they destroyed the radar installations and burned secret documents, were disarmed and captured. Moreover, with the loss of Iraq, the US lost its oil centers in Masoul and Basra.

In response to the events in Iraq, two days after the coup, the Americans brought a significant military contingent into Lebanon, allegedly at the request of President Schuman, to protect state sovereignty. At the same time, British paratroopers landed in Jordan at the request of King Hussein to support a regime opposed by Nasser-backed pan-Arabs. However, this show of force did not make the right impression. According to Western observers, "it turned out to be unusable and invalid, as a frightening beginning, in a small war or aggression." Even the Soviet Union, according to observers, "limited itself to a demonstration of hundreds of thousands against the American embassy in Moscow, with broken glass up to the fifth floor of the embassy building, maneuvers on the borders of Turkey and Persia and ... an offer of high-level negotiations!" . By mid-October, American troops had left Lebanon, and the last British units were withdrawn from Jordan a few weeks later.

In March 1959, the Iraqi government announced its withdrawal from the Baghdad Pact and demanded the elimination of British military bases in the country. On May 30, 1959, British troops left Iraq. At the same time, the republican government became close to the countries of the socialist camp, which provided the country with economic and military assistance. The Soviet Union in 1959-1960 provided Iraq with significant scientific and technical assistance and loans. On the basis of the Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR No. 1088 of September 25, 1958, Soviet military advisers and specialists were sent to Baghdad, weapons began to arrive, for which the Iraqis paid in pure currency.

At the beginning of 1960, the situation in the country worsened. Despite the fact that in January 1960 the law on the legalization of political parties came into force, the Communist Party was not recognized by the authorities and remained in an illegal position. There was also a split in the ranks of the country's central party, the National Democratic Party (NDP). Some of its members, led by Hadid and Javad, left its ranks and formed the National Progressive Party, which took a pro-government position. The remaining members of the NDP, led by Kamel Chaderchi, from November 1960 stood in opposition to the government. However, domestic problems did not significantly affect military cooperation between the two countries. Soviet military specialists and advisers continued to work in Iraq as before. Among them was Captain S.V. Kozhevnikov is a specialist in air defense radar equipment, sent as a teacher, adviser to the teacher of the air defense faculty at a technical college located near Baghdad. He arrived in Iraq in February 1962 as part of a group of eight military specialists. The task of Captain Kozhevnikov was to train Iraqi sergeants-technicians to work on the Soviet-made P-20 radar. The course of study was designed for 1 year, based on 600-700 hours of study time. 50-60% of the total time was devoted to practical training at the training ground. The cadets were engaged in studying the design of the station, repair, settings, adjustments, maintenance work and conducting combat work on models of equipment in the troops (military training). The courses ended with a state exam with the issuance of a technician's diploma for the repair and operation of the P-20 radar to the cadet. In addition to teaching, Soviet specialists had to inspect the work and technical condition locators (at that time there were about 10 stations on combat duty), as well as their repair, since Iraqi specialists often could not do this on their own.

On February 8, 1963, parts of the Iraqi army rebelled against the government. Led by active members of the Ba'ath Party, Colonels Abdul Karim Mustafa and Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, the military seized the Baghdad radio center and a number of government buildings. The Iraqi Air Force stationed at the Habbaniya base (80 km from Baghdad) joined the rebels and took part in the fighting. On February 9, the arrested General Kasem and his two adjutants were shot in a television studio (according to other sources, in their own office). By February 12, according to a Baghdad radio report, four more senior retired officers accused of treason had been executed. Violent repressions began against communists and Kurds. In total, according to the Western periodicals of those days, about 1,500 people died during the period from February 9 to February 12.

On the second day of the coup, the new government - the National Revolutionary Council, headed by Colonel A.K. Mustafa, who soon became president, and Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, who took over as prime minister, were recognized by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Algeria and Kuwait. The Soviet government and the CPSU openly condemned the actions of the Baathists.

On November 18, 1963, an army group led by Abdel Salam Aref carried out a new coup, deposing the Ba'athist government and banning the Ba'ath Party. Period 1964-1968 characterized by a continuous struggle for power between various political factions, frequent changes in government.

On July 17, 1968, the Baath Party, together with a group of officers - members of the underground organization "Movement of Arab Revolutionaries" carried out another coup d'état, as a result of which power passed to the leadership of this party and the government, headed by General Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr (former in 1963 Prime Minister of the first Baathist government). The Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) became the supreme authority. The government freed political prisoners, including members of the ICP, from prison, reinstated people who had previously been dismissed for political reasons, and freed low-paid categories of workers from the "defense tax." In 1970, a new labor law was adopted, as well as a law on pensions and social security for workers, a new law on agrarian reform. On March 11, 1970, the Statement on the peaceful democratic settlement of the Kurdish problem was adopted: the right of the Kurds to national autonomy within the framework of the Iraqi state was recognized; allowed the activities of Kurdish organizations, including the Kurdistan Democratic Party; Kurdish is declared a second official language; the government included 5 Kurdish ministers; program launched economic development Kurdistan.

Conducted by Ahmed Hasan-al-Bakr internal and foreign policy created conditions for rapprochement between the Ba'ath and other political organizations in Iraq. In July 1970, a new provisional constitution came into force, declaring Iraq a "People's democratic republic", the main goal of which is "the creation of a single Arab state and the establishment of a socialist system".

On November 15, 1971, the President of Iraq unveiled the draft National Action Charter. It emphasized the unacceptability of the capitalist path for the country: the need to create a united front of progressive parties and patriotic forces in Iraq on the basis of intensifying the struggle against imperialism, Zionism and reaction; the need to strengthen relations with socialist countries, etc. In May 1972, two representatives of the Iraqi Communist Party were included in the government. On June 1, 1972, the government passed a law nationalizing the property of the Iraq Petroleum Company, which dealt a severe blow to American monopolies in the Middle East.

In 1972, a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation was concluded between Iraq and the Soviet Union, and soon an agreement between the Soviet special services and Iraqi intelligence.

On May 31, 1976, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR A.N. Kosygin. This step was an important milestone in relations between the two countries. After discussing with the Deputy Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council Saddam Hussein, who soon became the head of state, the issue of strengthening cooperation between the two countries, the Soviet guest visited Syrian President El Assad. According to the Western press, A. Kosygin's trips were connected with the desire of the USSR to unite Iraq, Libya and Syria in the fight against Egypt, which unilaterally annulled the Soviet-Egyptian Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation. It should be noted that by this time the cooperation between the Soviet and Iraqi intelligence services had become so close that Iraq became the only non-communist country where Soviet intelligence operations were terminated. All contacts with Iraqi agents became official contacts. This special position continued until the Iraqi leadership launched a repression against the communists.

On December 11, 1978, Saddam Hussein arrived in Moscow as the second person in the country. Despite the fact that shortly before that, in Iraq, she was beheaded communist party- 21 leaders were executed and many were arrested, he was received by A.N. Kosygin and briefly L.I. Brezhnev. Hussein made a favorable impression. The Soviet leaders liked his grandiose plans to rally the Arab world in the fight against the Camp David deal. As a result, he received a solid contract for the supply of Soviet weapons. Until 1980, the start of the war with Iran, to the country from Soviet Union were sent: missile (type "Osa-1", "Osa-2"), torpedo and patrol boats, fighters (MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25), fighter-bombers (Su-7, Su-20 , Su-22) and bombers (Tu-16, Tu-22), transport aircraft (An-12, An-24, An-26) and helicopters (Mi-25, Mi-6), infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, tanks ( T-62, T-72), anti-aircraft installations, guns and guns, engineering equipment, stationary and portable anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM S-75, S-125), multiple launch rocket systems, operational-tactical and tactical missiles, etc. d.

The years of the reign of Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr are characterized by the intensification of Soviet-Iraqi relations in the military field. In 1972, the share of arms imports from the USSR was 95%. However, by the end of the 1970s, it began to decline and in 1979 it was reduced to 63%. Iraq began to increasingly turn its eyes to France, Italy, Yugoslavia, Portugal, Brazil and even the United States. In just two years - 1978 and 1979 - France sold weapons to Iraq for 2.2 billion dollars, supplying the country with various weapons, including Mirage fighters, AMX-30 tanks, SA 330 Puma helicopters, SE-3160 "Alouette". This assistance, according to the Western press, was connected with the activities of the French concern, which received large oil concessions in November 1967 and assumed a leading position in the exploitation and development of Iraqi oil. By the way, the actions of France provoked protests from Israel, which regarded them as a violation of the embargo established after the Arab-Israeli war. It extended to Israel, Syria, Jordan and AOR. France, in turn, motivated its deliveries by the fact that Iraq was not a belligerent, although its aircraft took part in the hostilities.

In response to the actions of Paris, Tel Aviv on December 24, 1969, withdrew from Cherbourg, again in violation of the embargo, five gunboats previously built by the French for the Israeli Navy.

In 1979, one of the leaders of the Arab socialist revival, Saddam Hussein, became president of the country, heading for the industrialization of the country and raising the standard of living of the population. The policy was facilitated by huge profits from nationalized oil production (about 3 million barrels per day). At the same time, the country's armed forces began to be reorganized and strengthened. A central place in this process was given to military cooperation with the USSR. In this regard, Iraq continued to be the main buyer (second after India) of Soviet weapons for a number of years. And this is despite Saddam Hussein's condemnation of the actions of the USSR in Afghanistan, which put the Soviet Union on the same level as the United States. According to Western sources, in the 1980s, the USSR accounted for 53% of all military purchases of the country, 33% of Iraq's military imports came from Western European countries, including France and the UK. In the 1980s, the USSR received $13 billion from Iraq for its military exports. All in all, according to Russian military experts, between 1970 and 1990 Iraq was supplied with 2,500 pieces of artillery systems of various calibers; 5,000 armored vehicles (T-55 and T-62 tanks), 300 MiG-21, MiG-23 and MiG-25 combat aircraft; 300 Mi-24 combat helicopters; 6 strategic bombers Tu-22; 20 coast guard boats and tens of thousands of small arms, air defense systems, ammunition and military equipment. All this equipment was assisted by a large detachment of Soviet military specialists. According to the information of retired colonel I. Litovkin, a former senior engineer authorized by the State Inspectorate of the GKES (1973-1977), before the beginning of 1990, almost 8,200 Soviet military specialists visited the country, more than 6,000 Iraqi military specialists were trained in the universities of the USSR Ministry of Defense. military personnel from all branches of the armed forces. In 1979-1982 the main military adviser in Iraq was General A. Mokrous, authorized by the SMI GKES - Captain 1st Rank G. Kharitonov, Colonel I. Litovkin. Since the beginning of the war in 1980, B. Chubar, G. Popov and V. Baloyan worked successively as commissioners in Baghdad.

After the Iraqi attack on Iran in September 1980, the supply of military materials from the Soviet Union was temporarily stopped. This was due to "resentment" at S. Hussein, who did not coordinate his actions with Moscow. Nevertheless, Soviet military specialists continued to work in the country, in particular, pilots who put Saddam's falcons on the wing at the Tikrit airbase.

In June 1981, the embargo on the import of weapons to Iraq was lifted, and after the visit of S. Hussein to Moscow in December 1985, it received a new development, until mid-1990, when Iraqi troops attacked Kuwait. For only five years, from 1982 to 1987, according to foreign data, the USSR supplied Iraq with weapons worth 10 billion dollars.

Note that during the years of the Iran-Iraq war, the United States and Germany also acted on the side of Iraq. The help of the United States was dictated by two main motives. The first is the desire to "punish" Iran for the losses incurred during the Islamic revolution, and the second is economic interests directly in Iraq.

On August 2, 1990, Iraqi troops captured Kuwait and President Saddam Hussein declared it the 19th province of Iraq, intending to take control of Kuwait's rich oil fields. It should be noted that, by the irony of the Cold War, both warring parties were armed mainly with Soviet weapons. According to the Western press, the first batch of Soviet weapons arrived in Kuwait in 1977, the second - in April 1978. It included FROG-7 rocket launchers, SA-7 light portable air defense missile launchers, FM-21 Katyushas (according to the American classification), etc. All these weapons and their further transportation came under the 1977 Soviet-Kuwait treaty and amounted to at 400 million dollars.

The actions of the Iraqi leader, who declared his desire "to make the oil of the Arabian monarchs the property of all Arabs," dealt a serious blow to the economic (mainly oil) and political interests of the United States. In this regard, the UN Security Council imposed economic sanctions on Iraq, and the United States led a coalition of 29 countries that deployed troops of about 725,000 soldiers to the area.

The use of force by the UN Security Council caused a mixed reaction from the world community. Thus, on the eve of the war, the American evangelist Billy Graham, addressing a crowd of 20,000 listeners in New York, warned that the crisis in the Persian Gulf region was nothing but "a prelude to events truly tragic for the peoples of the whole world...".

A Lubavitcher rabbi, a leader in ultra-Orthodox Judaism, spoke in much the same vein, calling tensions in the Middle East "a spark that could ignite a terrible fire."

Looking ahead, we note that the "prophecies" of the American evangelist and the Lubavitcher rabbi came true. The next war, launched by the Americans in 2003, dragged many countries into the conflict, provoked a round of international terrorism, led to a deep economic and political crisis in Iraq, the consequences of which are difficult to predict .

At the same time, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote: “We are not looking for his death (S. Hussein. – A.O.), but the complete political destruction of Saddam. To do this, he must be deprived of power and prestige, turning him into a walking fiasco, into an outcast, and ultimately into a bad memory. "We emphasize that Cohen proposed turning a fairly authoritative leader who declared himself into a" walking fiasco "and" outcast " as a fighter for the interests of all Arabs, who are exploited, in his words, by foreign capital.

On January 17, 1991, a large-scale air attack began, dubbed "Desert Storm". The ground operation - "Desert Sword" began on February 24 by UN forces under the command of American General Norman Schwarzkopf.

In four days, despite Saddam Hussein's possession of chemical and biological weapons, as well as Soviet-made ballistic missiles, the Iraqi forces were defeated. Attempts to deploy a large-scale submarine war by the forces of Iraqi combat swimmers were not crowned with success either. Moreover, to neutralize the saboteurs, the Americans used fighting animals - dolphins and sea lions, urgently airlifted from the Paget Sound base. Released off the coast of Kuwait, they almost immediately changed the situation. Most of the Iraqi combat swimmers were killed by sea lions, saboteurs, the rest surfaced and surrendered. During the interrogation of the prisoners, it turned out that they had all been trained in the Crimea. The Iraqis said that while studying at Soviet bases, they saw how the Russians trained dolphins, killer whales and sea lions, and realized that it was impossible to escape from them in the water!

As a result of fleeting hostilities, Iraqi losses amounted to tens of thousands of dead and wounded, and the loss of allied troops did not exceed one thousand soldiers and officers. Of those killed - 149 Americans (458 wounded) and 54 British.

An important component of this war was the so-called special operations aimed at information and psychological impact on the enemy and the world community as a whole. First of all, it is necessary to note the highest level of decision-making on their application. According to the foreign press, during the preparatory period from August to December 1990, President George W. Bush signed three secret directives authorizing the implementation of "a wide variety of activities under special programs." These directives also determined the procedure for organizing and conducting psychological operations for the entire period of the crisis, regulated the activities of intelligence services, research institutions dealing with the problems of the Arab world, psychologists and a number of army agencies. The fact that these documents were adopted indicates that psychological operations were put on a par with combat operations.

The following tasks of psychological operations were defined as the main ones: to mobilize world public opinion against Iraq; promote the activities of the anti-Iraqi coalition; to deepen the existing division in the Arab world; eliminate the possibility of any country providing support to Iraq; ignite the euphoria of "jingoism" in the US and other Western countries; disinformation of the command of the armed forces of Iraq and the general public regarding plans for military operations; undermining the confidence of the people of Iraq in President Saddam Hussein; supporting the resistance movement in Kuwait and providing assistance to opposition forces in Iraq; belief in the futility of resistance to the multinational forces. All of the above and other tasks were solved through the channels of the media, federal departments (CIA, research institutes, etc.), the armed forces (RUMO, PsyOp formations, etc.). A special role in the conduct of psychological operations was assigned to the media, whose work turned the conflict in the Persian Gulf, according to the French newspaper L'Humanite, into "the most closed in this century." Suffice it to say that the American, British and French correspondents included in the MNF-accredited journalism pools have pledged in writing to strictly adhere to the military authorities' strict standards regarding the nature and content of transmitted messages.

For the "correct" explanation of the causes of the war to the international community, the following provisions were put forward: a) the restoration of the lost independence of Kuwait; b) protection Saudi Arabia, United United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Oman from the aggressive encroachments of S. Hussein; c) protecting the freedom of world (i.e. western) shipping in the Persian Gulf; d) protection of the trampled rights of Kurds and Shiites in Iraq itself; e) the need to establish a democratic regime in Iraq. Thanks to the dominance of American news agencies, which supplied the world with up to 70% of international information, the United States and its allies managed to impose their point of view on the course of events on the international media and manipulate public opinion for a long time, "feeding" it often with obvious misinformation. Already after the end of the war, justifying the policy of disinformation, US Secretary of Defense R. Cheney said: “The main thing is that we must solve our problem. This must be done at the lowest price in the form of American lives. And this more important than that how do you treat the press". At the same time, such textbook "democratic" concepts as glasnost and freedom of speech were not even mentioned.

A significant place in US special operations was given to measures to neutralize a possible friendly position of the USSR towards Iraq. To this end, the American media spread various kinds of misinforming messages that cast the Soviet side in a negative light. Thus, on November 14, 1990, the Washington Times published a report, picked up by other publications and citing sources in the US intelligence services, about allegedly continuing deliveries of Soviet SS-12 missiles to Iraq. This campaign continued throughout the conflict. In February 1991, when the Allied military operations against Iraq were in full swing, the Western media broadcast a collection of materials in which, citing anonymous sources from the CIA and representatives of Saudi Arabian radio intelligence, allegedly intercepted radio communications of a Soviet officer who led the actions of the Iraqi battalion, which helped the Iraqis maintain and aim Scud missiles at targets, about an unidentified Soviet ship with military cargo for Iraq, about entire transport convoys heading from the southern part of the USSR through Iran to Iraq, etc. .

Regarding the issue of arms supplies to Iraq, it should be said that shortly before the start of the crisis in the Persian Gulf (during the reign of Margaret Thatcher), some British firms supplied weapons to the regime of Saddam Hussein - in violation of the embargo imposed by the UN in 1985.

Moreover, the government of the country was aware of these illegal trade operations as early as 1988. Paul Henderson, one of the directors of the Matrix Churchill firm that supplied arms to Iraq, who also worked for the British intelligence service MI6, in an interview with the London newspaper The Sun, gave the names of these high-ranking officials. They include Secretary of Commerce Mike Heseltine, Secretary of Defense Malcolm Rifkind, Secretary of the Interior Kenneth Clark and Deputy Foreign Secretary Tristian Garel Jones. In total, according to the Western media, arms were sold to Iraq for $37 million.

At the end of February 1991, Iraq was forced to agree to UN terms for a ceasefire. The media informed the whole world about the successful conclusion of the "high technology" war. This term was supposed to promote the outstanding characteristics of the new generation of American weapons of high lethality. To reinforce this definition, at all stages of the war, the media praised the accuracy of the strikes of American "invisible" aircraft, cruise missiles (included in the lead echelon of a massive air strike), French and British fighter-bombers, the actions of space reconnaissance, communications and target designation, battlefield control aircraft. However, as it turned out later, all this apologetics was an element of a massive psychological manipulation of the public. Its goals boiled down to intimidating the enemy (and potential enemies), convincing the population of the "Western democracies" of the "ease" of carrying out such operations, and "stretching" new models of American products to the international arms market. Real information about the effectiveness of "high-precision" weapons began to seep into the press three to six months after the Gulf War. It turned out that the share of the use of high-precision weapons was only 7%, and the remaining 93% fell on conventional (non-guided) munitions developed according to the technology of the Vietnam War period, and free-fall bombs - a product of the Second World War. The influential American newspaper The Washington Post, in its April 1992 issue, wrote that stealthy F-117A aircraft, made using the "stele" technology, hit about 60% of the targets, not 90. 288 sea-based Tomahawk cruise missiles, launched according to plan massive air strikes, hit less than 50% of the targets, and not 85, as previously reported by representatives of the US Navy. In addition, as Flight magazine reported on September 7, 1993, "US intelligence has overestimated enemy tank losses by at least 100 percent, and possibly even 134 percent." And with the losses of the Americans and their allies, the matter turned out to be unclean. Six months after Operation Desert Storm, the Agence France-Presse brought to the attention of readers the information that the cause of 15% of all casualties on the part of the coalition was shooting at its own. The American newspaper "Newsday" estimated the losses in manpower from the fire of their own firepower at about 50%. For the same reason, 30 tanks were destroyed or completely disabled. The main fault in these cases was given to aviation. Thus, the facts became public when an A-10 attack aircraft of the US Air Force struck a laser-guided missile at an armored personnel carrier of the Marines, as a result of which six people were killed. Another attack aircraft mistakenly attacked a stronghold of the multinational forces - eight English soldiers were killed.

On the whole, it can be stated that the victory of the coalition forces was the result not so much of the physical destruction of the Iraqi military machine as of a skillfully organized information and psychological impact on the enemy. Thus, according to the Pentagon, the 40-day air operation in purely military terms brought rather limited results. The losses of the Iraqis amounted to 10% in aircraft, 18% in armored vehicles, and 20% in artillery. At the same time, morale and fighting spirit (according to recorded indicators) decreased by 40-60%. Already the first battles with the advanced units of the Iraqi army showed that it was completely demoralized and not even capable of conducting defensive operations. These and other indicators allowed Pentagon experts to finally prove that psychological operations are "a military weapon that does not kill, but psychologically strikes and acts the most important factor increase the combat capability of the troops. As well as saving the lives of soldiers and officers on both sides of the front."

As for the attitude of the USSR to the crisis in the Persian Gulf, practically from the very beginning Moscow condemned Iraq's activities in relation to Kuwait, refused direct participation in hostilities and took a position of military non-intervention in the conflict.

At the same time, letters from readers were published in some domestic media, calling for a more active participation of Russia in the conflict on the side of the coalition. There were even calls for the formation of groups of volunteers from among Soviet citizens. So, for example, in the newspaper "Izvestia" dated January 2, 1991, a note was published by "ordinary worker of the VOKHR MPS" V. Pimenov, born in 1950, Russian by nationality, who lived in the village of Nikolaevka, Ili district, Alma-Ata region, under the title "Write down me as a volunteer." In it, the author proposed, without resorting to the use of regular armed forces, to allow "citizens of the USSR who wish to take part in the actions of the international community to curb the aggressor, to voluntarily join a specially created unit on the territory of the USSR." According to the author, the creation of such a unit would demonstrate to the whole world the firmness and determination of the Soviet Union. Explaining his position, V. Pimenov writes: “The USSR and all of us bear special responsibility for the current crisis in the Persian Gulf. After all, it was we who indulged Saddam Hussein, his political regime and, most importantly, helped its armed forces, which are now the main threat to the world. "He further asks:" So, can we now limit ourselves to condemning the aggressor - to wash our hands and leave the dirty work (having actually created it) to the soldiers of the United States and other countries opposing the aggressor in Saudi Arabia now?

As a result, the USSR was never able to clearly and weightily justify its attitude to the crisis and, having actually "surrendered" its former allies in the region, turned into an obedient follower of US initiatives. At the same time, in accordance with UN resolution No. 687 of April 3, 1991, and in accordance with the decision of the USSR Presidium of April 9, 1991, a group of 20 Russian military observers was sent to the Iraqi-Kuwait border area under the leadership of the head of the communications mission in Baghdad, Colonel O .AND. Ovschkin. The task of the mission included "monitoring hostile actions taken from the territory of one state against another, as well as preventing, through its presence and without the right to use force, possible violations of the border."

The weakness of the position of the Soviet Union on the situation in the Persian Gulf resulted in a number of significant losses for Moscow. First of all economic. The fact is that Iraq's debt to the USSR, mainly for the supply of weapons, at the end of 1989 amounted to 3 billion 796 million rubles. According to other estimates, Iraq's debt to the Soviet Union reached 6 and even 8 billion dollars. The military defeat of Iraq and the subsequent internal political events in the country pushed back the possibility of receiving debt from Baghdad for an indefinite period. In addition, Moscow's policy on the arms market, both in the region and in the world as a whole, was called into question. The Gulf War became a kind of competition between American and Soviet military equipment. The US victory over the Iraqi army, which by that time was approximately 53% equipped with Soviet weapons, served as a pretext for a massive propaganda of the quality of American weapons. Despite the absurdity of such a conclusion, this thesis was actively developed by Washington both during the conflict and subsequently.

In the wake of the general euphoria associated with the success of the "blitzkrieg", the United States kept silent about some facts that were extremely unpleasant for official Washington and became known later. Namely, about chemical lesions of varying severity in more than 20 thousand American servicemen, which led to a weakening of their immunity. The clinical picture of the disease of military personnel who went through the "Desert Storm" was called the "Gulf War Syndrome". Many GIs became disabled, others died, unable to overcome cancer. The number of veterans who developed this syndrome, according to foreign data, was almost 100 thousand people. After this information was leaked to the press, Washington had to give some explanations. According to the published version, the military personnel who took part in the operation became victims of the impact of contamination of the area as a result of the formation of powerful aerosol clouds after the bombing of Iraqi facilities where poisonous substances were believed to be stored. The official authorities preferred not to talk about the true causes of the "Gulf War Syndrome", although they knew about them.

The vow of silence was forced to be broken a few years later, when a scandal erupted in NATO countries over leukemia and the death of 18 military personnel participating in peacekeeping operations in Yugoslavia. The cause of the diseases, according to many researchers, in both cases was the exposure of military personnel to ammunition filled with depleted uranium (DU). According to the foreign press, during the operation "Desert Storm" American troops used about a million "uranium" shells. Studies conducted by the German professor Sigvard Günther in areas of Iraq where the Americans used uranium-filled munitions, as well as studies of the regional media, painted a threatening picture. The results revealed an increase in cancer cases among the population, as well as an increase in the number of congenital malformations in Iraq and in the families of US military personnel participating in the operation. The same phenomena were noted in domestic animals, primarily in cows. Moreover, according to the professor, toxic substances that have entered the ground water and then into agricultural products, have become a source of potential danger for future generations of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait. According to the Americans themselves, the consequences of uranium pollution environment can affect for 4.5 billion years.

Nevertheless, in 2003 the US launched a new war against Iraq. The official reason for the attack was the alleged presence of weapons of mass destruction in the country. A considerable contribution to the "untwisting" of this version was made by the British special services. It was at their suggestion that a convenient "fact" for the Americans about Iraqi purchases of uranium from Niger spread. At the same time, attempts by independent experts to prove that Niger is one of the most faithful satellites of Paris in Africa, and thus its "unauthorized activity" could not go unnoticed by the French intelligence services, were not taken into account. The supporters of this version were not "convinced" by UN experts who said that the documents on the secret Iraqi-Nigerian deal were fake.

The actual position was expressed by the French newspaper Le Monde even before the start of the military operation. "The real target of the anti-Iraq operation is oil," the newspaper writes. "It's not just about prices. Iraq has the world's second largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia. The major oil companies are already developing their post-Saddam strategy."

Here, in our opinion, it is advisable to make some digression and touch upon the atomic history of Iraq. It originates from August 17, 1959, when the governments of the USSR and Iraq signed an agreement in the nuclear field. It provided for the provision of technical assistance to Baghdad in the construction of a small research reactor, an isotope laboratory, as well as in conducting geological exploration for radioactive ores and in training personnel. At the same time, the document clearly stipulated that all this would be carried out for exclusively peaceful purposes. Thanks to Soviet assistance, in 1968, in the Thuvaitha desert, 15 km south of Baghdad, a small research reactor IRT-2000 with a capacity of 2 MW began to operate. Its use for the creation of nuclear weapons, due to the low power of the reactor, was completely excluded.

In April 1975, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Saddam Hussein, who visited Moscow, tried to negotiate and sign a number of new agreements on cooperation with the USSR in the nuclear field. The Soviet Union agreed to sell some nuclear technology to Baghdad, including a more advanced nuclear reactor, but set the condition that further work in this direction in Iraq would be placed under international IAEA guarantees, thereby excluding their use for military purposes. This situation did not suit the Iraqi leadership, and in September of the same year, Hussein visited Paris. As a result of negotiations with French Prime Minister Chirac, an agreement was reached on the sale to Iraq of the powerful Ozirak reactor, the Isis research laboratory and a year's supply of nuclear fuel - only 72 kg. And without any IAEA guarantees. For this deal, France received a total of about three billion dollars.

In 1976, Iraq signed a contract with Italy for the purchase of hot cells suitable for reprocessing radioactive fuel elements and separating plutonium. According to experts, the combination of the French reactor and the Italian hot cells made it possible to establish the production of plutonium bombs already in the first half of the 1980s.

In early 1979, a nuclear reactor for Iraq was built and delivered to the port of La Sien-sur-Mer near Toulon. From here it was planned to be transported to Basra on an Iraqi ship. However, this did not happen. On the night of April 7, 1979, the reactor was destroyed as a result of a sabotage operation carried out by Israeli intelligence Mossad. The French government "entered the position" of Hussein and announced that it would supply a new reactor.

In 1981, the second Osirak reactor was safely delivered to Iraq and placed in a nuclear center in the Thuwaitha desert. In July 1981, he entered service. In the spring of 1981, an IAEA inspection team visited this center, but found no violations of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Nevertheless, on June 7, 1981, the Israeli Air Force, on the basis of a secret plan approved by the Cabinet of Ministers on October 29, 1980, carried out an operation to destroy the reactor, called "Babylon". Eight F-16 fighter-bombers were involved in its implementation, each of which carried two 908-kg Mk.84 guided bombs, and the same number of F-15 aircraft. At 18:35 Israeli planes, illegally violating the airspace of two sovereign states, bombed the nuclear center near Baghdad.

After the destruction of Osirak, French President Francois Mitterrand, who was elected two months earlier, curtailed cooperation with Iraq in the nuclear field.

But back to the events of 2003. On the eve of the American aggression, Saddam Hussein, in an interview with the Egyptian weekly Al Usboa, described US policy as follows:

"America wants to achieve autocracy in our region, first in Iraq, and then it will take on those Arab countries that show dissatisfaction. From Baghdad, it will move towards Damascus and Tehran, which it will divide into several parts.

I am sure that the model of small emirates and kingdoms will become the most common in our region. Therefore, all large Arab states will be divided into several parts in such a way that they can serve American interests. America will own all the oil from Algeria to the Caspian Sea."

Speaking of US oil claims, it is interesting to note that about a year before the US aggression, at the end of 2001, Iraq proposed to Russia a joint "long-term cooperation program." Within the framework of this program, domestic companies could earn $40 billion within five to ten years. First of all, it was about oil production. The Iraqi authorities then declared that they were ready to give Russia "absolute priority" when signing agreements in this area. It was supposed to hand over to Russian companies the largest fields in the Middle East, Majnun and Nakhr Omar, whose reserves amount to hundreds of millions of tons. Earlier, Iraq negotiated these giant fields with the French company "Total Fina Elf" and even signed a memorandum of understanding. However, in the summer of 2001, France took the side of Great Britain and the United States, supporting the tightening of sanctions against Iraq, and the deal did not take place.

The package of projects that Baghdad planned to offer to Russia also included the construction of several hydropower facilities on the Tigris River and the resumption of construction of the Yusifiya thermal power plant, Iraq's largest. Iraq also counted on Moscow's assistance in the construction of oil pipelines to Syria and Jordan, as well as in the restoration of oil refineries destroyed during the 1990-1991 war. Almost half of the planned projects (about seventy specific projects in total) were in the oil and gas sector, power generation and petrochemicals. Others in development industrial production, transport and communication . However, these plans were not destined to come true.

On March 20, 2003, an American contingent of 140,000 soldiers launched Operation Shock and Awe. Within three weeks, the resistance of the millionth Iraqi army was broken. On April 9, 2003, US troops entered Baghdad and thus completed the planned operation with minimal losses of 115 killed.

It is interesting to note that before the start of the war, according to the newspaper "Arguments and Facts", the Iraqi Embassy in Moscow received 10,000 applications from volunteers who wanted to fight the American army (according to the newspaper "Versiya" - 2,500 Russians). At the same time, according to the official statement of the deputy for military operations of the US Army in Iraq, General Mark Kimmitt, not a single case of the participation of Russian volunteers in hostilities was recorded. Nevertheless, according to Abdullah Mohseni, an employee of the apparatus of the Kurdish parliament in the city of Erbil, in 2004 several dozen "young people from Russia and Ukraine", mostly Muslims, passed through Iraqi Kurdistan. But there were also Russians. According to the Versiya newspaper, back in September 2003, five Russian volunteers went to Iraq to fight, who in 1992-1995 took part in the battles in Bosnia on the side of the Serbs. True, after 2 months, due to ignorance of the language, without contacting the partisans, they returned to their homeland.

However, the "battle for democracy" did not end as planned in the Pentagon. A terrorist war unfolded in the country, which claimed the lives of 450 American soldiers who were in Iraq in a year. She also touched Russia. In 2004, four incidents with Russian citizens took place in Iraq in two months, resulting in human casualties. As a result of the last (May 25) shelling of a bus with employees of the Interenergoservis company, 2 people were killed and 7 were injured.

On December 13, 2003, Saddam Hussein, who was hiding from the American authorities, was captured in one of his shelters and handed over to the investigation (later executed). Nevertheless, this event did not lead to the pacification of the situation in the country, as the American media assured, but, on the contrary, to the consolidation of radical Muslim forces. This development of the situation was assumed, even before the outbreak of hostilities, by the American intelligence analyst John Pike. He expressed the following consideration: "If you look at how many countries are involved in the war on terrorism, as well as in the upcoming war against WMD, then it remains to be recognized that we are on the eve of a third world war." Approximately the same thought was shared by Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, who expressed his fear that the conflict could grow to a global scale and result in a clash with civilization.

The statements of Pike and Downer turned out to be close to the truth. Anti-American sentiments increased in many countries, volunteers and members of radical Muslim groups rushed to Iraq. The country has become a training ground for practicing partisan and terrorist operations. In the meantime, Western intelligence agencies have begun the systematic destruction of the Iraqi scientific elite. This was reported by the fifth channel of French television, citing a high-ranking French general. Specialists in the field of energy, chemistry and physics, university professors, doctors, engineers and lawyers have become the main targets in the course of the "democratization" of the country. According to the general, the plan for the physical destruction of Iraqi scientists - those who refuse to cooperate with Western research centers, was developed by responsible US and Israeli officials. It was primarily about scientists who took part in the development of missile, nuclear and chemical weapons - about 3,500 people.

The main "hunter" for the Iraqi scientists was the Israeli intelligence "Mossad". She, according to the head of the trade union of Iraqi engineers, Silah ed-Din Abbas, is quite officially patronized by the occupying forces. It is not profitable for them if the prerequisites for the development of science reappear in Iraq. According to one hundred Iraqi scientists and university professors who posted a letter on the Internet on April 11, 2003, it was reported that the US military was removing all documents related to scientific projects from Iraqi research centers. These actions, according to scientists, will deprive the Iraqis of the opportunity to revive the national science. In addition, the Americans are "processing" scientists to go to work in American or British research centers. Those who refuse are forbidden to visit their places of work, kept under arrest, blackmailed. Especially intractable - destroy.

A 150-man Israeli commando unit was discovered in Iraq by French intelligence services. According to French media, the commandos have a list of Iranian specialists in Hussein's chemical, bacteriological, nuclear and missile programs. This list was drawn up before the start of the war at the request of Hans Blix, head of the UN Commission for Supervision, Verification and Inspection.

According to the French channel, the main targets of Mossad agents were 550 Iraqi specialists, more than 100 of whom, according to the same source, had already been destroyed by mid-2004.

Israel categorically denies the information of the French about its punitive raids in Iraq. However, the number of Iraqi scientists killed, as well as those who died under unclear circumstances, were attacked, kidnapped or held without trial, continues to grow.

As for the Russian position on the Iraqi crisis, it was, as in the last war, reserved. Nevertheless, the collapse of the Iraqi armed forces created the preconditions for cooperation between the countries in the military field. According to military observer V. Barants, it is planned to re-equip the "new" Iraqi army with Soviet weapons. Colonel-General Yury Baluyevsky, Chief of the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces, and US General James Jones, Commander-in-Chief of NATO Joint Armed Forces in Europe, agreed on this during a meeting in November 2004 in the Belgian city of Mons. Thus, Russia is joining the implementation of the US and NATO plans to create "post-Hussein" armed forces in Iraq. Deliveries were planned to be carried out "on a reimbursable basis" - for money or oil. In this case, we could talk about the amount of up to 2 billion dollars.

The three-year war in Iraq cost America tens of billions of dollars by the beginning of 2006. Of these, Washington allocated 300 million to the largest US PR campaigns for conducting an information war. The central idea of ​​the ongoing work was the thesis of valiant American soldiers bringing freedom, prosperity and, of course, democracy to the Iranians. However, the propaganda efforts of the American psychological warfare services were successful only at the first stage of the military campaign, when a fake was hyped about Saddam Hussein's planned use of weapons of mass destruction. When the presence of WMD in Iraq was called into question, and even more so, when it turned out that Bush knew for certain that even before the start of the aggression that it did not exist, the situation changed dramatically. To justify the failures, the Washington administration began to look for an enemy on the side. They became Russia. Information was launched in the media that Moscow allegedly provided Baghdad with valuable information "stolen" from the Americans about the "military resources and plans" of the United States.

As for human casualties, according to Russian Newsweek magazine, from the beginning of the campaign to mid-2005, the United States lost 1,661 people; Great Britain - 69; Italy - 25; Ukraine - 18; Poland - 17; Spain - 11, other countries of the coalition - 24. The losses of the Iraqis amounted to 15,000 people, and by March 2005 - 23,000 civilians, plus 42,500 were injured.

The war unleashed by the United States also affected Russian citizens. In early June 2006, an armored jeep from the Russian embassy in Baghdad, which had left for the city, was stopped and blocked by militants from the Mujahideen Shura Council group. Embassy guard Vitaly Titov, covering his comrades, was killed, and four other embassy employees: security guard Oleg Fedoseev, driver Anatoly Smirnov, cook Rinat Agliulin and third secretary of the embassy Fyodor Zaitsev were abducted. For their search and release, all channels were involved: both diplomatic and special services. An operational headquarters was set up in Baghdad. According to Federation Council Speaker Sergei Mironov, negotiations were going on almost hourly. But, apparently, the terrorists initially intended to kill the captives. A few days later, they distributed a video recording of the exemplary execution of three employees of the Russian embassy. As a result of the investigation, several versions of this crime were put forward. According to one of them, Western intelligence services could be the customers of the operation to kidnap Russian citizens. According to Senator Mikhail Margelov, in this way the United States may have hoped to quarrel Russia with the Muslim world, to punish for its independent policy in Iraq, Iran and Palestine, and thereby draw it into the war in Iraq on its side.

Notes:

Recent history of countries of foreign Asia and Africa. - L., 1963. - S. 587.

Bar-Zohar Mikael. Ben Gurion. Rostov-on-Don, 1998. S. 224.

On February 14, 1947, Britain announced that it was submitting the Palestinian question to the UN for decision. On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly decided to divide the territory of Palestine into an Arab state (43% of the territory, 725 thousand Arabs, 10 thousand Jews) and Israel (56.5% of the territory, 498 thousand Jews, 497 thousand Arabs) . The capital of Palestine, Jerusalem - the center of the three world religions - stood out in the international zone. Naturally, the artificial creation of a Jewish state in the center of the Arab world caused a negative reaction from the Muslim countries. The Arab states rejected the partition plan and did not recognize the UN decision.

The Haganah was considered a large-scale, powerful and well-armed secret organization. According to British secret services, in 1943 the number of "Haganah" ranged from 80,000 to 100,000 people. In reality, things were somewhat different. At the beginning of May 1947, the Haganah combat formations, including 9,500 teenagers from the Gadna youth corps, numbered only 45,337 men and women. Of these, only 2,200 fighters, who were part of the Palmach strike brigade, were trained under the guidance of British instructors during the years of the Arab uprising (1936-1939) and the Second World War. Most of the other formations of the Haganah received only general training and could not be considered combat-ready. On April 12, 1947, the entire arsenal of the Haganah consisted of 10,073 rifles of various models; 1900 machine guns; 444 light machine guns; 186 medium caliber machine guns; 672 units of 2-inch mortars; 96 units of 3-inch mortars; 93,738 hand grenades and 4,896,303 cartridges.

Sudoplatov P. Special operations. Lubyanka and the Kremlin. 1930-1950s. M, 2003. S. 476.

Sudoplatov P. Special operations. Lubyanka and the Kremlin. 1930-1950s. M., 2003. S. 470-472.

Concerning the activities of the Soviet special services in Palestine, it should be mentioned that interest in this area of ​​​​Soviet intelligence dates back to the beginning of the 1920s. The activity of such employees of the Foreign Department (INO) of the OGPU as Yakov Blyumkin, who arrived in Palestine in 1923 and became a mentor to local Jewish militants, is associated with this region; Yakov Serebryansky, later - head of the Special Task Force under the NKVD Secretariat. In 1924, Leopold Trepper, the “Big Chief” of the European intelligence network of Soviet intelligence (“Red Chapel”), and Israel Beer, an informant of Soviet intelligence in Vienna, began their careers in Palestine. He left for Palestine shortly after the annexation of Austria to Germany, became an active member of the underground Jewish army "Hagan" and took part in the fighting of the Israelis against the British.

In 1966, Aref died under mysterious circumstances in a helicopter crash.

Big soviet encyclopedia... S. 397.

The oil industry in Iraq after the Second World War was the only industry that had modern technical equipment. The leading position in it was occupied by the Iraq Petroleum Company concern and its subsidiaries. In 1946, oil production in the country amounted to 4.7 million tons, and in 1955 it increased to 33.7 million tons. In 1960, it exceeded 47.0 million tons. Moreover, the main volume of oil was exported; in Iraq itself, for example, in 1955 consumption was only 1.2 million tons.

Andrew K., Gordievsky O. KGB: a history of foreign policy operations from Lenin to Gorbachev. B/m. Ed. "Nota Bene", 1992. S. 554.

Grinevsky O. Secrets of Soviet diplomacy. M., 2000. S. 181.

Hussein Saddam. Born in 1937 in the small town of Tikrit. By education he is a lawyer. political career began in 1957, joining the Arab Socialist Renaissance Party (BAAS). In the early 1960s, he participated in several conspiracies and coups. In 1964, he was arrested and imprisoned for attempting to overthrow the government. After his release in 1966, he continued his political activities and in 1968 became one of the leaders of the July Revolution, which brought General Ahmed Bakr to power. In 1969 he was appointed deputy chairman of the revolutionary command council, and in 1979 Bakr's successor in senior government posts.

Training centers for the training of fighting animals were established in the USSR in the 1970s. They were located near Sevastopol, in Vladivostok, in Klaipeda, Murmansk and Batumi. The "pets" of these centers were used during the wars in the waters of Ethiopia, Angola and other countries. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the unique oceanarium near Sevastopol was transferred to the Ministry of Defense and the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Military experiments there stopped.

Volkovsky N.L. History of information wars. SPb., 2003. 4.2. S. 473.

Cit. on: Krysko V. Secrets of psychological warfare (goals, tasks, methods, forms, experience). Minsk, 1999. S. 430.

To carry out a wide range of measures to disinform the enemy as part of a strategic psychological operation, the 252nd command and the 96th battalion for working with the civilian population, as well as the 8th battalion from the 4th group of psychological operations (numbering about 200 people) were involved . These forces had mobile printing houses, television and radio stations, sound broadcasting stations of various classes. Directly at the headquarters of the command of the multinational forces (MNF) in Riyadh, a working group was created, staffed by psychological warfare officers, responsible for all "psychological operations" carried out in the interests of the multinational forces. Oral propaganda during the hostilities was carried out by 66 groups of specialists with sound broadcasting facilities attached to the commanders of units and subunits along the entire front of the MNF operations. The groups were detached from the regular 6th and 9th battalions of psychological operations of the US Army, as well as from five reserve companies. Printed propaganda was also intensively carried out. In total, more than 30 million leaflets were distributed during the operation. The main themes of the leaflets were: the futility of resistance; the inevitability of defeat; inclination to surrender, to desertion, to leave weapons during the retreat; placing all the blame for the war on S. Hussein.

Depleted uranium refers to the uranium-238 isotope obtained as a result of the technological process of uranium enrichment - the separation of uranium-234 and uranium-235 isotopes from uranium ore. After this processing, the U-238 isotope remains, which is why it is called depleted uranium. A projectile tip made of DU (instead of the traditional tungsten one) increases armor penetration by about 20%, and its cost is relatively low (in fact, it represents technological waste). The radioactivity index of DU as a "spent" material is low and does not pose a serious threat to health. The danger, according to many scientists, lies in the distribution in the air, in water, in the soil of the smallest particles of depleted uranium, which is highly toxic. These particles are formed during the explosion of the ammunition, when most of the uranium core turns into poisonous dust. Even contact with fragments of armored vehicles disabled by "uranium" ammunition is dangerous. The latent (hidden) period of OS impact on the human body lasts from 2 to 5 years.

As for Yugoslavia, the Americans used more than 30,000 DU munitions there in 1999, primarily in Kosovo, in areas near the border with Albania. And in 1994-1995 in Bosnia - 11 thousand.

Roschupkin V. Professor Günther's Warnings // Independent Military Review. 2006. No. 11. P. 8.

On September 25, 2003, the experts of the Iraq Monitoring Group made an unequivocal conclusion: there are no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. The group included 1,400 specialists, mainly from the US and the UK. The group was led by CIA Special Adviser (former UN Inspector) David Kaye.

Kiselev E. Nuclear race in biblical places // Independent military review. 2005, No. 43. S. 5.

A coup took place in the country, during which a pro-Nazi and pan-Arabist government came to power. As a result of the British invasion of Iraq, it was overthrown, and on June 1, the regent Abd al-Ilah came to power, who resigned only May 2 1953.

By the time you start Second World War Prime Minister of Iraq was Nuri al-Said, who signed the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of 1930, according to which the British mandate was canceled and the independence of the state was recognized while maintaining foreign policy and military dependence. Seeing him as a sufficient backbone to maintain the security of Iraq, he wanted to declare war on Third Reich, however, his ministers advised him to wait because the situation was not in favor of Great Britain on the fronts. The Prime Minister declared Iraq a neutral state and severed diplomatic relations with the Third Reich. After joining Kingdom Italy into the war in 1940, however, Nuri al-Said, then Minister of Foreign Affairs in the government of the Prime Minister appointed on March 31 of the same year Rashida Ali al Gailani, it was quite difficult to convince the government of the need to break off diplomatic relations with the Kingdom of Italy. Influenced by the spread of ideas pan-Arabism after graduation French campaign Wehrmacht anti-English sentiment in society intensified due to the dependence of most of the Middle Eastern states on foreign influence. In particular, the ideologists of pan-Arabism suggested that Iraq take part in the liberation of Syria and Palestine and achieve political unity within the Arab world. The leaders of the extremist movements advocated the establishment of relations with the Third Reich as a guarantor of the independence and unity of the Middle Eastern states.

From the very beginning, Rashid Ali al-Gaylani had no desire to contact extremists and break off diplomatic relations with Britain. In the course of disagreements in the government, the prime minister decided to establish relations with the leaders of the pan-Arabist organizations. The most influential officers of the Iraqi army were also exposed to their ideas and supported Rashid Ali al-Gaylani in his desire to establish ties with the ideologues of pan-Arabism and break off diplomatic relations with Britain. In 1940-1941, Iraqi army officers did not want to cooperate with Britain, and the leaders of the pan-Arab movement began secret negotiations with countries “axis”. Britain has decided to send troops to Iraq. Rashid Ali al-Gaylani, who allowed a small British contingent to land in Iraq, had to resign in early 1941, but already in April of that year, with the help of the army, he again came to power and refused to accept reinforcements from British troops.

The British launched their invasion of Iraq from Persian Gulf and from the air base near the city El Habbaniya in April-May 1941. Military actions lasted for 30 days, during which the leaders of the state, including the regent Sharaf Fawaz and Prime Minister Nuri al-Said, fled Iraq. By the end of May 1941, Iraq capitulated. Rashid Ali al-Gaylani fled to Germany with his pan-Arab supporters.

The return of the regent to Iraq with his son Faisal II Abd al-Ilaha and moderate leaders political organizations after the occupation of the country by the British had far-reaching consequences. Great Britain received transport and communications at its disposal, and also obtained from the puppet government a declaration of war on the Axis countries in January 1942. Supporters of Rashid Ali al-Gaylani were deprived of their posts and subjected to internment for the duration of the war. Four officers who were part of the Golden Square organization, which carried out a coup in Iraq on April 1, 1941, were hanged by the British.

During the Second World War, the leaders of moderate and liberal political movements began to play a significant role in the life of Iraq. Entry into the war USA and USSR and their support democratic movements in the world led to the strengthening of the influence of Democrats in Iraq. People who survived the lack and infringement of personal freedom and freedom of the press believed that life would change for the better during the war. However, the government did not pay due attention to democracy, and the rules and restrictions of the period of war after its end were not abolished. Regent Abd al-Ilah at a government meeting in 1945 considered that the cause of popular discontent is the lack of a truly parliamentary form of government. He called for the formation of political parties and promised them complete freedom of action and the start of social and economic reforms.