Why would Israel sell arms to Iran?

This one is going a little ways back, to 1985 and the Iran-Contra scandal. But, this is what got me interested (at a young age mind you) into "alternate" versions of events.

The main story-line, as most of you are aware, was a "two birds with one stone" operation.

1) An embargo to sell arms to Iran would be "side-stepped" in order to encourage them to free the american diplomats being held hostages.

2) The money from these transactions could be funneled to a right-wing rebel group in Nicaragua, by the CIA to help them overthrow the government in place at the time.

The thing that has always seemed strange to me is that ISRAEL was used as the middleman to get the weapons to IRAN. Now, we know that these nations are far from friendly, and I cannot comprehend what Israel was hoping to gain by helping send high-tech weaponry to its sworn enemy.

Michael Ledeen, a consultant of National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, requested assistance from Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres for help in the sale of arms to Iran.[25][26] At the time, Iran was in the midst of the Iran–Iraq War and could find few Western nations willing to supply it with weapons.[27] The idea behind the plan was for Israel to ship weapons through an intermediary (identified as Manucher Ghorbanifar)

Does anyone out there in ATS world have any clues?

the Billmeister

I've always found this one to be a little more complex for my conspiracy mind. I remember as a kid, seeing oliver north being questioned on tv.

Maybe we should ask Lee Hamiltion, I believe he was on that committee and also the 911 commission.

Originally posted by mayabong
I've always found this one to be a little more complex for my conspiracy mind. I remember as a kid, seeing oliver north being questioned on tv.

Maybe we should ask Lee Hamiltion, I believe he was on that committee and also the 911 commission.

Yes indeed, I will always remember the fool proof: "I do not recall" defense strategy during that commission... but then again, who needed it with their trusty "presidential pardon" card to play.

the Billmeister

Well my guess would be that it earned them Brownie points with the US and they probably figured that if they didn't do it someone else would. Also maybe they felt that at that time Iran and Iraq would be fighting each other which I'dn guess they'd be pretty happy with.

Originally posted by Thoriumisbest
Well my guess would be that it earned them Brownie points with the US and they probably figured that if they didn't do it someone else would. Also maybe they felt that at that time Iran and Iraq would be fighting each other which I'dn guess they'd be pretty happy with.

Yes, the Iraq/Iran war... but the arms embargo was against Iran, because the ally at that time was Iraq.

However, maybe the gamble was that the weapons would all be used up during that conflict and not become a threat to Israel.

Either way, there must be something missing in the equation, unless of course the political strategists of the day were completely incompetent? (But no, that could never be... incompetent public officials?)

the Billmeister

Perhaps:

1) Some type of material reward...by serving as the middle-man....follow the $?

2) (Tin-foil hat on) A way to help bring on the "prophetic" coming?

Nothing confusing about it.

Iran was fighting against what was probably the most powerful Arab state, and in all honesty had the right on its side (contrary to Ronald Reagan's BS claims otherwise, the Iraqis invaded Iran.) Saddam considered himself the spokesperson for Arab nationalism, and pretty much everyone except Syria agreed with that assessment (and Syria didn't because it was still butthurt about the Ba'ath split). At the time Israel's enemies were all Arab states, and the primary focus of its efforts was the PLO, an Arab nationalist organization.

When you consider that the major funder of the PLO at the time - Saudi Arabia - was paying millions and millions to keep Saddam afloat during this war, it was actually in Israel's interest to help Iran hold its ground, thus depriving its own enemy funding. In addition, an Iraqi defeat would have been a blow to morale for the notion of Arab nationalism; in fact it was the nail in the coffin, after the blowout of the 1967 war and the 1973 asskicking Egypt got. After Iran managed to give as good as it got, and held all its territory against the most powerful state in the region, it pretty much killed Arab nationalism.

Of course this resulted in the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in its place, which hasn't done Israel any favors, but hey, no one can really see the future.

More confusing is US involvement in the first place. One would think we'd have been performing Iraq-Contra - heaven knows, we were real cozy in Saddam's pocket for all those years. Why Reagan decided to sell arms to Iran instead of his "dear friend" in Baghdad, I can't recall. Perhaps it was an effort to keep the Iranians standing, so that the US military industry could make more cash out of Iraqi purchases.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Interesting analysis.

As for the siding with Iran over Iraq, the mainstream explanation for making weapons available to Iran, was as a form of ransom payment to help free the diplomats being held hostage.

However, in an official manner they supported Iraq, in essence, arming both sides.

the Billmeister

reply to post by Billmeister


Ah! Yes, the hostages in Lebanon! Thanks, that was a complete brain fart on my end. Now I feel silly.

Israel has been behind a few arms deals involving arab nations. Charlie Wilson's War gives great insight into how the US gov't used the Israelis to manufacture russian knock off weapons that were then smuggled into Afghanistan, via Pakistan.


I'm guessing that there were reasons behind Israel's involvement, much as there was reason behind their involvement in the Afghan covert operations

Until the Islamic Revolution, Iran was Israel's main ally in the Middle East and had a sizable Jewish community of Mizrahim. They had mutual strategic interests in the region, Iran is a Muslim country but neither Arab or Sunni. Iran was amongst the firsts countries to recognize the state of Israel. They had close commercial ties and had started together the development of a new missile a few years before the Iranian Revolution.

So those two countries were far from unfriendly.

Despite the external image of distrust and rejection of Israel given by the Islamic regime, it is possible Iran has maintained secret ties with Israel for strategic reasons and the Iran-Contra scandal probably reveals it. Iran was diplomatically very isolated after 1979 and I believe it's quite possible Iran and Israel have secretly collaborated in some areas.

reply to post by Billmeister


Who knows what the method to their madness is?
The phrase "the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend" comes to mind.

Originally posted by Manouche
Until the Islamic Revolution, Iran was Israel's main ally in the Middle East and had a sizable Jewish community of Mizrahim. They had mutual strategic interests in the region, Iran is a Muslim country but neither Arab or Sunni. Iran was amongst the firsts countries to recognize the state of Israel. They had close commercial ties and had started together the development of a new missile a few years before the Iranian Revolution.

So those two countries were far from unfriendly.

Despite the external image of distrust and rejection of Israel given by the Islamic regime, it is possible Iran has maintained secret ties with Israel for strategic reasons and the Iran-Contra scandal probably reveals it. Iran was diplomatically very isolated after 1979 and I believe it's quite possible Iran and Israel have secretly collaborated in some areas.

A very relevant point.

During the reign of the shah, the radical Islamist elements of Iran were violently silenced and kept away from the political arena. (what little of it there was)

This being not too long after the revolution, perhaps Israel was gambling that the secular influences in Iran could be "encouraged" to take control of the country once again... who knows?

the Billmeister

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Your original analysis was very interesting, but I wonder why Israel would not have supported the (mostly) secular Iraq as the rest of the western powers were. Wouldn't a secular pan-arab coalition be better for Israel than the Islamic leaning countries?

That being said, perhaps, as posted above, Israel was hoping to encourage the elements favorable to the shah's secular views to make a comeback.

Thanks for the participation.

the Billmeister

Haven't the banks financed both sides of pretty much every war and conflict?
We know who controls the banks so I don't see any real surprise in arming Iran..

Money is money..
Keep the wars going at ALL cost...

Nice speculation and interesting theories.

The Iran/ Iraq war lasted from 22 September 1980 – August 20, 1988 (7 years, 334 days)
Have we all forgotten June 7, 1981 Israel bombs Iraqi Osirak nuclear plant near Baghdad.

From Israels perspective Iraq was the larger threat at the time. Also during gulf war one Iraq attacked Israel with scuds not Iran. Well at that time Israel wasn't worried about Iran. There was no possible Iranian Nuclear ambitions nor over the top rhetoric.

What's one of the oldest sayings in the middle east?

No, not an Eye for an Eye.

The other one.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
What's one of the oldest sayings in the middle east?

No, not an Eye for an Eye.

The other one.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

While the Middle East may have adapted to this, it was originally uttered by Churchill, when asked why he was talking to the Russians.

The Arabs say: "my brother and I will fight against my cousin, and my cousin and I will fight against a foreigner"

Why would Israel sell arms to Iran?,
ha ha, they hate you for your freedoms.

for sure as we saw on other threads Iran has bought Uzis from Israel.

reply to post by Billmeister


I don't think Israel was gambling on anything but being very pragmatic. Slayer has summed it all on Iraq/Israel relations. Israel had already tried before to stop or impede the construction of the reactor, Iraq was perceived as the main threat.

Israel was probably the best choice of intermediary for the US capable of conducting this business being a fierce enemy of Iraq and with connections in Iran. The West supposedly supporting Iraq against Iran, who other than Israel ?

OK, I am not very proud of myself here... this is the Wikipedia entry titled:
Israeli support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq war

So it would appear that a combination of all our input leads to the proper explanation, and it would also appear that the role of Israel was far greater than simply that of a "middle-man" in an arms transaction.

Israeli support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq War refers to clandestine support of Iran provided by Israel during the Iran–Iraq War. Officials of Iran have denied that they received help from Israel.
... Despite all the speeches of Iranian leaders and the denunciation of Israel at Friday prayers, there were never less than about a 100 Israeli advisers and technicians in Iran at any time throughout the war, living in a carefully guarded and secluded camp just north of Tehran; they remained there even after the ceasefire.

SLAYER has already mentioned their direct participation in the bombing of the Osirak nuclear reactor, which is confirmed in the article.

Here is the reasoning cited, which, if we took bits and pieces from all the posts above, would lead to a similar statement.

Israel's goals were reestablish some influence in Iran which was lost when the Shah was defeated in 1979, intensify the Iran-Iraq War and weaken both Iran and Iraq, both of whom opposed the existence of Israel, prevent Iraq from conquering Iran as they feared a victorious Saddam Hussein, and create business for the Israeli weapons industry.

Thanks for helping me better understand, and I truly apologize for having missed that in the first place!?!

the Billmeister