The invasion, launched on September 21, 1980, represented a profound test for the nascent Islamic Republic, which was still consolidating its revolutionary gains and faced significant internal challenges.
Despite being caught unprepared and subjected to simultaneous land, air, and naval attacks across its western and southern borders, Iran mounted a commendably brave and resilient defense that ultimately repelled the aggressor and preserved the country's territorial integrity and sovereignty.
The aggression cannot be understood in isolation from its international context, as it was actively encouraged and supported by foreign powers, particularly the United States, which provided critical political backing, intelligence, and weaponry to Baghdad throughout the protracted war.
European countries likewise played a significant role in fueling the war of aggression through massive arms shipments, including the provision of chemical weapons that were deployed against Iranian soldiers and civilians in violation of international norms.
The parallels between this aggression and the more recent one, particularly the 12-day imposed war by the Israeli regime in June, reveal enduring patterns of foreign hostility and interventionism against Iran, met consistently with national unity and determined resistance.
Outset of aggression and Iran's response
The war began with a series of coordinated airstrikes on September 21, 1980, as Iraqi MiG fighter jets bombed multiple Iranian airports, including Mehrabad in Tehran, Ahvaz, Tabriz, Hamadan, and Bushehr, targeting both military infrastructure and civilian facilities in a clear escalation of hostilities.
These attacks were accompanied by a full-scale ground invasion across Iran's western and southern borders, with Iraqi forces advancing into the oil-rich province of Khuzestan under the delusion that local Arabic-speaking populations would welcome them as liberators rather than defend their territory.
This strategic miscalculation reflected the flawed assumptions of Saddam Hussein's regime, which believed the political turmoil following Iran's Islamic Revolution had created a window of vulnerability that could be exploited for quick territorial gains and geopolitical advantage.
The invasion was preceded by Saddam's theatrical tearing of the Algiers Agreement before television cameras, claiming absolute Iraqi sovereignty over the Arvand River and even Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf, to fabricate a pretext for aggression that lacked any legal or historical foundation.
Iran's armed forces, still in a period of reorganization following the Islamic Revolution and facing various internal challenges, demonstrated remarkable composure and resilience in responding to these unprovoked attacks, quickly mobilized to defend the country's sovereignty despite the element of surprise and the superior weaponry initially fielded by the invading forces.
Bombing of the civilian neighborhood of Ekbatan in Tehran on the first day of the aggressionThe immediate response included the shooting down of eleven Iraqi aircraft and the sinking of four missile frigates, according to early military announcements, showcasing the operational capability and determination of Iranian forces even under unexpectedly adverse conditions.
The national response to the invasion was characterized by extraordinary unity and resolve, as political leaders across the spectrum and ordinary citizens alike rallied to defend the country against external aggression, setting aside differences in the face of a common threat.
Imam Khomeini, in a message delivered shortly after the attacks began, firmly condemned the aggression while drawing a clear distinction between the Iraqi regime and its people, emphasizing that Iran's response would target the architects of the invasion rather than the Iraqi population, who were themselves victims of Saddam's tyranny.
All senior Iranian government officials at the time urged calm and discipline while highlighting the coordinated response of military and political institutions, demonstrating a cohesive national leadership that effectively managed the crisis despite the challenging circumstances.
Perhaps most significantly, ordinary Iranians from all walks of life spontaneously expressed their readiness to join the defense effort, with many rushing to offer assistance at bombed sites despite safety concerns and others formally volunteering for military service, reflecting a profound popular commitment to national defense that would become a defining feature of the war years.
The heroic resistance in border cities such as Khorramshahr, where lightly armed defenders held off numerically superior Iraqi forces for weeks, became emblematic of Iran's determined response to aggression and demonstrated that technological superiority alone could not overcome national resolve and strategic ingenuity.
The period of Imposed War served to clearly distinguish genuine patriots who set aside their differences to unite in defense of the nation from those who chose to abandon the country, such as monarchists who sought refuge abroad, and members of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO) terror cult, who aligned themselves with the invading forces.
Western support for Ba'athist Iraqi aggression
The Imposed War cannot be properly understood without examining the extensive international support provided to the Saddam regime, particularly from Western powers that saw the Iraqi aggression as an opportunity to weaken the Islamic Republic and roll back its growing influence.
The United States played a particularly instrumental role in facilitating Iraqi aggression, having given what amounted to a green light for the invasion following the collapse of diplomatic negotiations in Bonn just days before the attacks commenced, where Iranian attempts to resolve outstanding issues, including frozen assets, had been rebuffed by American officials.
This timing was hardly coincidental, coming just two months after the failure of the Nojeh coup plot—a joint American-Iraqi attempt to overthrow the Iranian government—which demonstrated that military action against Iran had been actively contemplated by both regimes before the September invasion.
Once the war commenced, the US provided extensive material support to Iraq, including intelligence sharing, economic assistance amounting to billions of dollars, and direct military training, while simultaneously engaging in sabotage operations against Iranian infrastructure and participating in attacks on Iranian shipping and oil platforms.
American diplomatic efforts further aided the Iraqi war machine by systematically deflecting attention from Baghdad's use of chemical weapons through false equivalencies that misleadingly suggested both sides were employing such prohibited weapons, when in reality only Iraq possessed and utilized these horrific instruments of warfare against both military targets and civilian populations.
European powers similarly bear significant responsibility for enabling and prolonging the aggression through their extensive arms exports to Iraq, which transformed Saddam's military into a formidable force equipped with the most advanced weaponry available on the international market.
France emerged as one of Iraq's primary weapons suppliers, providing aircraft, missile systems, and armored vehicles that significantly enhanced Baghdad's offensive capabilities, while Germany contributed dual-use technology and chemical precursors that facilitated the development of Iraq's chemical weapons program despite international prohibitions.
The United Kingdom likewise authorized extensive arms sales to Baghdad while providing technical assistance and training that improved the effectiveness of Iraqi forces, and Italy furnished naval vessels and other military hardware that strengthened Iraq's strategic position.
This massive international arms pipeline allowed Iraq to sustain its war effort despite significant losses and economic challenges, effectively outsourcing its military logistics to foreign suppliers who profited handsomely from the prolonged aggression while paying lip service to calls for peace and neutrality.
The coordinated nature of this support suggests a deliberate Western strategy to use Iraq as a proxy to weaken Iran, reflecting geopolitical calculations that prioritized containing the Islamic Revolution over regional stability or humanitarian considerations.
parallels with June 2025 Imposed War
The patterns of external aggression and Iranian resilience evident during the 1980s Imposed War found striking parallels in the 12-day war imposed by the Israeli regime in coordination with the US in June this year, which similarly combined surprise attacks, foreign backing, and ultimately failed to achieve its strategic objectives due to Iran's determined response.
Like Saddam's invasion in 1980, the Israeli aggression began with targeted assassinations of top-ranking military commanders and scientists alongside attacks on civilian areas, reflecting a similar calculation that Iran could be weakened through decapitation strikes and shock tactics.
The United States again played an enabling role, directly participating in bombing campaigns against Iranian nuclear facilities despite the absence of any legitimate justification.
Iran's response to the 2025 aggression demonstrated the same national unity and military competence that had characterized its defense during the 1980s, with armed forces effectively responding to attacks on multiple fronts and delivering measured but decisive counterstrikes against targets in occupied territories and American bases in the region.
The leadership similarly maintained a clear strategic direction throughout the crisis, with Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei emphasizing the nation's resolve and capability while accurately identifying the motivations underlying the hostility toward Iran's independent path.
Most significantly, both aggressions ultimately concluded without achieving the aggressors' primary objectives—whether the territorial gains sought by Iraq or the destruction of Iran's nuclear program and defensive capabilities attempted by the Israeli regime—demonstrating the consistent failure of military coercion against a nation determined to defend its sovereignty and principles.
The continuity between these episodes, separated by 45 years, suggests enduring structural factors in Iran's international relations, where foreign powers repeatedly underestimate national unity and resilience while overestimating the effectiveness of military force against a people who have consistently demonstrated their willingness to sacrifice in defense of their country and revolution.
These parallel experiences have inevitably shaped Iran's strategic calculus and defense preparedness, reinforcing the importance of military self-sufficiency and the development of deterrent capabilities that can discourage future aggression while ensuring an effective response if aggression is nevertheless imposed.
(By Ivan Kesic: the article was origninally published by By Presstv website)