ISU foreign policy experts said Saddam Hussein’s rise to and fall from power in Iraq was due in part to assistance from U.S. political and financial sources.

Charles Dobbs, professor of military history and assistant to President Gregory Geoffroy, said the United States was seeking an ally in the Middle East in the 1970s when relations became troubled with Iran.

“In the 1980s, we look around and that becomes Saddam Hussein, in part because he too was opposing the Iranians,” he said.

James McCormick, professor and chairman of political science, said the United States provided funding to Iraq in 1989 and 1990.

“The issue really turned right after the Iran-Iraq War when the United States had provided agriculture grants to the Iraqis,” he said.

McCormick said the money could have been used negatively in Iraq.

“At that time there seemed to be some evidence that chemical weapons were used against their own people,” he said.

Joel Moses, professor of political science and Middle East specialist, said the United States started helping Saddam before he was a high ruler of Iraq.

“Saddam Hussein spent a year in Egypt and we helped get him back into Iraq because we thought he was young and educated and we could deal with him,” he said.

Moses agreed the United States supported Saddam in the 1980s.

“What was very clear was with the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War, the U.S. and all Persian Gulf countries supported Saddam in any way possible,” he said.

Moses said the support for Saddam was due to a fear of Iran winning the Iran-Iraq war.

“There was a genuine fear that if Iran would’ve won the war, they would’ve controlled the entire oil industry in the Middle East,” he said.

Dobbs said the alliance changed in the 1990s.

“When Hussein in the ’80s is our hero because of good relations with Iraq, then in the ’90s he’s bad because he takes Kuwait,” he said.

Moses said he agreed Saddam’s invasion into Kuwait triggered bad relations with Iraq.

“He crossed the line. If he had not invaded Kuwait, there would not have been a problem,” he said.

Dobbs said this likely happened because the United States wanted to keep good relations with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

“The Saudis and Kuwaitis pretty much paid off our debt of $60 million [after the Gulf War],” he said.

Dobbs said the United States had previously seen Saddam as a person who could benefit U.S. economy and growth.

“We used to look at issues in the Middle East and try to define them based on the Soviet and U.S. competition,” he said.

Dobbs said labeling Saddam as a friend further benefited his rise to power.

“If you create a symbol, like Hussein is a friend of America, they gain control over you,” he said.

Dobbs said conflict with Saddam likely arose because of control of the oil market.

“We wanted to be assured that our principle allies could have access to the oil market,” he said. “To assure that steady supply, so our allies — the Europeans and Japan, have that access.”

Moses said he does not attribute the conflict in Iraq solely to oil control.

“I don’t think it is oil — I think it’s ideology,” he said.

Moses said oil may play some of the role in the conflict.

“Oil is critical, from our perspective, in that the Middle East is the most important area in the entire world,” he said.

Moses said President Bush’s correspondents have a perspective to support the war.

“In the perspective of those who have influenced Bush, there are people who, since the Cold War, it’s become evident that we’re the superpower of the world and basically believe the way to solve the problems of the world is to take this affirmative action,” he said.

Dobbs said the way oil dollars are spent is also crucial to the situation.

“Because the international currency to pay for oil is dollars, we wanted to make sure they didn’t do anything really dangerous with those dollars,” he said. “We don’t want people to take those dollars and use them against us.”