TEHRAN – Iraq's long-imposed war against Iran ended in 1988 with the adoption of Resolution 598 with terrible human costs and destruction.

Finally, Saddam Hussein, the then president of Iraq, after inflicting enormous human and material losses on the two nations, in a letter to the President of Iran in August 1990, re-recognized the 1975 Algiers Treaty and said: "With this decision, everything will be clarified and, in this way, everything you wanted and relied on will be realized."

But in practice, 36 years after the end of the imposed war, the implementation arrangements of Resolution 598 have not yet been drafted and signed by the parties based on the provisions of its paragraph 4. Also, the dredging of the Arvand waterway has not been implemented based on the executive arrangements mentioned in the 1975 Algiers Treaty. Therefore, Iran's two largest commercial ports are still out of business. And the task of how Iran will be compensated is still unclear.   

Iraq's imposed war against Iran caused irreparable long-term damage to the lives of Iranians and Iraqis. This war was the most damaging war of the 20th century after the Korean War, during which human losses reached three million dead, wounded, and missing. The total human losses of both sides in this war have been reported to be 1.5 to 2 million. The number of Iranian martyrs of this war is more than 197,000, and its veterans are more than 629,000. In addition, the number of Iranian captives was more than 41,000, of whom 527 were martyred during their captivity. There is no accurate information about the number of Iraqis killed. The reported statistics range from 105,000 to 200,000 people. The number of wounded Iraqis ranged from 400,000 to 700,000, and the number of their captives was reported to be up to 70,000. Britannica says the total financial loss of both sides in this war is estimated to be 1200 billion US dollars.

The indirect damage to the soul of the two nations, the wounding, and collapse of the family system of millions of families, the massive population displacement, the change in the demographic composition of the settlements, the environmental and urban ruins and settlements, and other damages are innumerable. Also, the increase in poverty and backwardness from development, the grudges planted in the hearts of people, and the security and economic imbalances formed in the region are other remnants of the war. However, in addition to all these tragedies, the fact that the implementation arrangements of the resolution have not been formulated is not a guarantee that after a generation or two, this wound will not resurface.

Now, more than 36 years after the end of the war, it is time to make a clear assessment of this damaging war and take firm steps to establish a solid peace in the region. In this regard, I would like to point out a few points:

1- From a legal point of view, Resolution 598 is a ceasefire resolution. Therefore, Iran and Iraq are still in a state of acceptance of a ceasefire and a state of neither war nor peace. According to the text of the resolution, establishing peace requires implementing the resolution to end all the disputes between the two countries. In addition to the preamble, paragraph 4 of the resolution states that the Security Council "calls upon Iran and Iraq to cooperate with the Secretary-General in the implementation of this resolution." and to cooperate in mediation efforts to achieve a comprehensive, just, and dignified mutually acceptable solution to all existing issues, following the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations." It is also stipulated in paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 that the Secretary-General shall take the necessary measures to determine responsibility for the initiation of the war, assess the extent of the damage, make reconstruction efforts with international assistance, and find ways to increase the security and stability of the region in consultation with Iran, Iraq and other countries in the region.

Following the acceptance of the resolution by both sides, the first round of peace talks between Iran and Iraq under the supervision of the United Nations officially began in Geneva on August 25, 1988. In these negotiations, the Iraqi government put forward two preconditions: the dredging of the Arvand River, and the freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf. The First Round of Negotiations failed. Therefore, on September 31, 1988, the Secretary-General of the United Nations proposed a plan consisting of four articles to the governments of Iran and Iraq as follows: 1) freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf, 2) giving priority to resolving the issue of the Shatt al-Arab (Arvand River), 3) Agreement on the procedures for the exchange of prisoners of war, and 4) the withdrawal of the forces of the two countries to the international borders. This attempt also failed.

The point is to emphasize that the need for a peace agreement was and is an internationally accepted issue. Unfortunately, in light of the subsequent developments, this issue has been ignored for 36 years. Notably, one of the reasons for the failure of the Secretary-General's plan was that Iraq postponed the proposal to withdraw troops to international borders until it accepted sovereignty. Eventually, Saddam formally received the 1975 treaty in 1990, removing this obstacle. However, the arrangements for the implementation of Resolution 598 remained ambiguous.

2- Although according to the 1975 Algiers Treaty, the dredging process is envisaged under the supervision of the Iran-Iraq Joint Committee (CBC), in the past 34 years, due to the lack of cooperation of Iraq, this committee has not been formed, and the dredging of Arvand has not been carried out. As a result, it is practically impossible to make use of the working capacity of Khorramshahr port. The people of Khorramshahr in the first stage and the whole of Khuzestan in the second stage are deprived of this possibility and have remained. It should be explained that until Arvand is dredged, Khorramshahr and Abadan will not become affluent. And Khuzestan will not find the prosperity of the past. Meanwhile, the construction of the port of Faw in Iraq is progressing rapidly. This behavior of the Iraqi government is contrary to the practice of good neighborliness.

After I took charge of the Ministry of Roads and Urban Development on August 16, 2013, in memory of my friends who had been martyred in Shalamcheh and on the way to the liberation of Khorramshahr, I made my first visit to Khorramshahr in early September. At that time, 25 years had passed since the acceptance of the contract. During this trip, I was significantly affected by the pitiful condition of the Shalamcheh passenger terminal. I decided to build a suitable terminal, and we immediately started to make it. The same terminal that is now serving passengers. Of course, I am not aware of the condition of its maintenance. But more importantly, I became acquainted with two other vital issues. One is that the port of Khorramshahr was well renovated, but its productivity was minimal. In searching for the reason for this, I found that some of the drowned bodies are still buried, and more importantly, dredging in Arvand had not been carried out since the war. Another issue was the construction of a bridge over Arvand to connect the Iranian railway to Basra, which, despite verbal agreements, the Iraqis had never cooperated effectively in its implementation.

On my return from the trip, I seriously discussed the issue of saving the drowned, which was within my jurisdiction. Saving the drownings did not require the formation of CBC. However, it was a prerequisite for dredging. Despite budget constraints, I instructed the Ports and Maritime Organization to provide appropriate credit for this matter. The organization also did a fair job. More importantly, I immediately spoke with General Ali Shamkhani, the Security Council secretary at the time, and asked him to do his best to dredge Arvand. I remember telling him that if thousands of billions of tomans were spent in Khorramshahr, the economy of this city would not be activated without dredging Arvand and starting a trade. In addition, Khuzestan's economy will also suffer. My understanding was that most of those whose livelihood depended on agriculture or administrative services had returned from the former residents of Khorramshahr. A group whose economic life depended on trade did not return to Khorramshahr after the war. I emphasized to him that in addition to being one of the commanders of the war, you have an essential duty as a Khuzestani.

In parallel with the action above, I raised the issue with the government. I asked the President and General Dehghan, the Minister of Defense, the Minister of Energy, and Mr. Zarif, the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time, for help. They also emphasized the importance of the issue. And they made a great effort. However, in the end, due to the lack of cooperation on the Iraqi side as of this date, the CBC has not yet been formed, and shipping in Arvand is facing many problems. Before traveling to Iraq, President Rouhani also asked the ministers to raise important issues for negotiations with Iraq. Again, I raised this issue. He also emphasized the issue's importance and put it on the negotiation agenda between the two governments at the highest level. However, despite the legal obligation, no success was achieved in practice.

The reality is that it seems that despite all the developments in Iraq, all the cooperation between the two governments to repel ISIS from Iraq, and the sacrifices made by parts of the two nations with each other, there is still a movement in Iraq that refuses to commit to good neighborliness. Given the large human and material losses to the two nations, this issue cannot be easily overlooked. Those familiar with history know that this is a wide-ranging issue in the history of Iran-Iraq relations. Its roots go back to the relations between Iran and the Ottomans. Therefore, the arrangements for implementing Resolution 598 and implementing the 1975 Treaty should be resolved through friendly negotiations now that the political relations between the two countries are in a good state. Referring to history would be to keep the wound open and the fire under the ashes.

3- The region is still in a state of instability, and there is a possibility of an event at any moment. In addition, Israel's arson is also the greatest threat to the security of Iran and the region. It seems that ignoring paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 of Resolution 598 does nothing to establish security in the region. This cannot be taken as a matter of good neighborliness. The security of the region requires responsible and peace-loving governments. If a government succeeds in evading the cost of war because of our negligence, it is not necessarily helping its people. Because it is possible that in the future, a ruler like Saddam will seriously endanger the security of both his nation and the neighboring nations. On the anniversary of the beginning of the Iraqi invasion, it is appropriate to think about all these issues once again so that the countries of the region do not witness another war in the future.