Ayatollah Khomeini 

Basic: Iranian Shi’ia Ayatollah who is thought of as the leader of the Iranian Revolution. His conception of the Guardianship of the Jurist (Velayat-e Faqih) forms the basis of the clerical rule in Iran. He was the Supreme Leader of Iran from 1979 until his death 1989.

Extended: Khomeini was extremely critical of the Shah, especially for the White Revolution and the Status of Forces Agreement with America. He was exiled because of this, however, he was able to continue building his support and eventually he became the rallying point for the revolution.  After the Shah was overthrown, Khomeini returned to Iran where he proceeded to establish his power, going as far as to purge the revolutionary ranks. One of Khomeini’s main objectives was to export the Islamic revolution, this scared many states in the region, especially those with a substantial Shiia population (which are generally oppressed) including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and many of the Gulf States.  In 1980, Saddam started the Iran with the belief that Iran was weak because of the revolution, however far from further destabilizing the regime, the war allowed Khomeini to draw on his nationalist credentials and unite the country against the common threat. Saddam generally had the support of the Arab states in the region who wanted to ensure the revolution stayed in Iran (Syria was the exception).   During this period he also had to deal with the Iranian Hostage Crisis, which he came out in support of; this greatly hurt Iranian-American relations and the effects of this decision still reverberate today. However after his death, the regime became less ideological and more focused on attaining hegemony in the Gulf region rather than exporting the revolution. He was succeeded by Khamene’i who is generally thought to be lacking the proper religious credentials.

-          Who: Supreme Leader of Iran and leader of the Iranian Revolution

-          What: Supported the concept of the guardianship of the jurist

-          Where: Iran – exiled in Iraq and France

-          When: Supreme Leader between 1979 and 1989 (b. 1902)

-          Why Significant: Leader of the Iranian Revolution, head of the first Islamic Iranian State, wanted to export the revolution

Ayatollah Khamene’i 

Khamene’i is the second and current Supreme Leader of Iran, taking over the position in 1989 after Khomeini’s death.  He is generally thought to be lacking the proper religious credentials to be the Supreme Leader attainment of the position required him to have been quickly promoted to the rank of Ayatollah.  After he took over the Supreme Leader position, Iran lost much of the ideological zeal to export the revolution and his regime pursued more staid goals such as hegemony in the Gulf region.  He also served as the president of Iran between 1981 and 1989.

-          Who: Supreme Leader of Iran (1989 – Present)

-          Where: Iran

-          When: 1989 – Present

-          Why Significant: The Supreme Leader has a great deal of power within Iran

Velayet-e Faquih

The idea of “guardianship of the jurist” has a history in Shiism, however, it was generally limited to guardianship over those who could not care for themselves. Ayatollah Khomeini extended the idea to encompass the whole population and argued that the monarchy had limited the concept to serve its own interests. Velayet-e Faquih serves as the basis of the Iranian constitution and it grants great power to the clerical establishment.  The concept states that political power should rest in the hands of the jurists, who understand Islamic law best.  Shiites believe that only the ulama can interpret the Qur’an, and Khomeini takes this idea to give credence to the extension of clerics into politics, however, high ranking clerics such as Grand Ayatollah Khoi believed that clerics had no place in governance and opposed Khomeini’s ideas.  During the revolution, the Ayatollah kept this idea under wraps so as to keep his popular base. This concept gives great power to the clerical establishment and Supreme Leader, currently Ayatollah Khamene’i

-          Who: Ayatollah Khomeini

-          What: Guardianship of the Jurist

-          Where: Iran

-          When: Iranian Revolution to Present

-          Why Important: Forms the basis of the Iranian constitution and grants great power to the clerical establishment and the Supreme Leader

The Hostage Crisis (1979-81)

On November 4, 1979 supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini took over the US embassy in Tehran and took the people there hostage. Their ostensible reason for doing so was to prevent the US from reinstalling the Shah who had recently entered the United States for medical treatment and because they also believed that moderates within the Iranian government were reaching out to the US.  Within Iran, the hostage crisis became a way for politicians to establish anti-American credentials and moderates, such as the Prime Minister, were driven out of government.  In the United States, public opinion of Iranian and Khomeini was extremely hostile and this hostility has colored Iranian-American relations ever since. The PLO also got involved when it negotiated with Iran to get the African American and female hostages released.  Jimmy Carter was frantic to end the crisis; however, the attempted military operation, over which Secretary of State Cyrus Vance resigned, aimed at returning the hostages was an abject failure which basically sealed his political fate and legacy as an ineffectual president.  The agreement which lead to the hostages’ freedom was negotiated under his administration; however, the prisoners were only released once Reagan had been sworn in on January 20, 1981.  The crisis isolated the new regime from other government and hurt it economically.  Once war with Iraq came on the horizon and the Americans stopped freaking out about the hostages every day, Iran started to move toward an end to the crisis.

-          What: Khomeini supporters take American Embassy Hostage November 4, 1979

-          Where: Tehran, Iran

-          When: November 4, 1979 to January 20, 1981

-          Why Important: Has colored Iranian-American relations negatively ever since

[side note: in February 1979 the leftists had tried to take over the embassy, however, they were ousted by Khomeini’s men – this led to complacency the next time it happened] 

Saddam Hussein

Saddam Hussein was the Baathist President of Iraq between 1979 and 2003, he functioned basically as a dictator and regularly used force against his own people, especially the Shiia and the Kurds.  In 1980 he started the Iran-Iraq War, with the belief that Iran was destabilized and weak, in an attempt to gain control over oil rich areas in Iran and stop the spread of the Islamic revolution (i.e. Iran is militarily weak and politically threatening).  He was backed by the Arab world (excluding Syria) and the US tilted towards him during the latter part of the war (though the USG generally seems to have thought that an extended war would serve the US best).  The war raged and neither side seemed to be gaining the upper hand until Iraq started to use chemical weapons against Iranian forces; the war ended in 1988 at almost the same lines, although Iraq is generally thought to have come out slightly ahead.   In 1990 Saddam invaded Kuwait, provoking an international response which eventually took the form of the US led coalition formed to expel Saddam from Iraq. This coalition included Arab states such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria; this was important so that the west (and the US) did not look like the aggressor against the Arab world. After Desert Storm was concluded, Bush I and his team made the controversial decision not to dislodge Saddam from his nest, citing the fact that they had no UN mandate to do so and that they were worried about getting bogged down in Iraq.  They also decided not to support the Shiia uprising in the south or the Kurdish uprising in the north, which Saddam brutally repressed; although later no-fly zones were established in both the north and the south and in 1992 the Kurdish north established an autonomous region. During the 90s, Iraq was plagued by sanctions which were primarily aimed at Iraqi disarmament. Although these sanctions were aimed at the government, they were a huge burden on the people of Iraq.  In 1995, the oil for food program was initiated with the intent of providing humanitarian relief to Iraq’s citizens.  Through the early and mid 90s, UN weapons inspectors traversed the country searching and monitoring for WMDs, however, they were thrown out of Iraq in 1998 under the charge of espionage and the United States had very little internal information about Iraq after this point.  In 2003 an American led coalition overthrew the Iraqi government pointing to links with Al-Qaida (which were weak – basically not there) and the reconstitution of the WMD program (no evidence of this was ever found of this). In 2006 Saddam Hussein was executed for crimes against humanity

-          Who: President of Iraq 1979-2003

-          When: 1979-2003

-          Where: Iraq

-          Why Important: Iran-Iraq War, Invasion of Kuwiat, crimes against his people, sanctions, 2003 invasion, balance of power,

Ba’ath Party

The Ba’ath party was founded by Syrian-Christian Michel ‘Aflaq and Sunni-Syrian Salah al-Din al-Bitar in the 1930s. The party advocated pan-Arab nationalism and socialism as well as secular governance; the slogan of the party is “Freedom, Unity, and Socialism”.  The party was brought to power in 1963 in both Iraq and Syria (later Iraq’s Ba’ath party was deposed, only to come to rise again in 1968). Syria’s Ba’ath party is still in power; however Iraq’s was overthrown with Saddam in the 2003 American invasion.  During the period when the Ba’ath party was in control in both countries, they did not get along at all; Syria even supported Iran in the Iran-Iraq war.  One of the worst decisions of the American occupation of Iraq is generally thought to be the de-Baathification which banned higher level members of the Ba’ath party from participating in government. The real problem lay in the fact that most of the governing elite of Iraq were members of the Ba’ath party because one could not get anywhere in Iraq without being a member and the fact that de-Ba’athification banned the top four tiers (down to firkas or group members) from working in government and included restrictions on other members as well. This type of restriction could include low level workers like teachers and factory workers and therefore de-Ba’athification affected a large segment of the population (esp. those in leadership positions)

-          What: Secular pan-Arabist party ; the name means “renaissance” or “re-birth”

-          When: Founded in the 1930s came to power in Syria in 1963 and in Iraq in 1968-2003 (in power for a short time in 1963)

-          Where: power Syria and Iraq (formerly)and has branches in other countries

-          Why Important: the Party of the ruling Assad family in Syria and Saddam Hussein; De-Ba’athification

Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)

The decision to invade Iran and start a war was solely Saddam’s decision based on the fact that the regime in Iran was militarily weak and politically dangerous. Once the Iraqi leader began to see that the extremists around Khomeini were taking power and the moderates were being pushed out, he began to get nervous about Khomeini’s wish to export the revolution and relations between Iran and Iraq deteriorated eventually culminating the Iraqi invasion of Iran on Sept 22, 1980. The war was incredibly long and costly both in human and other terms and it did not result in a real change in the Gulf region as the parties ended up basically at the same borders they started with in 1980 with the same regimes in power; this demonstrates the durability of the regimes in this region.  The war also provided Khomeini a chance to unite the country against a common enemy and in the end strengthened Khomeini’s regime which had been racked with internal divisions. In 1982, after Iraq had been driven back inside its borders, it proposed a cease-fire, which Khomeini rejected saying that he was going to take Saddam out of power, however, at the end of the war Saddam started to use chemical weapons (as well as bomb downtown Tehran) and Khomeini was forced to acquiesce.  One of the most interesting aspects about the war is the relative lack of superpower involvement, at least in the early stages. The USG generally thought that it would be best to have these two regional powers beat up on each other for a while although the US did begin to tip towards Iraq around 1982 and this eventually led to the re-establishment of diplomatic relations in 1984. In 1983 Operation Staunch, which was designed to prevent Iran from getting weapons, was launched (however, this was tempered by the fact we sold arms to Iran in the Iran-Contra crisis). Later with the Kuwaiti reflagging operation and the lack of American retribution towards Iraq for the attack on the USS Stark, the American tilt toward to Iraq and against Iran was stabilized (especially as the US and Iran were essentially engaged in a low level war at sea).  Finally, the war ended in 1988.

-          What:  War between Iraq and Iran Sept 1980 – Aug 1988

-          When: September 1980 – August 1988

-          Where: Iran/Iraq

-          Why Important: Incredibly costly in terms of human lives and materials. There was a tilt toward Iraq by the Americans during the war – we re-established diplomatic relations with Iraq in 1984

Anfal Campaign

Campaign mounted by Saddam against the Kurds in retaliation for their support of Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. The campaign officially occurred between February and September of 1988, although some sources place the start of the Anfal campaign in 1986. Saddam put his cousin, best known as Chemical Ali, in charge of the project and he proceeded to raze thousands of villages and relocate 1.5 million Kurds. His best known atrocities are the attack on the village of Halabja which killed between 3,000 and 5,000 people and the use of chemical weapons on guerrilla strongholds.  During the course of the campaign between 50,000 and 100,000 Iraqi Kurds were killed and around 250,000 fled the country. The United States is generally thought to have known that this was happening, but we stood by and did nothing because we wanted the war to end quickly and on Iraqi terms.

-          What: Genocidal Campaign against the Kurds for their support of Iran during the Iran-Iraq war

-          Who: Saddam Hussein and Ali Hassan (aka, Chemical Ali)

-          When: Officially between February and September of 1988, although some sources extend the dates as early as 1986 and as late as 1989

-          Where: Northern Iraq

-          Why Important: Caused the deaths of between 50,000 and 100,000 Iraqi Kurds, the relocation of about 1.5 million and the emigration of about 250,000. These military actions are generally thought to have been in response to the Kurds support of Iran during the war, but the Kurds had always been a thorn in Saddam’s side. He did it because he thought he could get away with it – the Americans wanted a quick end to the war on Iraqi terms.

The Shatt al-Arab

The Shatt al-Arab is a river, which flows into the Persian Gulf, between Iraq and Iran. It has been the subject of disputes between the two countries; this includes the Iran-Iraq war.  Prior to the 1975 Algiers Accords, Iraq claimed the entirety of the waterway, right up to the Iranian shore, but the treaty stipulated that the border be placed in the center of the general center of the waterway.  In 1980, Saddam abrogated the treaty and invaded Iran, however, after the war both sides agreed to adhere to the accords again.

-          What: River between Iran and Iraq generally demarcating the border – Algiers Accords of 1975 established the border as the general center of the waterway

-          When: 1975 Algiers Accords – 1980 abrogation of those accords with the invasion of Iran

-          Where: Between Iran and Iraq feeding into the Persian Gulf

-          Why Significant: Algiers Accords of 1975 set the border between Iran and Iraq and the 1980 abrogation of those accords came with the invasion of Iran.  Both countries now adhere to the accords

Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)

The GCC is a trade bloc founded in 1981 in response to the Iran-Iraq War and the Iranian revolution which threatened the smaller Gulf monarchies and pushed them closer to Riyadh.  The founding charters of the GCC emphasize economic and cultural cooperation, however, the primary reason for the GCCs founding was the threat emanating from the first Gulf War and Iranian Revolution.  Through the GCC the Saudis were able to consolidate their leading position in with the other Gulf monarchies although the monarchies have been able to partially counter this through US patronage.  The GCC includes Bahrain, Oman, the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. After the Iran-Iraq war the GCC states rejected Iraq’s bid for leadership in the Arab world.  Iraq also attempted to create the Arab Cooperation Council (ACC), modeled on the GCC but in regards to military matters, however, this was a failure.  Both Iran and Iraq were and continue to be excluded from the GCC

-          What: Trade Bloc created to counter threats emanating from the region

-          Where: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Kuwait

-          When: Founded 1981

-          Why Important: Allowed Saudi Arabia to consolidate their leading position among the other Gulf monarchies and provided a modicum of protection for the smaller Gulf states. 

Menachem Begin

Menachem Begin

Menachem Begin was elected Prime Minister of Israel in the 1977 electoral revolution which brought Likud, the right wing party, to power for the first time in since the founding of Israel. He is best known for his role in the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, although he was generally reluctant throughout the affair and the treaty required a great deal of American pressure and many concessions from Sadat.  In 1981 he bombed the Osirak Nuclear plant in Iraq, an event which Gause notes preceded the resumption of Soviet arms sales to Iraq (although Iranian gains on the battlefield in ’82 was what actually began the arms shipments). However, his record of peace is tempered by the 1982 Lebanese War, which he called a war of choice, to get rid of the PLO in southern Lebanon. The operation generally increased the PLO’s prestige and hurt Israel’s world image due to the large number of civilian casualties and great destruction the war caused Lebanon. [as a side note; without the Egyptian-Israeli peace, Israel would probably not have engaged the PLO in Lebanon]. Begin withdrew from public life in 1983 in part because of the failure of operations in Lebanon and in part because of the death of his wife.

-          Who: Prime Minister of Israel (Likud) from 1977-1983

-          When: 1977-1983

-          Where: Israel

-          Why Important: Egyptian Israeli Peace, 1981 Operation Opera, 1982 Lebanese War

Yitzhak Shamir

Yitzhak Shamir was the Prime Minister of Israel from 1983 to 1984, after the resignation of Menachem Begin and again, in a national unity government, from 1986 to 1992.  He was a member of the Likud party and was known as a fairly hard liner.  The national unity government came out of the 1984 elections and it was formed with Labor’s Shamon Peres; during the period from 1984-1986 he served as the foreign minister.  It was under his tenure as PM that the first intifada broke out in December of 1987 with which he dealt with an iron fist; something that did not reflect well on Israel in the world media.  In 1989 Shamir put forth the “Shamir Plan” which called for Palestinian autonomy under Israeli rule, however, there would be no Israeli withdrawal from the land. This plan was rejected by the Palestinians who saw it as a slap in the face (they had recently been very forthcoming; Yasser Arafat renounced terrorism in Geneva in ’88). During Operation Desert Storm, Shamir refrained from retaliating against Iraq for the missiles lobbed into his territory, an action which allowed the coalition of Western and Arab forces to remain intact and which was greatly appreciated by Bush. However, right before the ’92 Israeli elections, Shamir asked the US government for $10 billion in loan guarantees. Bush I, who was already miffed about Shamir’s reluctance to participate in Madrid, refused to give up the money unless he could be assured that it would not be used for settlement activity in the occupied territories (i.e. you must stop all settlements). Shamir refused to do this and therefore went into the elections looking like he had alienated the United States and he hadn’t gotten the money; Washington was backing Labor. He was defeated by Yitzhak Rabin in the ’92 elections.

-          Who: Prime Minister of Israel (Likud) 1983-84 and 1986-1992

-          When: 1983-84 and 1986-1992

-          Where: Israel

-          Why Important: Was PM during the first intifada, refrained from action during Desert Storm; put forth the Shamir plan

Ariel Sharon

Ariel Sharon was a famous Israeli military commander and Prime Minister between 2001 and 2006.  As Defense Minister during the 1982 Lebanese War, and is known as the architect of the invasion. Though it was first represented as a war to expel the PLO, it later became apparent that Sharon had a bigger goal, transforming the Middle East, starting with Lebanon. He wanted to put a friendly group in power (Bashir Gemayel) and get rid of the Syrians. He was also found to bear personal, indirect responsibility for the massacres at the Sabra and Shatilia refugee camps; however, he was able to come back in Israeli politics.   He also played the role of the spark in the 2000 intifada when he visited the Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount) with a contingent of about 100 police officers. He was elected Prime Minister in 2001 as a member of the Likud party. However, he began to move his country toward the center and in 2002, indicated support for a two state solution, later unilaterally withdrawing Israeli forces and settlements from Gaza and four settlements from the West Bank.  These moves were primarily aimed at providing greater security for Israel and taken unilaterally because he did not think that negotiations could work; he started the security fence between Palestinian territories and Israel.  These moves were disorienting as they moved in the direction the Palestinians wanted, but without negotiations, the Palestinians were left out of the process and had no say in what happened. In 2005 he left Likud to create the centrist Kadima (forward) party, however, he suffered a stroke in 2006 and remains in a vegetative state. Bush II had a fairly good opinion of Sharon and was content to let him do whatever he wanted as Prime Minister.

-          Who: Defense Minister During Lebanese War; Prime Minister from 2001 to 2006

-          When: PM from 2001-2006

-          Where: Israel

-          Why Important: Sabra and Shatila, Second Intifada spark, unilateral withdrawal from West Bank and Gaza, formation of Kadima

Likud Party

Likud is one of the biggest parties in Israel; it is more right leaning and hawkish than parties like Labor.  Many of its more notable members believe that the settlement of the land of Judea and Samaria is the right and duty of the Jewish people.   They are much less willing to compromise given the belief of many members in the indivisibility of biblical Israel and Washington has generally liked to deal with Labor more than Likud in regard to the peace process. They came to power for the first time in the electoral revolution of 1977, which saw the first time a party other than Labor had been in power.  Some of their more famous members include Begin, Shamir, Sharon (who split off to form Kadima) and Netanyahu, who is the current Prime Minister.

-          What: Center-right party in Israel

-          When: Formed in 1973 by Menachem Begin – first came to power in 1977

-          Where: Israel

-          Why Important: They are less willing to compromise than Labor, Washington likes Labor better for the peace process, many members believe in the importance of biblical Palestine, they are currently in power with Bibi Netanyahu 

Yasser Arafat

Yasser Arafat was one of the most important figures in the Palestinian movement and eventually became recognized as the sole representative of the Palestinian people.  During his tenure he held many roles; he founded Fatah in the late 1950s, was chairman of the PLO between 1969 and 2004, and was President of the Palestinian National Authority between 1996 and 2004. He fought for a Palestinian state with the belief, after the Arab defeat in the 1967 war, that the Palestinians had to liberate themselves.  Early in his career he was opposed to Israel’s existence; however, during the PLO’s exile in Tunis he became aware of the importance of the Palestinians left under occupation and modified his positions to reflect their needs. Therefore, he gave up the ideal of destroying Israel and concentrated on ending the occupation.  In a 1988 speech in Geneva, in an effort to meet the requirements that would get the United States to work with him, he renounced terrorism and accepted Israel’s right to exist (i.e. Resolution 242). This was an important moment because it was the beginning of the US relationship with the PLO.  After this Arafat was allowed to participate in the peace process to some extent and his involvement with the process increased again once he and Rabin signed the Oslo Accords which in which each recognized the other (i.e.  Israel recognized the PLO).  Yasser Arafat participated in the 1993 Oslo Accords and the 2000 Camp David Summit.  However, during the last years of his life, he was basically confined to his Ramallah compound as the Israelis cracked down. He was an extremely controversial figure in his time. He was criticized for his use of terrorism, the corruption in his organization, and his support of Saddam when Iraq invaded Kuwait. He died in 2004 (which gave some people a sense of release because he was seen as an obstacle to peace by many people)

-          Who: Chairman of the PLO (1969-2004) and President of the PNA (1996-2004)

-          When: Fatah founded in the 50s, Chairman of PLO  between 1969 and 2004 and President of the PNA 1996-2004 – d. 2004 (Paris)

-          Where: West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon, Tunis, Ramallah

-          Why Important: founder of Fatah, PLO chairman, President of the PNA – seen as a obstacle to peace by many people, but that may have been unfair. 

The PLO

The Palestine Liberation Organization was founded in 1964 by the Arab League to work for the Palestinian people. Yasser Arafat became the chairman of the organization in 1969 and led it until his death in 2004. It has been accused of engaging in terrorist activities and during its periods in Jordan and Lebanon, it basically established a state within a state.  It was recognized by the UN in 1974 and given observer status. In the same year, the Arab League recognized the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and in 1967 the PLO became a member of the Arab League.  In 1988, Yasser Arafat renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist (Resolution 242), an event which led to an opening of US relations with the PLO. In 1993, in the Oslo accords, Israel recognized the PLO’s legitimacy.  The current chairman of the PLO is Mahmud Abbas (Abu Mazin), however, the PLO has been accused of corruption and the view that its leaders are only looking out for their own bank accounts.

-          What: Palestine Liberation Organization

-          When: Founded in 1964 by the Arab League – Given observer status in the UN and recognized as the sole legitimate representative by the Arab League in 1974 – Recognized by Israel in 1993 with the Oslo Accords

-          Where: Israel, West Bank, Gaza (Hamas there now), Jordan, Tunis, Ramallah

-          Why Important: Seen by many countries as sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.  

1982 War in Lebanon

The1982 war was touted as a war of choice by then Prime Minister Menachem Begin.  The ostensible reason the Israelis went into Lebanon was to expel the PLO from the South, however, people such as Ariel Sharon had a bigger plan in mind. Sharon and Begin wanted to transform the Middle East by placing a government friendly to Israel (that of Marionite Christian Bashir Gemayal and the Phalange party) and kicking Syria out of Lebanon. This had the dual appeal of getting Israel peace with another Arab country and weakening Syria (which the US liked because Syria was supported by the USSR).  However, Israel probably would not have engaged in the 1982 war if they had not first made peace with Egypt. Freedom from the Egyptian threat allowed the Israelis up to go into Lebanon.  Secretary of State Alexander Haig had said that the US would only understand a military move in response to an “internationally recognized provocation”; this may have encouraged the Israelis to find one.  The attempted assassination of the Israeli ambassador to Britain, although the attempt was carried out by rival to the PLO, was used as a justification. Many have accused Ariel Sharon of leading the Israeli cabinet to believe that Operation Peace for Galilee was going to be similar to the 1978 Operation Litani (i.e. fairly small in scope).  Israel’s escapade into Lebanon did not go well and there were an extremely high number of civilian casualties, especially after the Israelis started to bomb Beirut to get at Arafat and the PLO. Eventually a multi-national force was formed in order to escort the PLO out of Beirut, they relocated to Tunis after being promised that the Palestinians who remained would be protected.  This seemed to fit with Israeli objectives, especially since Bashir Gemayel was elected to the Presidency on August 23^rd. However, Gamayel was assassinated in September which caused his Phalange party to seek revenge; they went after the Palestinian refugee camps which had nothing to fight back with since the PLO had left for Tunis and the MNF had already left as well. The Israelis cast a blind eye to the massacres, and leaders such as Ariel Sharon were found to be indirectly responsible. Sharon resigned as defense minister and Begin resigned as PM in 1983.  Later, under increasing violence the MNF would withdraw in 1984 (and Israel would pull back to its security zone in the south in 1985, only fully withdrawing in 2000.  Hezbollah, which has close ties to Iran and Syria, has its origins in this war as resistance movement against the Israeli forces; this is important because instead of the war dislodging Syrian power from Lebanon, it strengthened it and Iran was now closer to Israel than ever before.  Another thing the war did was cause Israelis to think about their identity, as they now perceived themselves to be the aggressor in the war.

-          What: War initiated by Israel in order to get the PLO out of southern Lebanon

-          When: Started 1982 – Israelis withdrew to security zone in 1985 and pulled completely out by 2000

-          Where: Lebanon

-          Why Important: This war probably would not have occurred had Israel not made peace with Egypt. Many people died (civilians in bombing; Sabra and Shatilia); Made Israel look bad; the withdrawal of the MNF made Saddam think that the Americans could not stand up to high casualties; beginnings of Hezbollah (Syria and Iran have great influence in Lebanon through Hezbollah)

Alexander Haig

Alexander Haig was the Secretary of State under Reagan from 1981 to 1982; he was replaced by George P. Shultz.  He is probably most remembered for his role in the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. He had repeatedly told the Israelis that the US would only support military action in the fact of an “internationally recognized provocation”, though he left this open to interpretation, many Israelis saw this as a green light – an accusation Haig has denied.  The Israelis found their provocation in the form of an assassination attempt on the Israeli ambassador in London by the Abu Nidal group. Although this group was a rival of Arafat’s, Israel used this even to strike at the PLO in Southern Lebanon. During the course of the early stages of the war, Haig urged the President to allow the Israelis free regain to get rid of the PLO while Vice President Bush, his Chief of Staff James Baker and Secretary of Defense Weinberger believed that Israel needed to be reined in.  Reagan followed the advice of the latter, which miffed Haig who eventually left to be replaced with George P. Schultz.

-          Who: Secretary of State between 1981-82

-          When: 1981 to 1982

-          Where: United States

-          Why Important: He was fairly pro-Israeli, is accused of giving the Israelis a “green light” when he told them the US would understand a military response to a “internationally recognized provocation”, he supported the idea of giving the Israelis free reign in Lebanon to deal with the PLO – when the President disagreed, Haig left the administration – replaced with George P. Shultz.

George P. Shultz 

Shultz was the Secretary of State under Reagan between 1982 and 1989 he replaced Reagan’s first Secretary of State, Alexander Haig.  Shultz was thought to be more on the pro-Arab side and the Israelis felt they had lost an important friend in Haig. He supported a resumption of peace diplomacy, even though the conflict in Lebanon was still going on, and was integral in the promulgation of the Reagan plan. However, the resumption of violence after the assassination of Bashir Gemayel disrupted the peace process.  He was also part of the negotiations that brought the May 17 (1983) agreement and was integral to ensuring the Israelis kept their end of the deal, even though Amine Gemayel abrogated the agreement. In response to the first intifada, the Shultz initiative was promulgated; it wanted to have direct, bilateral negotiations between countries. There was also the idea of interlock, which the Israelis rejected and I don’t undestand, however, it did not meet with much success in the international arena and it completely collapsed after Hussein announced in 1988 that he was renouncing any claim to the West Bank (the Palestinians and Jordanians were supposed to be a joint delegation).  After King Hussein said announced that he had given up any claim to the West Bank in 1988, Shultz reached out to Yasser Arafat and the PLO, and using shuttle diplomacy, was finally able to wrestle the right words out of Arafat in a speech in Geneva which renounced terrorism and accepted Israel; this allowed Shultz to establish a dialog with the PLO which was picked up by the next administration later leading to the 1991 Madrid conference under the Bush administration.  Shultz along with Secretary of Defense Weinberger were opposed to the sale of arms to Iran in return for the release of hostages in Lebanon.

-          Who: Secretary of State between 1982 and 1989 under Reagan

-          When: 1982-1989

-          Where: USA

-          Why Important: He was seen as more pro-Arab than his predecessors; Shultz initiative and he was able to start a dialog with the PLO after Arafat’s 1988 speech; Shultz dominated the Arab-Israeli arena during the Reagan Presidency 

Caspar Weinberger

Caspar Weinberger was the Secretary of Defense under Reagan between 1981 and 1987. He was a staunch anti-Soviet During the 1982 Lebanese war he wanted to rein Israel in and in 1984 he persuaded the President to withdraw American troops, a move Secretary of State Shultz had opposed. He was also against selling arms to Iran to fund the Contras and on this, unlike most other things, he and Shultz agreed.  They also saw eye to eye on the Kuwaiti re-flagging operation, which was seen as a chance to restore American credit with the Arabs after the Iran-Contra crisis.

-          Who: Secretary of Defense under Reagan between 1981 and 1987

-          When: 1981 to 1987

-          Where: USA

-          Why Important: He was opposed to selling arms to Iran and he was for the re-flagging operation. He and Shultz regularly clashed.

Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan was President between 1981 and 1989. He was not as interested in the gritty details of policy and was content to set board policy guidelines and allow his staff to work out the interpretation. He was intensely anti-communist and tended to see the world through the lens of the Cold War.  Reagan was extremely pro-Israeli, however, his administration was not afraid to criticize Israel. During the 1982 Lebanon War (the footage of the bombing of Beirut profoundly affected the President) Reagan sent one of the sternest letters an American president has ever sent an Israeli Prime Minister.  He was also involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, although he claimed he had not known what was going on

-          Who: President of the USA 1981-1989

-          When: 1981-1989

-          Where: USA

-          Why Important: …

Reagan Plan of September 1982

The Reagan plan, to which Secretary of State Shultz was integral, was aimed at reinvigorating the Camp David process by circumventing the PLO, which was in the process of withdrawing from Lebanon, and drawing on the power of moderate Arab states such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The plan called for Palestinian self government (not state-hood) in confederation with Jordan and negotiations with Palestinians who were not members of the PLO; this was acceptable to the Israelis, however, Reagan also wanted a freeze on settlements and full Palestinian autonomy, and this was not in line with Israeli interests; Begin did not like the plan at all.  The Arabs were interested in the plan, but were not happy with the plan because the PLO was excluded from it (Syria was completely against it and saw it as a threat). Both the Arabs and the Israelis rejected the plan.  Soon after the Reagan plan was shot down, the Arabs proposed the Fez plan. The Fez plan called for the Israeli withdrawal of territories occupied in the 1967 war, including East Jerusalem, the removal of Jewish settlements from the territories, and the establishment of an independent state led by the PLO.  The Fez plan was basically a revamped version of the Fahd plan which had been proposed the previous year, and which was based on 242 (i.e. basically recognition of Israel), however, the Fahd plan had gone nowhere and neither did the Fez plan. One of the reasons these plans never got any further attention was the eruption of violence in Lebanon. Reagan talked about the fact that the imbroglio in Lebanon would have to be dealt with before the Palestinian-Israeli peace track could be explored; this gave an incentive to parties who did not want to engage in peace, to mess with Lebanon.

-          What: Peace proposal put forward by the Reagan administration in 1982

-          When: 1982

-          Where: Israel,  Palestine, Lebanon

-          Why Important: They tried to capitalize on the withdrawal of the PLO in order to cut them out of the process; however, the proposal included points which were unacceptable to the parties and it failed. Brought the Fez Plan (revamped Fahd Plan) from the Arabs which basically recognized Israel’s right to exist if it withdrew from the territories, however, this plan also failed. And nothing further was really done on Arab-Israeli peace until about 1988.

Bashir Gemayel

Bashir Gemayel was a Lebanese Christian politician and militia commander. He controlled the Phalange party and militia and was “Israel’s man” in Lebanon.  Israel invaded Lebanon with the hope of installing a pro-Israeli government with Bashir at its head and getting rid of Syria. This seemed to have been successful at first as Bashir was elected to the Presidency on August 23, 1982, however, he was assassinated, probably by either Syrian or Palestinian elements, on September 14, 1982. This set off a retributive killing spree among his supporters who massacred the Sabra and Shitila refugee camps in retaliation for Bashir’s assassination.  Amin Gemayel, Bashir’s older but less politically adept brother, took on the presidency in his stead, however, he had no real power and was less inclined to work with the Israelis.

-          Who: Lebanese Christian politician and militia leader of the Phalange party

-          When: Elected President on August 23, 1982 and assassinated on September 14, 1982

-          Where: Lebanon

-          Why Important: The Israelis wanted to install a friendly government to the north and Gemayal was the man to do that. However, his assassination derailed these plans and his brother, who took over after his death, moved towards the Syrians instead of the Israelis.  His assassination sparked the Sabra and Shatila massacres

Phalange Party

The Phalange party is a right-wing, (technically) secular political party and militia which played an important role in the massacres at Sabra and Shatilia and was the party of Bashir Gemayel who was elected to the presidency August 23, 1982 and then assassinated September 14, 1982.  Amine Gamayel then took over the presidency. In response to Bashir’s assassination, the Palangeslists took revenge on the Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatilia refugee camp; killing hundreds while the Israelis turned a blind eye.  In 2005 after the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the Phalange party took part in the March 14 and still plays a role in government today.

-          What: right-wing secular party and militia

-          When: Founded in the 1930s; Bashir was elected in 1982

-          Where: Lebanon

-          Why Important: Party of Bashir Gemayel who was elected to the presidency in 1982 and then assassinated. In response to this , the Phalangists massacred Palestinian refugees at Sabra and Shitila. Today they are part of the March 14 alliance.

Sabra and Shitila Massacres 

After Bashir Gemayel was assassinated in September of 1982, his Phalange party sought revenge. This revenge took the form of the indiscriminate murder of defenseless Palestinians left in the Sabra and Shitila refugee camps.  The phalanglists entered the camps ostensibly to root out PLO terrorists, however, hundreds of innocent refugees perished in the blood bath.  These camps were defenseless because the PLO had left for Tunis and the MNF had already withdrawn.  Although the Phalangelists were the ones who actually carried out the attacks, Israel turned a blind eye to what it knew was going on.  Defense Minister Ariel Sharon was later found to be indirectly responsible for the massacres and was forced to resign although he later was able to bounce back politically eventually becoming Prime Minister in 2001; in 1983 Menachem Begin followed him into retirement.

-          What: Massacre of Palestinian Refugees by the Christian Phalangelists in response to the assassination of Bashir Gemayel

-          Where: Lebanon

-          When: September, 1982

-          Why Important: Caused the death of hundreds of innocent Palestinians and forced the retirement of both Sharon and later Begin who was replaced by Shamir

The May 17, 1983 Israeli-Lebanese Agreement

This agreement (also known as the May 17 agreement) ended the state of war between Israel and Lebanon and provided for Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory, handing over the land to the Lebanese army as they went.  It was brokered by the Regan administration (esp. Shultz) who were proud of the fact that they managed to exclude both Syria and the Soviets, however, Syria fought back against this diplomacy (which along with the Reagan plan, they saw as a threat) and eventually they were able to establish their place within Lebanon (through Hezbollah and other means). Amin Gemayel abrogated the agreement and was traveling to Damascus at Syria’s behest by 1984.

-          What: agreement between Israel and Lebanon (brokered by the Reagan administration)

-          When: 1983

-          Where: Lebanon and Israel

-          Why Important: With the signing of this treaty it seemed as if Washington had accomplished Israel’s objectives diplomatically (i.e. friendly state to the north and getting Syria out), however, with the later abrogation of the agreement by Amine Gemayel, it’s obvious that they accomplished nothing 

Hezbollah

Hezbollah (Party of God) is an Islamic-Shi’a political and military organization which emerged out of the 1982 Lebanese war as a resistance movement to the Israeli invasion. Although the Shiites in southern Lebanon had initially viewed the Israelis as liberators (they hadn’t been too fond of the PLO or the state within a state they were creating) the longer the Israelis stayed the more they came to be viewed as occupiers, this radicalized the community and gave Iran an entrance.  Hezbollah waged a 15 year long guerilla war with Israel until the country finally completely withdrew in 2000. The organization is popularly seen as the only one to have defeated Israel.  During the early 80s, Hezbollah kidnapped many Westerners in Lebanon, prompting the US to sell arms to Iran, who had clout with Hezbollah, in order to get them back. However, this just encouraged the kidnap of more people, given what the US was willing to do to get them back. Within Lebanon they hold seats in the Parliament and have the right to remain armed in order to liberate areas they claim the Israelis still occupy (Shebaa Farms; although the Israelis maintain Shebaa Farms is part of the Golan Heights).  They also engage in social programs which help to build their popularity.  In 2006, after Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and killed eight others, Israel engaged in an intense campaign against the organization in which a great number of civilians were killed and a large amount of damage was done. Hezbollah has close ties to both Syria and Iran.

-          What: Islamic Shi’ia political and military organization

-          When: Founded approx. 1982

-          Where: Lebanon – they almost have a state within a state in the south

-          Why Important: Arose during the 1982 Lebanese war; have close ties with both Syria and Iran; initiated the 2006 Lebanese War; goal is to establish an Islamic state and they are very popular due to their social programs

Hassan Nasrallah

Hassan Nazrallah is the senior political leader of Hezbollah and has been the party’s Secretary General since 1992.  He has become an extremely popular figure in Lebanon and although he does not hold any political office, he is seen as “higher” than the government.  When Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, Nasrallah and Hezbollah were given most of the credit.

-          Who: Political leader of Hezbollah; Secretary General of Hezbollah (1992)

-          When: Secretary General since 1992

-          Where: Lebanon

-          Why Important: He is the leader of Hezbollah an important political and military group within Lebanon and he is extremely popular within the country

First Intifada

The Intifada, which began in December 1987 and lasted until 1991, was a popular uprising against the occupation within the West Bank and Gaza strip.  The spark was the death of four Palestinians in a road accident involving an Israeli military vehicle (Dec 9, 1987), although the primary reason behind the uprising was the frustration with the impotence of the PLO and the difficulty of life under occupation; something which was made even worse under Yitzhak Shamir’s Likud government (PM 1986-1992), which accelerated settlement construction and made even basic activities difficult.  The media attention had the effect of shifting American public opinion toward a more positive and sympathetic view of the Palestinians, especially since the weapon of choice was civil disobedience or rocks which paled in comparison to Israeli military might.  The PLO and Yasser Arafat based in Tunis were given legitimacy and a new life by the intifada.  Because the intifada, the PLO began to concentrate more the Palestinians under occupation and therefore shifted their focus from destroying Israel to ending the occupation and forming a Palestinian state. Therefore, in 1988 so the PLO could talk to the United States, Yasser Arafat met US conditions and renounced terrorism, accepted Israel’s right to exist and accepted 242.  Although these were major steps, the intifada is generally thought to have failed because it brought nothing substantial to the Palestinians and Arafat was compelled to give up his biggest bargaining chips (i.e. recognition of Israel) without getting anything in return

-          What: Palestinian uprising against the Israeli occupation (December 1987 to 1991)

-          When: December 1987 to 1991 (some dates extend further than ’91)

-          Where: Israel, West Bank, Gaza

-          Why Important: Caused the deaths of many Palestinians and Israelis, changed the world’s view (especially in the US) of the Palestinian cause – they were seen as victims, revived the PLO, lead to the 1988 speech in which Arafat renounced terrorism and accepted 242. However, it is generally thought to have been a failure since the Palestinians received nothing substantial

Second Intifada

The second intifada, also known as the al-Aqsa intifada, started in 2000 and lasted until 2006. The spark was Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount) surrounded by thousands of security guards. Although this was not the primary reason behind the outbreak of violence, this type of move in such a highly charged environment after the failure of the 2000 Camp David Accords was incredibly stupid (he did it for political reasons); Arafat had even warned Barak that it was not a smart move, but Barak said his hands were tied. Rioting broke out almost immediately after his visit to Islam’s third holiest site. This intifada, unlike the last one, did not rely primarily on civil demonstration and rocks; this pushed the death toll higher and higher. Lesch says that the primary reason behind the intifada was the pent up frustration on both sides.  The Oslo process had not brought the Palestinians a better life and an independent state seemed very far away, the PLO seemed corrupt and interested only in its own gain, and Palestinians had lost hope in the peace process and were turning toward more aggressive tactics. Many on the Israeli side had come to believe that the Palestinians understood only force and they believed that striking back hard in the beginning would ensure the violence did not linger on.  The violence spun out of control.  During this period, Ariel Sharon came to power and he started the unilateral withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza (completed in 2005) and he began the construction of the security fence which divides Palestinian territories from Israel. The outbreak of violence greatly undermined the peace movement as well.

-          What: Palestinian uprising based on pent up frustration

-          When: 2000 to about 2006

-          Where: Israel, West Bank, Gaza

-          Why Important: caused the death of over 5,500 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis, this undermined the peace movement, Ariel Sharon started the disengagement from Gaza and the security fence.

King Hussein of Jordan

King Hussein was the King of Jordan between 1952 and 1999; he was generally thought to be one of the more moderate Arab leaders and he maintained a good relationship with the US and before the Jordanian-Israeli peace in 1994, even had secret dealings with Tel Aviv.  He participated in the 1967 war against Israel and lost the West Bank and East Jerusalem to Israeli control; he participated in this war even though he knew that he probably could not win because the choice was either losing a war or being overthrown by his predominantly Palestinian population.  During his reign he struggled with the PLO and the Palestinian population within his borders.  During the 70s the PLO established a state within a state in Jordan, but they were expelled after Black September (they moved into Lebanon).  In 1988, King Hussein gave up Jordan’s claim on the West Bank, although the Arab League had recognized the PLO as the “sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people” in 1974, King Hussein’s move effectively removed the “Jordan Option” (which both Israel and the US favored) from the table for good; this set the stage for the PLO’s future involvement in peace negotiations and an independent Palestinian state. During the 1991 Gulf War when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Hussein was one of the few Arab leaders who supported Saddam (the other was Yasser Arafat). King Hussein did this because Jordan was extremely economically dependent on Iraq. In 1994, when progress was being made on the Oslo Accords, King Hussein was finally able to make peace with Israel. Previous to this, his hands had been tied because he had not wanted to look like he was going too far out in front of the Palestinians; he had to wait for progress on that front before he could progress on his own track.

-          Who: King of Jordan between 1952 and 1999

-          When: Reigned between 1952 and 1999

-          Where: The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

-          Why Important: He was seen as one of the more moderate Arab Leaders; participated in the 1967 War (so he would not be overthrown), gave up Jordanian claim to the West Bank, supported Saddam during Gulf War I, made peace with Israel in 1994

Abdallah II of Jordan

King Abudllah II is the current King of Jordan, having taken over the post in 1999 after the death of his father, King Hussein.  He has begun the process of liberalizing the country and his indicated his intent to move the country towards democracy and a freer press, however, there have been setbacks on this front given that he has postponed elections and dissolved the parliament.  He is involved in the peace process and tried to help to impose a cease fire during the 2006 Lebanese war.  He has a really cute kid.

-          Who: Current King of Jordan (since 1999)

-          When: King since the death of his father in 1999

-          Where: Jordan

-          Why Important: He has a progressive program and is interested in moving his country toward a freer press and a more democratic system. He has also involved himself in the peace process.

Iran Contra Crisis and Oliver North

The Iran-Contra crisis refers to the secret negotiations that took place between the Reagan administration and the Islamic Republic of Iran between 1984 and 1986. This was during the Iran-Iraq war and during a period in which the US was engaged in Operation Staunch which was aimed at preventing other countries from re-selling US arms to Iran. The negotiations led to the sale of American arms and intelligence to Iran, first through Israel and then directly. The profits from these sales were used to fund the Contras in Nicaragua in their fight against the Sadinistra regime; direct support for the Contras was prohibited by Congress at the time. In return for these favors, Iran was supposed to attempt to secure the release of American hostages in Lebanon through their influence with groups like Hezbollah. The relationship ended when it became public in a 1986 in a Lebanese magazine.  This reflected very badly on the administration and taught the Iraqis that they could not trust expressions of good will from Washington (toward whom the US was tilting at the time) and angered other Arab states who feared the Iranian ideological message.  Within the administration, Sec. of State Shultz and Defense Secretary Weinberger were against the idea, however, Reagan was very concerned about the hostages and how his inability to rescue them reflected on his image so he was in favor of the idea. He also seemed to have the idea that the arms sent to Iran would end up in the hands of the moderates within the army instead of the extremists.  Oliver North, an NSC staffer, was the architect behind the operation and after the scandal broke he was fired. The scandal caused a great deal of political harm to the administration and generally caused power to revert to the Secretary of State and Defense who had been opposed to the idea and strongly supported a tilting toward Iraq.

-          What: Negotiations with Iran to sell arms in return for help releasing hostages in Lebanon

-          Who: Reagan administration – Oliver North

-          When: 1984 to 1986

-          Where:  Iran, United States, Nicaragua

-          Why Important: Caused political harm to the administration, power to tilt toward Shultz and Weinberger, and a more intense commitment to Iraq and other Arab governments

Tilting to Iraq 

Though the United States was initially fairly natural in the Iran-Iraq war, it began to tilt toward Iraq around 1982 and by 1984 full diplomatic relations between the US and Iraq had been restored.  Part of the reason the US tilted toward Iraq was because of Iran’s extremist ideology and the psychological effect of the hostage crisis as well as the fact that most Arab states were supporting Iraq.  During the US tilt toward Iraq, the country was taken off the list of countries supporting terrorism, was given wheat credits, and dual-use goods were sold to the country.  However, at the same time the US was tilting toward Iraq, it was selling arms to Iran in the Iran-contra scandal (1984-86).  After the crisis broke, the US went out of its way to forge closer relations with Iraq and other Arab countries.  The Iraqi attack on the USS Stark in 1987 and the US acceptance of the Iraqi apology and explanation of pilot error demonstrates the US commitment to Iraq. Only two days after the attack, the US finalized its re-flagging agreement with Kuwait.  The US also basically got involved in a low level naval war with Iran. Also, Constructive Engagement.

-          What: US support for Iraq in the Iran –Iraq war

-          When: started in 1982, diplomatic relations were re-established in 1984; solidified in 1987 with the USS Stark Attack

-          Where: US, Iran, Persian Gulf

-          Why Important: Showed the US commitment to Iraq and the Arab states and US movement away from Iran.

Reflagging tankers to Kuwait

In 1986 Kuwait asked both the US and USSR for assistance in protecting its shipping (which Iran had been attacking since Kuwait was an ally of Iraq).  Primarily because the US wanted to prevent Soviet influence in the Gulf region and because we had tilted toward Iraq, we had agreed to place American flags on Kuwaiti tankers by 1987. This required us to deploy a large naval force to the Persian Gulf and precipitated the low-level war at sea we engage in with Iran.  This was an example of the Carter doctrine at work i.e. the extension of containment to the Persian Gulf and the promise to use force if necessary (Reagan was President at the time). And it was also an example of our commitment to Iraq – low level naval warfare

-          What: US put US flag on Kuwaiti tankers and protected them

-          When: Iran-Iraq war; deal finalized in 1987 (Kuwait first asked in 1986)

-          Where: Persian Gulf

-          Why Important: Demonstrated the hold Cold War strategy still had on the US. One of our prime motivations was to prevent Soviet influence in the Gulf. We also did this to prove our commitment to the region after the Iran-contra affair 

Desert Shield and Desert Storm, 1990 and 1991 (i.e. Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and First Gulf War)

Desert Shield and Desert Storm refer to the operations in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.  Saddam had hoped that the Iran-Iraq war would cement his leadership of the region; however, after the war Arab states did not feel the need to get cozy with Baghdad now that the Iranian threat had been neutralized.  Directly after the Iran-Iraq war, it did not seem that Saddam was interested in stirring up the region; he generally tried to maintain good relations with his Arab neighbors and the US.  However, by 1990 Saddam came to believe that his regime was being threatened both internally and externally and he believed he had to act quickly (he invaded Kuwait before he had nukes).  He accused the Gulf States of conducting economic warfare against Iraq by violating their OPEC quota, he accused Kuwait of slant drilling Iraqi oil, and he was angry Kuwait would not forgive Iraqi debts accrued during the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq has also historically maintained a claim on Kuwait as its “19^th province”.  Saddam also probably thought that he could get away with it. He believed that the US was still hamstrung from its experiences in Vietnam and that we were incredibly adverse to high casualties (an idea he got from our withdrawal from Lebanon).  Although tensions were rising in the Gulf area, Saddam assured the US through Ambassador April Glaspie although some have accused the Ambassador of being too accommodating towards Saddam. Saddam made many moves in the days leading up to the invasion which indicated an intention to defuse the crisis; therefore, the US (and most of the rest of the world) was very surprised when Saddam invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990 (although he had been amassing troops on the border for a while).  Desert Shield was launched almost immediately after the invasion of Kuwait in order to ensure Saddam did not continue his march by entering Saudi Arabia. By doing this, he would have had control over an extremely large portion of the world oil supply.  We went in on a purely defensive mission at the behest of the Saudi government.  The UN roundly condemned Iraq and the Security Council basically began to function the way it was meant to now that the Cold War was basically over. The United States also went about building an international coalition to repel Saddam.  This coalition included both Western and Middle Eastern states.  The coalition included Syria, which was important because it made it seem like the entire Arab world was against Saddam.  Jordan on the other hand, supported Iraq because it was bound to the country economically. Iran also ended up tilting toward the coalition in what Parsi calls positive neutrality.  Between August 2, 1990 and January 17, 1991 when air attacks against Saddam started, the US was trying to drum up support for the coalition and the war while Iraq was trying to discourage action.  After this point the war went fairly quickly with relatively few casualties on the American/ coalition side.  Iraq was quickly defeated through a combination of air attack and huge troop numbers (Powell Doctrine). At the end of the war came the controversial US decision to allow Saddam to stay in power. This was justified by the fact that the US was worried about getting bogged down in Iraq. However, the US was hoping that Saddam would get taken out at that point because his regime was weak and in ’91 there were Shiite and Kurdish uprisings in the North and South; they believed that the US would help them… but we did not. These uprisings were brutally repressed by Saddam and he had the 90s to catch his breath and regroup. Later no fly zones were established in the north and the south and in 1992, the Kurds established an autonomous region in the north.  Another important thing to think about is the effect the presence of American troops had on Osama bin Laden (the Presence of Americans in the two Holy Places – He thought this was really bad)

-          What: Military campaigns against Iraq in response to the invasion of Kuwait

-          When: Iran invaded Kuwait on Aug 2, 1990

-          Where: Iraq, Kuqwait, Saudi Arabia

-          Why Important: Duh after the operations were through sanctions were placed on Iraq and he had to open his country up to inspectors

Constructive Engagement

The United States ignored many of Iraq’s reprehensible actions in an attempt to form a positive relationship with the country and to ultimately moderate the Iraqi leader.  This was part of the reason that the US did not realize what Saddam was planning for Kuwait. 

Dual Containment

After the Gulf War and the defeat of Iraq, the United States decided that it no longer needed to pursue a balance of power policy by playing Iran and Iraq off each other, because the US was strong enough to balance both countries by itself.  It was hoped that containment of these two states might bring about regime change or at least moderate their governments.

The Madrid Conference October-November 1991

After the Gulf War there was the expectation that the US would start up the peace process again, which it did in the form of the 1991 Madrid conference.  The conference was co-sponsored by the US and the USSR, although the US clearly had more power.  The Participants included Syria, Lebanon, Jordan (with a Palestinian contingent).  PM Shamir was not enthused about the conference and while he was there he was not really willing to go further than the Shamir plan (Palestinian autonomy with limited self rule; no Israeli withdrawal); this miffed the Bush administration which then decided to hold back the loan guarantees Shamir had asked for (in order to settle Soviet Jews) until Shamir halted settlements in occupied territories (so the US could be sure the money was not being used to build settlements). Shamir refused to these conditions and as a result both could not help the new immigrants to Israel and looked like he was alienating Israel’s biggest supporter. He lost the next election to Labor’s Ytizhak Rabin (which suited the US just fine).   The conference was organized along bilateral and multilateral lines; this had some appeal to both sides who felt their strengths lay in one or the other.   The PLO was not allowed to attend, however, a non-PLO delegation was sent along with the Jordanians. The conference was important because it was the first time that Israel engaged in bilateral negotiations with Arab states and the Palestinians. Although the talks did not produce any substantive agreements, a framework was established and barriers were broken as the taboo of negotiating with Israel started to dissipate.  Israel also gained recognition by many states that had previously withheld it.

-          What: Arab-Israeli peace conference

-          Who: Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Joint Palestinian-Jordanian delegation

-          When: 1991 (lasted three days)

-          Where: Madrid, Spain

-          Why Important: This was the first time Israel had talked to the Arab states and the Palestinians in bilateral negotiations. It established a framework for peace for the coming period. Started off future negotiations 

Hafiz al-Assad

Hafiz al-Assad was the President of Syria between 1971 and 2000 when he was succeeded by his son Bashir.  He was a member of the Ba’ath party, however, his relations with Iraq, which also had the Ba’athists in power, were so strained that Syria supported Iran in the Iran-Iraq war and the international coalition led by America in the Gulf War.  He participated in the 1973 War along with Sadat against Israel.  During the latter part of Assad’s reign (90s) he began talks with Israel in order to get the Golan Heights back, which had been lost in the 1967 war. However, these talks repeatedly broke down and Israel and Syria were unable to come to an agreement before Assad died in 2000.  In 1991 he participated in the international coalition to repel Iraq; this greatly improved Syria’s standing within the international community. However, since the Bush II administration, Syria’s relationship with the West has declined.

-          Who:  President of Syria between 1971 and 2000.

-          When: 1971-2000

-          Where: Syria

-          Why Important: He was an extremely influential leader and he stuck his head into everything. He engaged in peace talks with Israel in the 90s, however, these did not produce anything and he died before an agreement could be reached

Bashar al-Assad

Bashar al-Assad is the current President of Syria, having taken over for his father after his death in 2000.  It was thought that Syria might liberalize under the younger Assad, but after a short period of liberalization, the regime has cracked down again. At this point there has been very little forward movement on the peace front, especially considering the position the US takes toward Syria these days.

-          Who: Current President of Syria (2000 – present)

-          When: 2000 to present

-          Where: Syria

-          Why Important:

The Oslo Accords, September 1993

The Oslo Accords were a series of direct talks between the PLO and the Israeli government which occurred under auspices of the Norwegian government, the United States was only later invited to endorse the accords. These talks were one of the biggest factors that led to Camp David and were also extremely important because Israel recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and Arafat recognized Israel’s right to exist. The initiative concentrated on a progressive handover of territory to the Palestinians, the establishment of an interim Palestinian government to govern the territory, and during the five year period the accords were to be implemented, the two sides were supposed to talk about all the tricky subjects (Jerusalem, borders, refugees, etc)—the unstated implication of the accords was that a Palestinian state should be established.  The Accords, officially called the Declaration of Principles, were signed on September 13, 1993 (famous picture of Rabin and Arafat shaking hands). The accords were supposed to work as a framework for future negotiations and relied on confidence building measures, i.e. each side makes sure the other will come through on some small part before moving on, however, this failed and by the end of the five year transitional period, Arafat had nothing to show his people in the way of progress.

-          What: Direct talks between Israel and the PLO

-          Who: Rabin, Peres, Yossi Beilin, Arafat, Abu Mazin, Clinton

-          When: 1993

-          Where: Oslo, Norway

-          Why Important: The talks were primarily important because Israel recognized the PLO’s right to represent the Palestinian people.  These talks lead to camp David in 2000. The implication of the accords was that a Palestinian state would be established, however, at the end of the five year transitional period, Arafat had nothing to show his people. The failure of Oslo and the Camp David were part of the reason behind the second intifada.

Sheperdstown, the Geneva Summit (May 2000) and the June 1967 line

In January of 2000 Barak meet with a Syrian delegation including the Syrian Foreign Minister at Sheperdstown. A great deal of progress was made, building on the work that had been done between ’94 and ’96, however no agreement was reached.  Dennis Ross stated that the Israeli delegation was more at fault than the Syrian one for the failure of the talks as the Syrians were extremely flexible.  During the talks, there was a leak of the working draft, probably by Barak himself who was worried about his poll numbers, which caused the Syrians to step back from the negotiating table because it showed that he had gone extremely far without the requisite returns.

Later that same year (2000) Clinton met with the ailing Assad in Geneva, apparently with the belief that Assad would accept something less than the June 4, 1967 lines.  The Syrians had been told that they were going to get the June 4 lines and when Clinton told them what Barak’s real proposal was, it was rejected.  We are unsure what actually happened, but it seems that Barak may have wanted to say they were withdrawing to the June 4 lines, when they were actually not.  The June 4 lines were extremely important to Assad given that they would give Syria access to the Sea of Galilee and because he believed that he should get just as much or more than Sadat who had gotten full withdrawal from the Sinai.  The Israelis, on the other hand, wanted to give Assad the 1923 lines because that was what mandate Palestine had been – the extra land was gained in the 1948 campaign.  Soon after the Geneva summit, Assad died and power passed to his son, Bashir, effectively ending the Syrian track for the near future.

-          What: Meetings and Summits between regarding the Israel-Syria conflict

-          When: 2000

-          Where: Shepardstown, USA and Genevea, Switzerland

-          Why Important: At Shepardstown the Syrians were prepared to make important concessions, but a leaked draft ended that, the Geneva summit was the last chance but because of misunderstandings the track ended, the 1967 lines were important to Assad; he wanted the entire thing.

Camp David II

Camp David II was an Isreali-Palestinian peace summit which occurred under the Clinton administration in 2000. The parties involved were PM Ehud Barak, Yasser Arafat, and Bill Clinton.  Though the Clinton administration tried to imitate Camp David I, there were many differences between the two summits. The participants of Camp David II were all fairly weak positions. Before coming to the summit, Arafat had expressed concern that they would fail because of lack of preparation. Clinton promised him that he would not blame Arafat if the talks failed.  However, the issues the negotiators dealt with were extremely difficult as they were “final issues” since neither party seemed inclined to want to work for an interim agreement. Barak’s tactic during the negotiations was to create a pressure cooker atmosphere, by which he would try to force Arafat to make concessions.  Near the end of the summit, Clinton finally forced Barak to put forth constructive proposal, which was greeted with some interest on the Palestinian side, but ultimately rejected. After the end of the summit, Clinton made it clear that he thought the Israelis had been more flexible, thereby fulfilling Arafat’s fear that he would be blamed for the summit’s failure.

-          What: Israeli-Palestinian Peace Summit

-          Who: Ehud Barak, Yasser Arafat, Bill Clinton

-          When: 2000

-          Where: Camp David, USA

-          Why Important: little preparation, Arafat blamed for failure, possible contributor to the 2^nd intifada

The Clinton Parameters

The Clinton Parameters was a proposal Clinton made to the Barak and Arafat in December of 2000 which was a last ditch effort to get something together. He proposed that 95% of the West Bank be made into a Palestinian state and that some parts of Israel proper be incorporated to make up for the lost territory, a complicated something for the sacred areas, a two state solution with the right of return for Palestinian refugees to the new Palestinian state along with other choices.  Barak accepted the plan on the condition that Arafat did as well; however, Arafat was less forthcoming and objected on a few points – he was also worried about new administrations in both Israel and the US. This, Clinton felt, was a rejection of his plan and this basically ended the discussions. Though later on there were some discussions at Taba which used the Clinton Plan as a basis for discussion and which seemed to have worked through a number of issues, although no formal agreements were made.

-          What: Last ditch effort by Clinton to establish his legacy

-          When: December 2000

-          Where: US

-          Why Important: Last effort to establish his legacy, it was a fairly good plan, but the timing was all wrong, nothing we ever agreed to in finality

Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazin)

Mahmoud Abbas is the current President of the Palestinian Authority since 2005 and the Chairman of the PLO since 2004.  He also served as Prime  Minister for a period in 2003. He is generally seen as more moderate than Arafat and though a member of the old guard of Fatah, his renunciation of terrorism is generally believed. After the 2006 elections, in which Hamas came out on top, he was compelled to take on a Prime Minister from Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh. In 2007 Abbas declared an emergency government dismissed Haniyeh and replaced him with Salam Fayyad a move whose legitimacy is questionable.  Abbas now only controls the West Bank, while Haniyeh and Hamas control the Gaza strip.  Although Haniyeh was elected democratically, his dismissal by Abbas has generally been looked upon favorably by the West.  Abbas has also refused to negotiate with Netanyahu until there is a freeze on Israeli settlements in the West Bank, thus far the Israeli government has not agreed to those terms.  Abbas has also indicated that he may step down in the near future

Fatah is a Palestinian political party founded by Yasser Arafat during the 50s.  After the 1967 War, Fatah came to the conclusion that the Palestinians needed to rely on themselves, rather than the Arab states to fight for their state.  Fatah has traditionally been the dominate party within Palestinian politics, however, in the 2006 elections Fatah lost its majority to Hamas and Abbas was compelled to take on Ismail Haniyeh as his prime minister. At the moment there is a split within the Palestinian territories with Fatah controlling the West Bank and Hamas controlling the Gaza strip.

Hamas

Hamas is one of the two major political parties within Palestine, the other being Fatah. Hamas, a religious party, is the more radical party within Palestine. It refuses to believe that Israel has a right to exist, although recently they have stated they will accept boundaries based on the 1967 lines.   In 2006, Hamas won the parliamentary election and Ismail Haniyah became the Prime Minister. However, he was dismissed by Abbas in 2007 and at the moment Hamas controls the Gaza while Fatah controls the West Bank.  Hamas has had run-ins with Israeli Defense Forces and is designated as a terrorist organization by the United States

Khalid Meshal 

Khalid Mashal is the current head of the political wing of Hamas (since 1996), although he works out of Damascus as he is exiled. He is one of the highest ranking figures within Hamas. In 1997 he was the target of an assassination attempt in Jordan, however, because of the diplomatic crisis that ensued, Israel was compelled to deliver the antidote to the poison he was given. Mashal has stated that Hams is willing to agree to a two state solution along the 1967 lines, but they are not willing to recognize Israel. He is currently in negotiations with Israel over the 2006 kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shilit

-          Who: Chairman of the Political Wing of Hamas (1996)

-          When: Chairman since 1996

-          Where: Israel/ Gaza and Damascus

-          Why Important:

Ismail Haniyah

Ismail Haniyah was elected as Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority in 2006. In 2007, he was removed by President Abbas and replaced with Salam Fayyad. At the moment, Fatah controls the West Bank while Hamas under Haniyah has control of Gaza. 

Kings Fahd and Abdullah of Saudi Arabia

King Fahd was King of Saudi Arabia between 1982 and 2005, however, during the latter part of his reign (after 1995) was increasingly characterized by the influence of Abdullah, who basically became the de facto king (he was crowned in 2005 after Fahd’s death).  During the Iran-Iraq war, Fahd was a strong supporter of Iraq. He was scared that Iran would export its revolution.  Fahd was also a staunch supporter of the United States and during the Persian Gulf War when Saddam invaded Kuwait; King Fahd allowed coalition troops into the country. This was something that was heavily criticized by some citizens including Osama bin Laden who felt that the American troops were contaminating the holiest places in Islam. 

King Abdullah is the current King of Saudi Arabia and came to power in 2005 after the death of his half-brother Fahd, however, Abdullah had been serving as the de facto king since Fahd suffered a stroke in 1995.  

Sayyid Qutb, Usama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri.  Al Qaida

Sayyid Qutb was an Egyptian-Islamist writer, intellectual and leading thinker of the Muslim Brotherhood. Many of his ideas have greatly influenced later Islamists and have found their way into the thinking of al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri. He traveled to the United States during the 1950s and was disgusted by the impiety he found there; he returned to Egypt even more radicalized than before he had left.  A member of the MB secret apparatus tried to assassinate Nasser in 1954, but failed, this led to a crackdown on the MB, and Qutb was arrested. During this period he wrote In the Shade of the Qur’an and Milestones. He was later released, only to be arrested again. He was executed in 1966 for his writings and many Islamists continue to think of him as a martyr

Osama bin Laden is a former Saudi Citizen and the head of al-Qaida

Ayman Zawahiri is the leading intellectual in al-Qaida and second in command of the organization

David Petraeus

David Petraeus is the current commander of CENTCOM which includes the Middle East and parts of Asia. He is best known for his role in the surge, which he recommended in 2007, and which is largely credited with cleaning up much of the insurgency and violence in Iraq although we are largely unsure as to why exactly the surge worked so well.  He also encouraged the awakening campaign by which US troops co-opted Sunnis who were fed up with Al-Qaida.