Experts Answer to Oral History Questions

100 Questions/ 29

What is the relationship between the oral history of the Iran-Iraq War and the studies of the Iran-Iraq War?

Translated by Mandana Karimi

2026-5-14

We asked several researchers and activists in the field of oral history to express their views on oral history questions. The names of each participant are listed at the beginning of their answers, and the text of all answers will be published on this portal by the end of the week. The goal of this project is to open new doors to an issue and promote scientific discussions in the field of oral history.

In this project, a question is asked every Saturday, and we ask experts to present their views in the form of a short text (about 100 words) by the end of the week. All answers will be published together so that the audience can compare and analyze the views.

The content is the opinions of the senders and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Oral History website. Although the answers are supposed to be based on about 100 words, in order to be polite and not to leave the discussion incomplete, in some cases, answers longer than that are also accepted.

The experts are asked to submit their answers by Sunday night so that all answers can be published on Tuesday.

From the interweaving of these responses, using AI, we have arrived at theories about oral history that will be published in the near future.

Question 29:

What is the relationship between the oral history of the Iran-Iraq War and the studies of the Iran-Iraq War?

Answers to Question 29:

Hassan Beheshtipour

War studies seek to answer the “whys”: why did the war begin, continue, and end? This field, relying on diplomatic documents, political theories, and strategic analyses, seeks to understand the causes, outcomes, and macro-consequences of war.

Oral history, however, focuses on the “hows” and effects of war. How did the war begin in a village or city or on the front? How did the combatants cross the Hur? How did civilians deal with the war in the bombed-out area? Narrators recount objective details, emotions, and their bitter and sweet experiences of the war without engaging in theorizing. What were the effects of the war on the narrators’ lives?

The two are actually complementary, because war studies without oral history lack the objective experience of war, and oral history without attention to documents and war studies becomes scattered narratives. The answer to question 29 is also a complement to question 28. The cases where I had a word limit were explained here in the difference between oral history of war and war studies.

Gholamreza Azari Khakestar

One of the important topics in contemporary Iranian history is the oral history of war. In fact, war has been an effective factor in the formation of oral history in the world and in Iran. The presence of narrators and the recording of memories of commanders and soldiers has given this field special richness and importance. After the victory of the 1979 Revolution and the Iran-Iraq War, a large part of society became involved in this issue and valuable memories were formed in the minds of the people. Oral historians have recorded collective experiences by collecting these narratives. In this field, everything that happened on the battlefield is important. In contrast, war studies analyze military elements, logistics, and documents, and these two approaches complement each other.

Mohammad Mehdi Abdollahzadeh

For eight years, millions of Iranians and a number of other countries participated in the fronts or played a role in supporting the war. This important event, which has historical significance, needs to be studied from various angles so that its obvious and hidden aspects can be accurately and scientifically recorded.
Although one of the pillars of this type of research is the use of documents, due to their scarcity, defects, unavailability, invalidity, or destruction, only the knowledge of the people involved in these scenes can compensate for the lack of documents or the problems with the existing documents.
Oral history interviews conducted in accordance with its standards are research that will yield valid and reliable data.

Seyyed Mohammad Sadegh Feyz

This question is the same as the previous one and its answer is similar. War studies are both oral history of war and oral history can be placed under it, if they benefit from it. It is natural that in war studies, the subject is looked at from above and in oral history it is completed by citing the same studies and they even complement each other and help each other. Although one cannot be considered to be superior to the other; but the two can be advanced topic by topic and, incidentally, by mutual benefit, interesting results can be achieved.

Abolfat’h Mo’men

Although oral history was born with the 1979 Revolution, it experienced its greatest growth and effectiveness in studies of the Iraq-Iran War. In this field, due to the diversity of topics and the presence of different groups in different roles, the range of narrators is wider than the revolution. Therefore, war history is closely dependent on oral memories and narratives and is of particular importance in historical studies. Scientific use of this capacity requires the development of comprehensive plans by relevant institutions to use oral history alongside other sources. In this process, it is possible for history to become polyphonic, data to expand, and its departure from official monopoly. Also, paying attention to the theoretical foundations, priorities, and status of narrators helps to accurately record the past and influence the future.

Hamid Ghazvini

As stated in the answer to the previous question, oral history is an effort aimed at producing research resources. Therefore, people who are engaged in studies of the Iran-Iraq War are in dire need of this source. In fact, oral history is the direct narration of warriors and individuals who were directly or indirectly related to the war and can provide researchers with important information about the less visible layers of the war and the events related to it, the characteristics of those present, and the social, political, military, economic, and cultural issues of that era. Those interested in studies of the Iran-Iraq War have reached a more complete picture by relying on this source, along with other written and non-written sources, and will be more successful in creating theories and scientific analysis of the war event.

Shafigheh Niknafs

It can be said that oral history played the most effective role in recording and recording memories and mental archives in the context of the Iran-Iraq War. Many foundations, documentation centers, and research institutes used oral history to prevent individual experiences from being forgotten.
As with question 28, here too it is useful to recall a few points:
1. The necessity of implementing an oral history research project in a targeted and planned manner and interviewing a group of people on a specific topic.
2. The necessity of having a comprehensive view of the war and paying attention to its neglected aspects, especially in the field of social and economic studies, and collecting information related to people's lives in occupied cities, cities under attack, and war-torn areas, and even areas that have welcomed immigrant families, and following up on the changes caused by the war in the lives of the general public.
3. Collecting administrative experiences in dealing with issues caused by the war.
4. Adhering to research ethics and impartiality in conducting interviews, creating a safe space for interviewees, and moving from the superficial layers to the inner layers of memory.

Abolfazl Hassanabadi

Oral history is one of the practical tools for documenting the history of war in the world. Much of the content produced about World War I and II and regional wars such as the Vietnam War has been done through oral history interviews. In Iran, much of the information produced by relevant centers has been needed through the use of oral history. A review of war history studies shows that the ratio between books produced using oral history content and other works on war history is much higher due to the ease of conducting interviews and the simplicity of the output. These contents are significant as sources for documenting the history of war and should be given more consideration as a historiographical source.

AI

Oral history of the Iran-Iraq War and Iran-Iraq War studies have a complementary and interactive relationship. Oral history, by recording the memories of warriors, commanders, and people, provides lived experiences and field details, and gives access to the human, emotional, and everyday layers of the war. In contrast, Iran-Iraq War studies, relying on theoretical frameworks and military, political, and social analyses, explain and systematize this data. The absence of oral history deprives war studies of living and accurate evidence; and without scientific analyses, oral narratives remain scattered and limited. Therefore, the connection of these two fields leads to a more comprehensive, deeper, and multidimensional understanding of the war.