Third Regiment: Memoirs of an Iraqi Prisoner of War Doctor – 7

By Mojtaba al-Hosseini
Translated into Farsi by: Mohammad Hossein Zavar Kabeh
Translated into English by: M.B. Khoshnevisan

2025-11-30

Third Regiment: Memoirs of an Iraqi Prisoner of War Doctor – 7

By Mojtaba al-Hosseini
Translated into Farsi by: Mohammad Hossein Zavar Kabeh
Translated into English by: M.B. Khoshnevisan

***

Of course. Here is the translation from Persian to American English, rendered in a formal, analytical tone suitable for a historical or political context.

9-Interference in Iran’s internal affairs

Propaganda outlets were publishing news and reports about acts of unrest and separatist movements that took place after the victory of the Iranian Revolution. To pave the way for the fragmentation of Iran, these media used the phrase “the peoples of Iran” instead of “the Iranian people.” The Ba’athists ignored the fact that Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmen lived in Iraq and that they referred to all of them as a single Iraqi nation. Of course, it must be said that this “ignorance” was willful.

Relations between Iran and Iraq deteriorated after Iraq’s involvement in a series of destructive operations in Khuzestan was proven. In reality, the Iraqi consulate in Khorramshahr had mobilized a number of Iranian Arabs to carry out a series of sabotage operations inside Iran. On the other hand, the Iraqi regime, while publicly declaring its support for Ghassemlou’s followers, provided them with bases in the Sulaymaniyah region. These bases were run under the supervision of Barzan Tikriti (Saddam’s half-brother), who was the head of Iraqi intelligence.

In summary, this section of the book asserts that the war was a plan laid out in advance through cooperation and coordination with the superpowers—especially the United States—along with its client regimes in the region and the remnants of the deposed Shah’s regime. Its aim, the book argues, was to overthrow the Islamic government of Iran, restore the previous order, and secure America’s and Israel’s interests by installing a secular, pro-Western government in Iran, even though the war was outwardly imposed under the pretext of territorial and water disputes.

This was a summary of the incidents I experienced throughout my one-year residence in Baghdad. In the wake of these incidents, a series of other political and social occurrences unfolded, inevitably shaping the fate and future of millions of people in both countries.

From the Halls of Mercy to the Dungeons of Death

Following a year in teaching hospitals, I left civilian life behind at Baghdad's Al-Karamah Hospital on August 18, 1980, and embarked on a journey of hardship and anguish. I shed the white uniform, a symbol of purity and service to people, and donned the gray military garb, an entity of a harsh and merciless nature.

I left the hospital for home and, after spending two days and nights with my family and loved ones, I set out for the Baghdad Reserve Officers' College on August 20th, with my military service letter in hand. A few days later, the assignments were announced, and I was dispatched to the medical training school of the Al-Rashid Military Hospital as a conscript doctor. Because I was not a member of Iraq's Ba'ath Party, I did not participate in the reserve college. Although I was very happy about this, the escalating tensions between Iraq and Iran and the outbreak of border clashes and artillery attacks in the Khanaqin and Mandali regions—news and reports of which were reaching the public—fueled my fear and anxiety. During that time, I met with one of the doctors working in the Khanaqin hospital. Referring to these attacks, he said, "The Iraqi army is targeting the city of Qasr-e Shirin with artillery stationed within Khanaqin itself, and when the Iranians attempt to respond to the Iraqi artillery fire, the shells hit various areas within Khanaqin."

In reality, the Iraqi government used this shelling to lay the groundwork for a full-scale invasion. In the wake of these events, the propaganda campaign against the new Iranian government intensified, reaching a level of intimidation and outright threat. Even Saddam himself visited the border region during those days and was shown on television observing Iranian territory through binoculars. Iraqi state media broadcast reports of these artillery attacks in an attempt to stir up public resentment and a sense of grievance against Iran and its government.

During my two weeks at the training school, I became familiar with the current affairs of the army. Our group was composed of several dentists and pharmacists. On September 4, 1980, Radio Baghdad broadcast a military communiqué announcing: "Iraqi forces have liberated the areas of 'Saif Sa'd,' 'Hilleh,' 'Khezer,' and 'Zain al-Qoos,' which were under Iranian occupation."

Simultaneous with this military event, a major political occurrence took place: the annulment of the 1975 Algiers Agreement, which had been signed between the two countries. It is worth noting that when this agreement was originally signed, it had resolved the border and political disputes between the regime of Iraq and the deposed Shah's government. Iraqi television broadcast a staged session of the Iraqi National Assembly, which was attended by Saddam himself. During a speech in which he heavily criticized the Iranian government, he detailed the circumstances at the time the Algiers Agreement was signed, describing it as an injustice against Iraq. At the end of his speech, Saddam annulled the agreement and tore it to pieces at the podium. That day, the members of the National Assembly performed a farcical act. Considering themselves the true representatives of the people, the moment they heard the phrase "the 1975 agreement, from our point of view …" uttered by Saddam, they immediately burst into applause for him. The reality is that Saddam intended to say, "We consider the 1975 agreement null and void," but those present did not give him the chance to utter the word "nullified." This indicates that the regime's hand-picked representatives were already informed of this decision beforehand and had no choice but to perform their admiration for their leader for the television cameras. This makes it clear that just as the will and opinion of the Iraqi people had been ignored when the 1975 agreement was signed, the decision to annul it was also not based on public desire or will. We know that this agreement is an international treaty, registered with the United Nations, and neither party has the right to violate it without consulting the mediating country, Algeria, and the United Nations. It is worth pointing out that the Saddam regime did not cite a border dispute or Iranian interference in Iraq's internal affairs; instead, it canceled the agreement under the pretext that it had failed to guarantee Iraq's rights. This directly contradicts another claim by the Saddam regime: that it was forced to unilaterally annul the treaty because Iran had violated the 1975 agreement.

I remember that following the meeting between the deposed Shah and Saddam in Algiers, which led to a peace agreement between the two sides, Iraq's propaganda media portrayed the achievement of this treaty as an ethnic and national accomplishment by "Comrade Saddam Hussein." They also presented the resolution of the Kurdish issue and the fair settlement of border disputes with Iran as results of the Algiers Agreement. The oppressed Iraqi people, without having any information about the treaty's terms or the circumstances of its signing, took to the streets dancing and celebrating. At the time, for the general public, what mattered was that the war in the north had subsided and the rivers of blood had dried up.[1]

To be continued …