Talk:Israeli support for Iran during the Iran–Iraq war

Untitled

I've added another source. Are there still complaints about context and POV? --Ebudswenson (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems like this was drive-by tagging. i don't see context and POV issues anymore, and if we add one or two more sources, we can safely remove the remaining tag. MiS-Saath (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Tags and edits

Edits claiming sources are suggesting a "conspiracy theory" have been added to the article. The edit summary claims, "this article is based on highly dubious sources. in fact it shouldn't exist at all"

What evidence is there that Trita Parsi and John Bulloch are the slightest bit dubious, let alone "highly dubious"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The book by Iranian author Trita Parsi is a dubious source as it contains some very strong allegations not supported by any evidence whatsoever. I'm not saying her allegations shouldn't be mentioned at all, but they should be clearly presented as Trita Parsi's personal convictions, not as real facts.Keverich1 (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The book is scholarly and reputable. Again I ask you, What evidence is there that Trita Parsi and John Bulloch are the slightest bit dubious, let alone "highly dubious"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Parsi is the founder the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), and an advocate for Iran. He represents one side of that conflict, so anything he says about it should be taken with a grain of salt, just as anything said by the representative for Iraq, or for that matter Israel should be. --Thalia42 (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone still have a reason to tag the article? otherwise I'm going to remove the tags. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

tag gone. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Uncertainties in the total story

Lack of firm evidence and citing anonymous military and professional show about the nature of these reports at the time of major Iranian operations and of course great defeat of Saddam and Drrastay justify such failures were reported to witness the existence of ambiguities and the fundamental principle Of course, rumors that most of the Arabic and Western sources - Arabic for support of Arab public opinion against the Persians as were. Perhaps after a mass of Israeli arms sales to Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, was sentenced to indicate that the lack of accompanying Israeli government is in such transactions. It is worth noting that all these issues as was the Islamic Republic of Iran Israel always to be considered as their enemy. Always objective evidence against claims that it never has been found and documents exist primarily with plenty of question marks is associated with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rostame dastane iran (talk • contribs) 01:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

redundant paragraph -- needs fixing

On 7 June 1981, a squadron of Israeli Air Force F-16A fighter aircraft, with an escort of F-15As, bombed and heavily damaged the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq. According to journalist Nicholas Kristof, had it not been for the attack, "Iraq would have gained nuclear weapons in the 1980s, it might now have a province called Kuwait and a chunk of Iran, and the region might have suffered nuclear devastation."[8] The reactor was part of Iraq's weapon program as had been reported on September 8, 1975, then-Vice President Saddam Hussein declared publicly that the acquisition of the French reactors was the first actual step in the production of an Arab atomic weapon. Iranian Revolution accelerated Saddam's interest in atomic bombs and he ordered his scientists directly, in December 1979, to build them. It has been said that if Osirak had not been destroyed, Iraq would have had become a nuclear state and Saddam would taken over a large chunk of Iranian territory as well as Kuwait. [

Two sentences with almost the same words in them; does the same idea need to be mentioned twice in almost the same textual fashion? 1) According to journalist Nicholas Kristof, had it not been for the attack, "Iraq would have gained nuclear weapons in the 1980s, it might now have a province called Kuwait and a chunk of Iran.. 2) It has been said that if Osirak had not been destroyed, Iraq would have had become a nuclear state and Saddam would taken over a large chunk of Iranian territory as well as Kuwait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ari Ben-Menashe and profits of War

There needs to be a section on Ari Ben-Menashe and his book Profits of War which details a lot more than Trita Parsi and gives a first hand account of Israel supplying arms to Iran.--Wool Bridge (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Title

The article itself says that one of the goals of the Israeli aids to Iran was to "weaken both Iran and Iraq", so the current title, "Israeli support for Iran during the Iran–Iraq war", is misleading. "Israel and the Iran–Iraq war" is more appropriate. --Z 14:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@ZxxZxxZ: I moved it to "Allegations of Israel's support for Iran during the Iran–Iraq war".--Seyyed(t-c) 03:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The content of the article should be reflected in the title. Pedantic details and speculations shouldn't be a factor in this process.

See how other articles within the same conflict are structured.

Moved the article back to "Israeli support for Iran during the Iran–Iraq war" Damian Lew (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

24,000 in total maybe?

"Materiel included 150 M-40 antitank guns with 24,000 shells for each gun..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:6200:8854:5B18:6D7D:DFB2:687E:E808 (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The book does say 24,000 per gun! Thats 3.6mil shells (plus another +3.6m rounds for the 12.7mm spotter rifle) - but they only flew 18 missions to carry all the equipment purchased in an aircraft with a 20t load capacity. Not likely! I have removed the "per gun" statement. Farawayman (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 16 May 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. WP:PRECISION WP:CONSISTENT — unanimous consensus here after two weeks' time. (closed by non-admin page mover) Cremastra (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Israel in the Iran–Iraq War → Israeli support for Iran during the Iran–Iraq war – The article's title was unilaterally changed about 7-8 years ago without a substantial reason provided nor a request made. The previous title gave a more apt description of the article's content (as can be observed from the first sentence of the article) and was more in line with the sources cited in the article, and the format of other articles from the same conflict, thus the move made years ago was entirely arbitrary. Requesting reverting the move and a return to the original title. Damian Lew (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Damian Lew (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support per above GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support The article is all about the proposed title. Dympies (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Israel, and WikiProject Iran have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

This user is not extended-confirmed. Isn’t this covered by the Arab-Israeli conflict? FortunateSons (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Arguably, but it isn't tagged as within the topic, and two extended-confirmed users have endorsed the request. SilverLocust 💬 04:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense FortunateSons (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.