Talk:Iran–Iraq relations

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

International relations High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Iran High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Iraq High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Although this might fall into WP:NOTNEWS, should there be mention of the temporary Iranian seizure of an Iraqi Oil well in southern Iraq? There are dozens of mentions in reliable sources, probably more. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It does fall into WP:NOTNEWS you are right. Sources are conflicting on what happened there anyway. ^Izzedine 15:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at this point, it has continued, including a stand off. I think this is no longer a single event, and should definitely be included. rueters. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No this is hot-off-the-press speculation. Read WP:NOTNEWS, only matter of "enduring notability" is advised, not skirmishes. Izzedine 16:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has improved vastly since I checked two years ago,which is great! But I feel many bilateral relations articles lack photos,this article needs a few pictures of Iranian President Ahmadinejad and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani,and photos with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.It will make the article much more interesting,just by adding two or three photos.Any suggestions would be fine.

Thanks ChowFan ChowFan (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article lists unecessary information from ancient mesopotanian civilisations which have nothing to do with relations between the countries of Iraq and Iran, the only link being that the land on which they now occupy was part of these civilisations. The actual part about the present-day countries and their disputes is miniscule Alan McBrazil Burger (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles on countries begin with the neolithic period. Political boundaries shift, governments come and go. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA (probably) helped the overthrow of General Abdul Karim Qasim in 1963. The Ba'ath Party was involved in the coup, but it was removed from government later that year. The party really came to power in 1968, this time definitely with no US help. Which makes perfect sense, since the Ba'ath was always anti-Western and it only collaborated with the US in 1963 because Qasim opposed pan-Arabism and was relying on the Iraqi Communist Party for support. The situation had obviously changed by 1968, and the Ba'athist regime would only reestablish diplomatic relations with the United States, broken by its predecessor after the 6-Day War, in 1984, when it needed all the foreign backing it could get in the war with Iran. This comment should be removed. 89.120.227.59 (talk)

You're right. The comment is misleading. More importantly, US policy is totally irrelevant to Iran-Iraq relations.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly disagree; it is highly relevant to Iraq-Iran relations. I also reject the IP's interpretation of matters. Irānshahr (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is totally irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a place for your personal opinion. It is a place for scholarly study and impartial analysis. If you can find mainstream scholarly histories of Iran-Iraq relations that emphasize the supposed US role in the Ramadan Revolution as a turning point for Iran-Iraq relations, then you can put it here. Since the British were also involved in the coup, and the Soviets later helped the Ba'athists, you've failed to demonstrate why this comment belongs here. It's only tangentially related to the subject. And to put it in the lead? That kind of US-centric POV-pushing is a profound departure from standard Wikipedia policy. To accuse me of being a sockpuppet of a totally different editor on the basis of no evidence is a violation of WP:AGF. You seem to be claiming ownership over this page, and a look at your edit history reveals a pattern of unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry, as well as edit warring.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is irrelevant too. Improve your manners significantly if you expect to be engaged by grown-ups. Irānshahr (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the personal attacks! Your crude insults are not contributing anything meaningful to this discussion. If you have nothing of substance to say, don't bother using this talk page. If you continue to violate Wikipedia policy on civility and to edit war, there will be consequences.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the latter three of your four edits. You can choose to compromise on your first edit, or I can choose to cover the subject in its own article, instead. Which choice is going to serve your interest best, in the long run. Irānshahr (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "your interest". I'm also not sure what "compromise" you propose, or what new article you would consider creating. The US role in the coup is covered in relevant articles like Ramadan Revolution and John F. Kennedy.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm still not sure why you thought I was a sockpuppet of TIAYN. Perhaps English isn't your first language, but please try to be clearer when explaining your position.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

>> EXCLUSIVE-Iraq signs deal to buy arms, ammunition from Iran - documents>> US presses Iraq on reports of Iran arms deal(Lihaas (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iran–Iraq relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304230552/http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/115569.html to http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/115569.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160407205532/http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/117500.html to http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/117500.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted some sections without Content. If someone is going to should add Content with RS.M1nhm (talk) 11:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true as stated in the introduction that "Iran and Iraq share a long border (the longest border by far for both nations)"? Their borders with eachother don't seem all that much longer than their borders with, say, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. Does anyone have any reliable numbers (coastline paradox notwithstanding)?

Would it be possible to have the Iran flag on the right and the Iraq flag on the left? It would coincide with the positions of the countries in the map. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShinjiPG (talk • contribs) 17:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct English grammar would dictate it should be Irano-Iraqi rather than Iran-Iraq. I understand that the latter became the popular term for the "Iran-Iraq War", but in general terms like this should use a combinative adjective and then a regular one, e.g "Anglo-Irish Treaty", "Franco-Prussian War", "Russo-Japanese War", etc.

89.101.120.203 (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in short, no HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

interesting that there's basically no comment on these relations after isis took over Iraq even though Iran has been a huge stabilizer and opponent to the expansion of isis since their inception L33tSpeak (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS took over Iraq? Eh?? HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]