The role of the US and the USSR in the Iran-Iraq conflict

When the war between Iraq and Iran broke out, it looked as though the two superpowers might tacitly agree to stay out of it themselves and thus throw a ring of quarantine around the conflict.

In a world in which regional conflicts are becoming increasingly frequent, this is not a bad recipe. The super-Powers (and their allies) may often be partly responsible for these conflicts, insofar as they provide the modern weapons which give them their loathsome destructiveness. To stand aside and watch the battle they have thus primed may be cynical, but far better than throwing themselves into the battle as well.

The war between Iran and Iraq is something of a test for this unspoken policy of keeping the peace between the super-Powers by isolating areas of active crisis. If the war ends without a confrontation between the super-Powers, it will have shown that their relationship is sufficiently elastic to cushion regional violence rather than snap under its pressure. And this would be a hopeful sign of sanity for the difficult decade ahead.

But it is now not sure whether the super-Powers are keeping their hands off. Reports, not yet entirely clear, suggest that Soviet supplies may be reaching both Iran and Iraq.

That the Russians would like to come out of the present crisis with a stronger Middle East position is obvious. That America feels the need to demonstrate reliability to its friends there is equally obvious. But if either super-Power supposes that it can manipulate the deep movement of events in the Middle East (or Africa, or Asia) it is dangerously wrong.

Key quote

“We must recognise that now ladies are part of everyday life.”

Secretary of St Stephen’s Club (a Westminster private members club)

Talking point

The US Secretary of State, Edmund Muskie, yesterday joined the Carter campaign of personal abuse against Ronald Reagan when he said America would be “endlessly at war all over the globe” if Mr Reagan was elected.

Front page news in brief