Seizing on what must have seemed a unique opportunity to aggrandize his personal glory and recover usurped “Arabistan” for its “Arab Nation" , Iraq’s Saddam Hussein attacked Iran back in 1980 thus inaugurating an 8 years long conflict that was to claim hundreds of thousands of lives and untold billions of dollars with disastrous geopolitical consequences destined to haunt the hapless inhabitants of the Persian Gulf for generations.
Saddam’s gamble was predicated on two assumptions: the first was that the US would not object to his designs and the second that Iran, an international outcast weakened by revolutionary purges and civil strife, would be a pushover. It was to be “Saddam’s Qadisiya” as the Iraqi strongman (for the then US darling was not yet a “dictator”) planned on duplicating the feat of Saad bin abi Waqqas.
Saddam was right on the money as far as the US reaction was concerned. Indeed, not only did the US indulge the ambition of the Iraqi leader, the Reagan administration before long extended covert (through the Arab GCC) and overt (logistical & political) support to the embattled Iraqis. Saddam’s second assumption, however, proved utterly false as Iran -its isolation and internal turmoil notwithstanding- proved far more resilient than expected and would have beaten Iraq if not for outside interference. The latter possibility should have been expected -or at least considered- given Iran’s advantage in geography and demography but those factors eluded Mr. Hussein at the time.
Religion has been used and abused in warfare from time immemorial and the Iraq-Iran war of 1980-1988 was to provide yet another example for those interested. This “first” Persian Gulf War took place during my formative youth when my knowledge of differences and similarities between the numerous Islamic sects was minimal or non-existing. Part of the earliest “religious education” I received via the Jordanian TV so let this post acknowledge my indebtedness and serve as a tribute to its pedagogy.
My edification started as the “plucky little King” of Jordan threw his lot with Saddam Hussein and instructed his obsequious media to follow the exploits of the Iraqi army in the land of “Magi Persians”. The Jordanian TV obliged by transmitting what passed for news reporting on a regular basis the heroic deeds of those guarding the “eastern gate of the Arab Nation” against the ungodly Persians. Statistics were provided every day, of course: “the Persian enemy lost 100 slain soldiers while the Iraqi army lost 3 martyrs”.
The Jordanian TV outdid itself by presenting a TV series entitled “Harun al Rasheed”. The legendary Abbasid despot would certainly provide a fascinating subject for any historiographer or movie maker but this series emphasized one particular part of Harun’s history, his relationship with the fabulously rich and glamorous Barmakids: Yahya, al -Fadl, and Jaafar.
The Barmakids were a wealthy Persian family that grew influential serving the early Abbasids. Khalid begat Yahya who begat Jaafar and al-Fadl. Jaafar was the most illustrious of the lot. His mother nursed Harun al Rasheed and he served the latter as vizier for many years enriching himself and his ilk in the process. Eventually Harun quarreled with the Barmakids, seized their property, jailed some of them, and inflicted a savage death on Jaafar, his friend and confidant of many years. Jaafar was beheaded and his corpse was split in half, the remains were displayed over different parts of Baghdad.
Explanations varied as to what motivated Harun’s barbarous treatment of his loyal advisers. Some suggested an affair between Jaafar and Harun’s sister, al-Abbasa while others simply justified the murder on the ground that the Barmakids were becoming too powerful and Harun preempted a coup otherwise bound to take place. A more outlandish interpretation was proffered by the history books of the Syrian Arab Republic, namely that there was a far-reaching Persian conspiracy against the Arabs as led be the Abbasids (as if the Abbasid empire was not a Persian empire practically from its inception). But back to the Jordanian TV for its narrative was the most preposterous of them all.
Naturally the TV version emphasized the Arab-Persian divide but it went a step further by adding a religious dimension. Not only were the Barmakids committed to the cause of Persia, they also were not Muslims at all. They were in fact Magi and fire-worshippers. They professed loyalty to Harun during the daytime while worshipping fire at night in their cave-like dwellings. Forget about Jaafar of the Arabian Nights and his soirees of drunkenness with his brother Harun, the Commander of the Faithful. Forget the fact that it was Persian men and Persian arms that brought the Abbasids to power to begin with and maintained them on their throne for generations.
The ugly sectarian narrative lives on. Recently the “fire-worshipper Magi Persians” earned another denigrating epithet “Safavids”. The latter description applies more or less to the Shiites, perhaps more so the Twelvers and implies that they are heretics, wicked, and treacherous. They do not necessarily “worship fire” but they are no less wretched and would surely earn hellfire sooner or later.
Who were the Magi? Zoroastrianism was an old dualistic Iranian religion the adherents of which indeed worshipped in fire temples (fire serving as a symbol) and was no less developed than Abrahamic religions. As for the Safavids, they were an Iranian dynasty that ruled for 200+ years starting with Shah Ismail in the early 16th Century C.E. until they were deposed by Nadir Shah in the 18th Century.
Iran’s history stretches for thousands of years and its culture is as proud as any. The cities of Persepolis, Suza, Tehran, Tabriz, Shiraz are or were no less glorious than Mephis, Alexandria, Cairo, Damascus, and Baghdad. To be a Magi (some survive as Parsees) is no vice and Safavid heritage should be a subject of pride as would testify their magnificent edifices in Isfahan. As for Shiite Islam, it is no more or less legitimate than Sunni Islam and it is past time we put all those antiquated disputes to rest.
