Irdc.ir: After accepting the Resolution 598, Saddam, leaning on The West and The East, once more invaded Kooshk, Zaid and Shalamche to take control of Khorramshahr and the Ahvaz-Khorramshahr route, using chemical weapons, helicopters and gunnery. In the end they faced a heavy defeat, but this move was followed by some various reactions.
Saddam’s political gratitude for the West was one of the common analysis in the international media.
Tashrin newspaper, published in Damascus, believed that this was done by US order: "Saddam has obeyed US orders to intensify the military operations against Iran, and wants to put Tehran under Washington guardianship once again”. The paper also mentions that the invasion was also considered the interests of Israel: "Saddam Hussein wants to fulfill a plan with the goal of putting Arabs in war situation, so that the danger of Israel comes second”.
Alba’ath Syria, believed that this invasion was Ba’ath regime’s service for Zionist regime: "Iraq’s regime performs an Imperial plan and serves Arab’s main enemy, Israel, by operating military invasion against Iran”. The newspaper demanded conviction for facist regime of Baqdad, which considered the continuation of war as a guarantee for saving itself from falling. English newspaper "Muslim” published in Islamabad, also convicted Iraq’s action: "We can’t accept that Iraq has found out about the importance of direct negotiation with Iran overnight and decided to invade Iran again in order to achieve that”.
Saddam refused to recompense and that’s what shows us another dimension of international analysis of Iraq’s invasion to Iran after the resolution. London Times wrote: "Iraq, which the independent experts consider responsible for the War, worries that being known as the beginner of the war will force them recompense billions to Islamic Republic”.
Financial times, mentions the supports from the West during the war: "Saddam Hussein has to be told that the support frim US, Soviet Union and France were not blank cheques for him. And he also has to be told that he can’t get away from being responsible for beginning of the war”.
Some media, believed that the invasion was an attempt to make amends of the failures in the war. Most of analysts believed that: "Iraq has made the same mistake of December 1980”.
Independent wrote: "Baqdad doesn’t deserve a good behaviour. The West must teach Saddam that he can’t win this war. They not only began the war, but also used chemical weapons and proved the point that these horrible weapons can be of a high military value.
Muslim wrote: "Maybe Saddam has forgotten that he couldn’t achieve his goals when he imposed the war on Iran eight years ago, and so he can’t now”.
The international experts believed that the contioues support from the West and the East, was one of the reasons Saddam dared to break international laws and violation the resolution. So if they had cooperated to make peace, Saddam had no reason for the invading Iran again”.
Cologne Radio called this new invasion "embarrassing”. Frontier Post wrote: "Iraq’s regime isn’t honest about the resolution of the Security Council”. This paper believed that breaking the international laws was insulting the United Nations.
Norbert Gandel, foreign relations politican of Western Germany Social Democratic party, said: "It’s a shame that at the final level, when everything was ready to put an end to the war, still some people were victims of chemical weapons”.
Dr. Julian Perry Robinson, an expert of chemical weapons from Essex University of England, announced that Iraq’s invasions were total crimes and it’s a shame to forget about them. Gulf news wrote: "Baqdad’s recent invasion is no help for peace”. And suggested that Ba’ath regime must give up the aggressive policy and make way to create stable peace in the region”.