Iran-Iraq War: Unpacking The 'Winner' In A Brutal Conflict

Gordon Muller 18 Jun 2025

The Iran-Iraq War, a devastating conflict that raged for nearly a decade in the 1980s, remains a somber chapter in Middle Eastern history. Often referred to as the First Persian Gulf War, this protracted struggle between two regional powers left an indelible mark on the lives of millions and fundamentally reshaped the geopolitical landscape. But in a war characterized by immense human suffering and strategic deadlock, the question persistently arises: who truly won the Iran-Iraq War? This article delves into the origins, progression, and complex aftermath of this brutal conflict, aiming to shed light on its elusive victor and lasting consequences.

Understanding the outcome of such a complex war requires looking beyond conventional military victories. Instead, one must examine the attainment of initial objectives, the long-term shifts in regional power dynamics, and the internal impacts on the belligerent nations. The Iran-Iraq War was not a clear-cut triumph for either side, but rather a crucible that forged new realities, leaving a legacy of unresolved tensions and a profound re-evaluation of what constitutes a "win" in modern warfare.

The Seeds of Conflict: A Brewing Storm
- Historical Grievances and Border Disputes
- The Iranian Revolution's Ripple Effect
The Invasion: Iraq's Bold Gambit
A War of Attrition: The Human Cost
- Unfathomable Casualties and Devastation
The Stalemate: Objectives Unmet
The Ceasefire: A Reluctant End
- UN Resolution 598 and Iran's Initial Resistance
Who "Won" the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)?
The Unforeseen Aftermath: Iran's Strategic Gains in the Broader Regional Context
A New Chapter? Iran-Iraq Relations Today

The Seeds of Conflict: A Brewing Storm

The outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War in September 1980 was not an isolated incident but the culmination of centuries of simmering tensions, exacerbated by recent political upheavals. The border between these two nations, particularly along the Shatt al-Arab waterway, had been a point of contention for generations. However, the immediate catalyst for the conflict was rooted in the dramatic events of 1979.

Historical Grievances and Border Disputes

For decades, Iraq and Iran had engaged in a complex dance of cooperation and conflict, often driven by territorial claims and ideological differences. The Shatt al-Arab, a vital waterway formed by the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, served as a crucial shipping lane for both countries, and its precise demarcation had been a source of frequent disputes. Treaties were signed and broken, each side accusing the other of violating agreements and encroaching on sovereign territory. These historical grievances provided a fertile ground for conflict, waiting for the right spark to ignite.

The Iranian Revolution's Ripple Effect

The pivotal event that truly destabilized the regional balance was the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The ayatollah’s fundamentalist Islamic teachings inspired the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, replacing a secular, pro-Western monarchy with a Shiʿi Islamic government under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. This dramatic shift sent shockwaves throughout the Middle East. While Iraq recognized Iran’s new Shiʿi Islamic government, the Iranian leaders would have nothing to do with the Baʿath regime in Iraq, which they denounced as secular. Ruhollah Khomeini, the spiritual leader of the Iranian revolution, proclaimed his policy of exporting the revolution, openly calling for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist government in Iraq, which was predominantly Sunni but ruled over a large Shi'a population. This direct challenge to Saddam Hussein's authority, coupled with the perceived weakness of Iran's military following the revolution's purges, emboldened the Iraqi leader to act. Relations with Iran had grown increasingly strained after the Shah was overthrown in 1979, setting the stage for an inevitable confrontation. The war stemmed from a complex mix of historical grievances, ethnic tensions, and political upheavals, particularly following the Iranian revolution of 1979, which established a theocratic government under Ayatollah Khomeini.

The Invasion: Iraq's Bold Gambit

On September 22, 1980, active hostilities began with the Iraqi invasion of Iran. Under dictator Saddam Hussein, Iraq launched a full-scale assault, believing it could achieve a swift victory against a revolutionary Iran that seemed to be in disarray. Saddam Hussein claimed the invasion was a preemptive strike to reclaim disputed territories, assert Iraqi dominance in the Gulf, and prevent the spread of Iran's revolutionary ideology. He saw an opportunity to secure Iraq's position as the leading power in the Arab world and to address long-standing border disputes, particularly concerning the Shatt al-Arab. The invasion was initially successful, with Iraqi forces pushing deep into Iranian territory, capturing key cities and strategic areas. However, what Saddam had envisioned as a quick, decisive campaign soon bogged down into a brutal war of attrition, far exceeding his initial calculations.

A War of Attrition: The Human Cost

The initial Iraqi advances were met with fierce and unexpected resistance from Iranian forces, galvanized by revolutionary fervor and Ayatollah Khomeini's call for national defense. The war quickly transformed from a lightning invasion into a grinding, trench warfare-style conflict reminiscent of World War I. Both sides dug in, employing massive human wave attacks, chemical weapons, and relentless artillery bombardments. The sheer scale of the fighting and the disregard for human life on both sides led to horrific casualties.

Unfathomable Casualties and Devastation

The human cost of the Iran-Iraq War was staggering. Estimates of total casualties range from one million to twice that number, making it one of the deadliest conflicts of the 20th century. Millions more were displaced, injured, or suffered long-term psychological trauma. Entire cities were reduced to rubble, and the economies of both nations were crippled by the immense military expenditures and destruction of infrastructure. The war consumed a generation of young men, leaving a profound demographic and social scar on both societies. The economic toll was equally devastating, with both nations pouring vast resources into the conflict, diverting funds from development and civilian welfare. The environmental damage, particularly from oil spills and the use of chemical weapons, added another layer of tragedy to the conflict's legacy.

The Stalemate: Objectives Unmet

Despite the immense sacrifices, neither side managed to achieve their primary objectives during the war. Saddam Hussein failed to secure a quick victory, expand Iraqi territory significantly, or topple the Iranian revolutionary government. On the other hand, Iran, after pushing back Iraqi forces and regaining most of its lost territory, also failed to achieve its ultimate goal of overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime and exporting its Islamic revolution to Iraq. The war lasted for nearly eight years, until the acceptance of United Nations Security Council Resolution 598 by both sides. This resolution called for a ceasefire, withdrawal of troops to international borders, and negotiations for a comprehensive peace settlement. Although neither side attained their objectives during the war, much had changed that would affect the future of the region.

The Ceasefire: A Reluctant End

By 1988, both Iran and Iraq were utterly exhausted. Their economies were in ruins, their populations decimated, and their military capabilities severely strained. International pressure for a ceasefire mounted, particularly from the United Nations. After years of brutal fighting, the acceptance of UN Security Council Resolution 598 became the only viable path to ending the bloodshed.

UN Resolution 598 and Iran's Initial Resistance

The United Nations Security Council Resolution 598, passed in July 1987, called for an immediate ceasefire, withdrawal of forces, and a return to pre-war borders. While Iraq accepted the resolution relatively quickly (conditional on Iranian agreement), Iran initially condemned the resolution as unfair and continued to resist pressure from the international community to accept SCR 598 and agree to a ceasefire, presumably because the regime felt that the war could yet be won. Ayatollah Khomeini, despite the overwhelming odds and the immense suffering, famously described accepting the ceasefire as "drinking from the poisoned chalice." However, facing military setbacks, a dwindling economy, and growing internal dissent, Iran finally accepted the resolution in August 1988, effectively ending active hostilities. Fighting was ended by a 1988 ceasefire, though the resumption of normal diplomatic relations and the withdrawal of troops did not take place until 1990.

Who "Won" the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)?

When assessing the outcome of the Iran-Iraq War, the concept of a clear "winner" is deeply problematic. From a traditional military perspective, it was largely a stalemate. Neither side achieved their stated war aims, and the conflict ended with a return to the pre-war borders, effectively a "status quo ante bellum."

For Iraq: Saddam Hussein failed to secure the Shatt al-Arab, expand his territory, or overthrow the Iranian regime. The war left Iraq deeply indebted, primarily to Gulf Arab states, and with a massive, albeit battle-hardened, military. This debt and military might would later play a significant role in Saddam's decision to invade Kuwait in 1990, setting the stage for the First Gulf War.
For Iran: The Islamic Republic survived the existential threat posed by Iraq's invasion. While it failed to export its revolution or topple Saddam, it demonstrated remarkable resilience against a well-equipped aggressor, often fighting with sheer numbers and revolutionary zeal. However, the war devastated Iran's economy and infrastructure, and the country paid an unimaginable human price.

Perhaps the most accurate assessment is that both nations lost profoundly in terms of human life, economic development, and social cohesion. The war consolidated the hold of both rulers—Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein—who were more entrenched than ever. If anything, the war strengthened their grip on their respective countries, suppressing internal dissent under the guise of national unity against an external enemy. In this sense, the regimes themselves, rather than the nations or their people, might be seen as having "survived" or even "benefited" from the consolidation of power, albeit at a horrific cost to their populations.

The Unforeseen Aftermath: Iran's Strategic Gains in the Broader Regional Context

While the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War itself concluded without a clear victor, the subsequent decades saw a dramatic shift in the regional balance of power that, perhaps ironically, benefited Iran significantly. This advantage wasn't a direct result of the 1980s conflict, but rather an unforeseen consequence of later events, particularly the 2003 Iraq War led by the United States.

A new study of the conflict concludes that Iran was the only real winner in the Iraq War (referring to the 2003 conflict). This perspective argues that U.S. efforts were hampered by inadequate ground forces and misjudgments by military officers and politicians. The removal of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003, a long-standing ideological and geopolitical adversary, effectively eliminated Iran's most formidable regional foe. Iran sat patiently on its hands while the United States hacked away at its two major enemies, Saddam and the Taliban, clearing both its east and west borders at no cost. This strategic vacuum allowed Iran to expand its influence across the region, particularly in Iraq, where the Shi'a majority came to power. The war cost the U.S. trillions, upended Middle East stability, and ultimately benefited Iran’s aggressive and expansionist agenda by capturing much of the political and military institutions in post-Saddam Iraq. This is a crucial distinction: while the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) was a costly stalemate, the subsequent events, particularly the 2003 invasion of Iraq, inadvertently paved the way for Iran's enhanced regional power. Iran is also twice the size of Afghanistan, where the U.S. struggled for years, and it is three times the size of Iraq, where the U.S. conducted extensive operations, highlighting its significant strategic depth and resilience.

A New Chapter? Iran-Iraq Relations Today

More than four decades after the beginning of a dreadful war that shaped the lives and worldview of a generation, Iraq and Iran seem to have put the past behind them and moved to a new relationship. This evolving dynamic is complex, marked by both cooperation and underlying tensions. While official diplomatic relations have been restored and economic ties are growing, the road ahead is not without landmines. The balance of power is too lopsided in Iran’s favor to allow for a healthy alliance, and Iran’s continued estrangement from the U.S. makes Baghdad's position precarious. Iraq, caught between its powerful neighbor and its desire for stability and international cooperation, navigates a delicate path. The legacy of the Iran-Iraq War, while officially in the past, continues to inform the cautious optimism and deep-seated memories that shape their current interactions. The memory of the war, the sacrifices made, and the shifts in regional power continue to influence policy decisions and public sentiment in both nations.

Conclusion

The question of "who won" the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988 is not easily answered with a simple declaration of victory. It was a war of immense human suffering and strategic stalemate, where neither side achieved its primary objectives. The true cost was borne by the millions of lives lost and the devastating impact on the economies and societies of both nations. While the immediate conflict ended in a bloody draw, the long-term geopolitical shifts, particularly the removal of Saddam Hussein in 2003, inadvertently created a strategic vacuum that Iran has skillfully exploited to expand its regional influence. In this broader context, some argue that Iran has emerged as the ultimate beneficiary of the regional upheavals that followed the 1980s war.

Ultimately, the Iran-Iraq War serves as a stark reminder of the futility and devastating consequences of prolonged conflict. It highlights how initial objectives can be lost in the fog of war, and how the true "winners" are often elusive, if they exist at all. The legacy of this brutal struggle continues to shape the Middle East, underscoring the complex and often unpredictable nature of international relations.

What are your thoughts on the legacy of the Iran-Iraq War? Do you agree with the assessment of who "won" or lost? Share your perspectives in the comments below, and feel free to share this article to spark further discussion on this critical historical event.

Iran Wants To Negotiate After Crippling Israeli Strikes | The Daily Caller

Israel targets Iran's Defense Ministry headquarters as Tehran unleashes

Iran Opens Airspace Only For India, 1,000 Students To Land In Delhi Tonight

HeadlineSphere