Khomeini was instigating rebellion in Iraq and attacked border posts before the war started.
Imam Khomeini didn't call on Iraqis to rebel. Some people inspired and encouraged by the Victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, spontaneously rose up.
Also, no border post was attacked on orders of Imam Khomeini. Saddam viewed the post-revolutionary chaos in Iran as an opportunity, separatist grouplets in Khuzestan that where being supported by Baghdad began causing problems to Iran right after the fall of the shah. And contrary to the Iraqi government, the Iranian one had no firm grip on power yet, owing to natural post-Revolution turmoil.
- - - - -
And 1982 ceasefire and 1988 ceasefire are basically the same terms.
The situation was not exactly the same. In 1987, the UN Security Council for the first time passed a resolution requesting Iraq to retreat to pre-war borders ie to respect the terms of the 1975 Algiers Agreement on the Arvan Rud border delimitation; that same resolution announced the establishment of a commission to determine the aggressor. These elements were not given in 1982.
So all that happened during that 6 years was alot more Iranians dead and damage to Iranians economy.
Anyone that argues for more war based on pride and arrogance rather than facts on the ground is filled with childish thinking.
Khomeini had zero military credentials/experience and went against the advice of his inner circle in continuing the war.
The assumption that Iraq might only have sought a ceasefire in order to regroup, rearm and attack a second time was well founded. As a matter of fact, Saddam via the MKO did attack Iran again after the 1988 ceasefire. The MKO incursion, which nearly reached Kermanshah, had to be crushed in Operation Mersad. So in the early 80's, chances are that Iraq would have invaded a second time all by itself.
Also, there was no way for Iran to predict with certainty that world powers would go as far as aiding Iraq to obtain WMD and covering its widespread use of chemical weapons at the UNSC, like the US regime did by vetoing a resolution meant to condemn the attacks. Likewise, there was no evidence that Iraq's backers would supply that many weapons to Saddam as they did.
Had the terms of the ceasefire been acceptable - ie had they recognized Iraq as the aggressor and reinstituted the terms of the 1975 Algiers Agreement, then refusing it would arguably have been irrational. But given the circumstances, the decision to reject the 1982 ceasefire proposal was sound enough. Most officials in Iran did support the decision.
Yeah and it was made for the fact that Iran didn’t accept the UN ceasefire in 1982 and 6 years later was basically force to accept the reality of 88 ceasefire which was the same ceasefire from 6 years prior.
By "cup of poison", Imam Khomeini is unlikely to have meant the terms of the ceasefire. Rather, he was referring to the very fact of acquiescing to it, given that he would have preferred to continue to resist and that politicians such as Hashemi Rafsanjani pressed him to give in.
The only reason the war continued was Khomeini’s instance on exporting the revolution to Iraq and rest of the Middle East. This false narrative your pushing that he did it to weaken Saddam from future attacks never existed. The military objectives by Iran were met (defense of its territorial integrity) instead he kept the war for 6 more years and then accepted the same ceasefire begrudgingly.
Iran's war effort wasn't meant to export the Revolution. After some debates in 1979-1980, it was agreed upon that exporting the Revolution should be understood as building an exemplary Islamic Republic, which would inspire other Muslim nations to overthrow puppet regimes, or other Muslim rulers to follow in Iran's footsteps. Export of the Revolution did not imply offensive intervention for regime change elsewhere.
