This act of abrogation was not an isolated event, but the culmination of a deliberate escalation strategy orchestrated by Saddam's regime, which sought to exploit the perceived vulnerability of the nascent Islamic Republic of Iran following the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
The declaration of full Iraqi sovereignty over the entire waterway was a calculated provocation designed to nullify Iranian rights and assert Iraqi dominance, effectively dismantling the only stable framework for peaceful coexistence that had been painstakingly negotiated.
This move dramatically heightened tensions along the border, setting the stage for a full-scale invasion merely five days later, which would eventually ignite a deadly eight-year war.
The decision to scrap the agreement was executed at the instigation of, and with the tacit support of, the United States, which saw an opportunity to weaken the new Iranian government and bolster a strategic ally in Baghdad, thereby reshaping the regional balance of power to its own advantage.
The aftermath of this fateful decision was catastrophic, leading to a devastating war of attrition that resulted in immense human suffering, regional destabilization, and a legacy of distrust toward Washington and its puppet regimes.
What is the significance of Arvand River?
The Arvand River, formed by the confluence of the Tigris, Euphrates, and Karun rivers, represents a vital economic and strategic waterway for both Iran and Iraq, serving as the sole maritime access point for Iraqi shipping to the Persian Gulf and hosting critical Iranian infrastructure, including the major oil refinery at Abadan.
This 200-kilometer channel is not merely a body of water but a lifeline for regional trade and energy exports, whose control has been synonymous with geopolitical influence and security for centuries.
The river's economic importance is immense as it facilitates the movement of goods and oil tankers for both countries, with the ports of Basra and Khorramshahr representing major commercial hubs whose operation is entirely dependent on unimpeded access to the waterway.
Historically, the river has been a central artery of commerce and conflict, with its ownership disputed between various empires and states, reflecting its enduring value as a strategic prize in a volatile region.
The deep-water channels necessary for navigation require constant maintenance and dredging, making joint management and cooperation not just a political ideal but also a practical necessity for ensuring their usability for large vessels.
For Iran, the river symbolizes national sovereignty and historical continuity, being referred to in Persian literature and historical texts as the Arvand, a name evoking ancient heritage and cultural pride, while for the Ba'athist Iraqi regime, it represented an Arab waterway whose control was essential for its hegemonic ambitions in the Persian Gulf.
Map of the Arvand RiverHow was the river border formed?
The modern dispute over the Arvand River border finds its roots in the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, when the state of Iraq was created under British mandate and inherited the Ottoman Empire's territorial claims, including its contentious border arrangements with Iran.
The initial border agreements, such as the Second Treaty of Erzurum in 1847, were mediated by imperial powers like Britain and Russia and often imposed under duress, failing to establish a clear and mutually acceptable demarcation based on modern principles of international law.
The Constantinople Protocol of 1913 and the subsequent minutes of the Boundary Delimitation Commission in 1914 further complicated the issue by attempting to formalize a border that largely favored the Ottoman side, placing the boundary on the eastern bank of the river and thereby granting effective control to the Ottomans and, later, to Iraq.
The first major bilateral treaty between the newly independent Kingdom of Iraq and Iran was signed in 1937, but it was widely viewed in Iran as an unequal agreement forced upon by British imperialism, as it conceded Iraqi sovereignty over almost the entire river, except for a small section opposite Abadan.
For decades, Iran argued that the principle of thalweg, which establishes the border along the median line of the deepest navigable channel, was the standard international norm for river boundaries between sovereign states—a principle that Ba'athist Iraq consistently rejected to maintain its advantageous position.
The inherent instability of this arrangement ensured that the river border remained a persistent source of friction, with successive Iranian governments seeking to revise what they perceived as an unjust, colonial-era imposition that violated their territorial integrity.
What was the 1975 Algiers Agreement?
The Algiers Agreement, brokered by Algerian President Houari Boumediene during an OPEC summit in March 1975, represented a key moment in Iran-Iraq relations, finally resolving the longstanding border dispute by adopting the thalweg principle for the entire length of the Arvand River.
This treaty compelled Ba'athist Iraq to formally relinquish its claim of full sovereignty over the waterway and accept a border running along the median line, thereby recognizing Iranian rights to the channel and establishing a framework for shared management and navigation.
In return, the Pahlavi regime agreed to cease its support for Kurdish insurgents in northern Iraq, a concession that provided critical relief to the Baghdad government, which had been struggling to contain a debilitating rebellion.
The agreement included detailed protocols for the re-demarcation of the entire land border, the regulation of navigation, and the equitable use of water resources.
For a time, the accord succeeded in normalizing relations, reducing border skirmishes, and fostering a degree of cooperation, as both sides appeared committed to implementing its provisions. But its stability was inherently tied to the regional status quo and the balance of power between the two signatories, making it vulnerable to any shift in the political landscape.
City of Abadan on the Arvand RiverHow did the Ba'athist Iraq escalate?
The victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in February 1979 fundamentally altered the regional calculus, presenting the Ba'athist regime in Baghdad with both a perceived threat and a strategic opportunity, as the new Iranian government was preoccupied with internal consolidation and faced international sanctions.
Saddam, who formally assumed the Iraqi presidency in July 1979, viewed it as a window of opportunity to overturn the Algiers Agreement and achieve long-held ambitions of regional dominance and control over the Arvand River.
The Ba'athist Iraqi regime claimed that the ideology of Iran's new government, which criticized the secular nature of Ba'athist rule, constituted an existential threat, an assertion used to justify its aggressive policies, particularly in the context of Iraq's Shia demographic.
A relentless propaganda campaign was launched by Iraq, resurrecting baseless claims over Iranian territory, including the province of Khuzestan, which was falsely labeled as Arabistan, and the three Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf, while simultaneously vilifying the new leadership in Tehran.
Throughout 1979 and 1980, Iraq systematically escalated tensions by sponsoring separatist groups in Iran, expelling thousands of Iraqis of Iranian descent, and engaging in increasingly frequent and severe border clashes, deliberately creating a climate of crisis and testing Iran's resolve.
This campaign of provocation was encouraged and supported by the US and several Arab states, which shared a common interest in containing the Islamic Revolution and were willing to provide political backing and intelligence to the Iraqi regime, effectively green-lighting its aggressive designs.
What were the consequences of terminating the accord?
The unilateral abrogation of the Algiers Agreement on September 17, 1980, served as the immediate casus belli for the Iraqi invasion of Iran on September 22, an act of aggression that ignited one of the longest and most destructive conventional wars of the 20th century.
Saddam Hussein's regime, expecting a swift victory against a supposedly disorganized and weakened adversary, profoundly miscalculated the resilience of the Iranian people and their determination to defend their revolution and territorial integrity, leading to a bloody war that would last for eight years.
The Imposed War resulted in catastrophic human losses, with an estimated one million casualties, widespread destruction of cities and infrastructure, and the use of chemical weapons by Iraq against
For Iran, the war became a defining national experience—a Sacred Defense that consolidated a newly established state and fostered a deep-seated sense of resilience against foreign aggression.
The war ended in 1988 with a United Nations-brokered ceasefire that essentially restored the status quo ante bellum, including the provisions of the Algiers Agreement, rendering Iraq's initial aggression futile and highlighting the tragic absurdity of the Ba'athist regime's miscalculated adventurism.
(The article was originally published on Website Presstv)