The Iraqi Full-fledged Ground Attack
Backed by air and marine invasions, the Iraqi full-fledged ground attack was launched in September, 1980. At the outset of the attack, the Iraqi Ground Force was composed of 12 divisions (5 infantry divisions, 5 armor divisions, 2 mechanized divisions) 45 independent brigades (10 infantry, I armor, 1 mechanized, 3 special force, and 20 border guard brigades and the 10th presidential Republican Guard). In terms of weaponry ,the Iraqi army was mobilized with 800 guns, 5400 tanks and personnel earners, 400 anti-aircraft guns, 366 fighters, 400 helicopters all enjoying optimum preparations.
At the outset, the Iraqi forces launched their attack mainly from Shalamcheh, Talaiyeh, Tang-e-Chazzabeh, Dezful fronts so as to occupy the Iranian Khuzestan province. Extraordinary propaganda such as changing the names of some cities (i.e., Susangerd to Khofajiyeh; Khorramshahr to Mohammareh; Abadan to Ebadan, ahvaz to alahvaz and Khuzestan to Arabia), integrating power supply post and telephone networks were made so as to demonstrate the early attacks successful.
Resistance of the friendly forces and early achievements of the invasion
The Iraqi attack encountered the resistance of both civilian and military forces of Iran that some samples of the resistance arc elaborated as:
(1) Resistance of the Military Forces
Given the fact that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was fully engaged with fighting against internal anti-revolutionary forces and securing the cities, and some of its units were fighting against the anti-revolutionary forces in Kurdistan province, then it was only the Ground force of the Iranian Army as a well-organized army enjoying relative combat power supposed to be capable of combating the enemy on the basis of its background military plans and exercises. Following the invasion, the Iranian local divisions quickly recaptured the occupied territories in spring, 1980, and in collaboration with the Iranian Gendarmerie deployed along the border stations or bases, defeated the enemy. Due to failure to combat the enemy instantly and fix it in its positions at the early days of the invasion, the Iranian Army resorted to tactical withdrawal and exchange of land with time following the measures taken by senior authorities (commanders). Engaged with the enemy, the Iranian Army units made attempts to deploy the troops in dominating positions and fix the enemy in inferior ones so as to launch their attacks following the opportunities made for immobilization of the friendly forces and getting information from the enemy.
Apparently, the general military deployment indicated the occupation of a vast area by the enemy; however, on-time decision making, smartness, and deployment of the dispatched divisions in their positions, not only made Iraq fail to capture any decisive military targets, but due to exposing the Iraqi forces to an obligatory deployment in inferior positions, its high ranking officials voiced peace slogans and attempted to take the full advantages of the relative and minor successes.
(2)Supports by the Civilian Forces
The civilian forces devoid of any organization but being self-motivated and united, accompanying the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and in collaboration with the Army, combated the enemy and manifested the Iranian national determination to defy the aggression.
Major achievements of the Iraqi full-fledged attack and the resistance by the Iranian forces can be outlined as follows:
Arvand River: Although the Iranian forces were denied of taking the advantages of this water source, the enemy was also deprived of any military and non-military benefits of the river.
Abadan: Was exposed to just an incomplete siege.
Ahwaz: The Iraqi forces were forced to stop one km away from Ahwaz without achieving any tangible Results.
Bostan: Was occupied by the enemy due to its proximity to the border.
Susangerd: Contrary to being occupied fully at the outset of the War, it was immediately liberated.
Dezful: The Iraqi Anny failed to cross Karkheh River in spite of a well-mobilized advancement.
Mehran&Musian: were occupied by the enemy due to their proximity to the border.
Naftshahr and Sumar: Had the same destiny as that of Boston, Mehran and Dehloran
North-West Front: The Iraqi attempts were doomed to failure and no tangible Results were achieved.
It can, then, be daringly claimed that the enemy experienced defeat in all areas, but due to lack of justification for withdrawal on one hand, and the hope to make the best use of Iranian political circumstances on the other, it tried to stabilize its positions in the occupied territories.
Source:
The book named: Atlas of Unforgettable Battles
Compilation: Staff Colonel Mojtaba Jafari
Other links:
Imam Khomeini’s key role in triumph of the Islamic Revolution (Part 1)
Imam Khomeini’s key role in triumph of the Islamic Revolution (Part 2)
Imam Khomeini’s key role in triumph of the Islamic Revolution (Part 3)
Imam Khomeini’s key role in triumph of the Islamic Revolution (Part 4)
Concept Behind the Islamic Republic of Iran
