On February 9, 1978, Kimberly Leach was in class at her Lake City, Florida school when her homeroom teacher called and asked her to come get a purse she'd left behind — and as she walked to another building on campus to retrieve it, she was abducted by Ted Bundy. The post The Heartbreaking Murder Of 12-Year-Old Kimberly Leach, The Final Victim Of Ted Bundy appeared first on All That's Interesting.

  For centuries, the people of Judaea had seen many foreign dynasts claim hegemony over them; the Greeks were but the latest. Antiochus IV’s interactions with the Judaeans were, to put it mildly, troubled. Does Antiochus IV deserve the mantle of villainy that ancient sources such as the Bible place on him? He is portrayed as the personification of religious persecution and extreme cruelty. The confluence of the Greek and Judaic worlds leaves historians with a rare problem of having extant sources from both cultures. However, that does not always mean they align.   Babylonian Captivity and the Arrival of the Greeks in Judaea Relief depicting the sacking of Jerusalem by the Emperor Titus on the Arch of Titus. Source: Brittanica.com   The campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon had led to the destruction of Jerusalem, the First Temple of Solomon, and the autonomy of the Kingdom of Judah in one fell swoop. Displaced from their homeland and the center of their worship, the inhabitants of Judah were taken back to Babylon, and Judaea, now called Yehud, became merely a province of a larger Babylonian state structure.   Unlike their time in Egypt, these people would not need another Moses to catalyze their return to Judah. According to Josephus, this role was played by the Persian king Cyrus. Fresh from his own victories over the Babylonians, he allowed the Judeans, having spent nearly five decades in Babylon, to return and “gave them lead to rebuild their temple.”   The Judeans, some of them having never been to the land they called Israel, established themselves amongst the new priestly class of the Second Temple, garnering animosity from those who had never left for Babylon. The internal strife amongst sects of the Judeans during this period would prefigure future conflicts that would be exacerbated by the emergence of a new power in the region.   A stele depicting Nebuchadnezzar atop the Tower of Babel, circa 604-562 BCE. Source: The Schoyen Collection   The Achaemenids were toppled by Alexander the Great during his conquest of Persia. Alexander’s untimely death enabled one of his generals, Selucus, to claim a large region of what had been the Persian Empire. Seleucid rule was characterized by conflict with the other Successor Kingdoms, native populations, breakaway dynasties, and eventually Rome.   Their conflict with the latter led to a defeat in which the Seleucids were forced to sign the punishing Treaty of Apameia in 188 BCE that stipulated them to pay the Romans an indemnity of 12,000 talents of silver to be paid out in 12 annual installments. These circumstances would have profound effects on not only the Seleucids but also the taxpayers of Judaea.   The Issue of Terminology Silver Tetradrachm of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, minted of Antioch circa 173-169 BCE. Source: The British Museum, Museum Number   As Antiochus IV rose to power, the Judaeans were dealing with issues of their own. It may seem pedantic but terminology does matter in terms of conceptualization and understanding, especially when looking at the ancient world. Today, the word Judaism is reductionist, reducing many regional and theological differences to a single word. The same was certainly true during the period of the Maccabean Revolt. As Steve Mason argues in his seminal work Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History that there was no one group of people who could be monolithically labeled as “Jews.”   Modern religious connotations of the word dilute the complexities and diversity of the various groups of people in the ancient Levant. It also seems to push them solely into the world of religion, another anachronistic term they would not understand, stripping away their simultaneous existence as a fully functioning political unit. Further to that point, there was far too much sectarianism within the society to be limited to a single all-encompassing term. Stretching into the Roman period, we know there were such distinct groups as the Pharisees, Essenes, and Sadducees, with varying roles and beliefs within Judaean society. This is not even to mention the various regional differences between Idumaeans, Galileans, and Samaritans.   There is no consensus among scholars on how the Jewish/Judaean people would have seen themselves in the context of others, such as the Seleucid Greeks, but for the purposes of this article, I will use the term Judaean to convey the importance of the geographical and religious ties of the people Antiochus IV came to rule.   The Rise of Antiochus IV Ephiphanes and the Syrian Wars Alexander the Great in the Temple of Jerusalem by Sebastiano Conca, circa 1736. Source: the Museo del Prado   The young Antiochus was born into a world where his father, Antiochus III, was, according to Diodorus Siculus, considered the “king of Asia.” However, the defeat at Magnesia in 190 BCE and the Treaty of Apamea changed the balance of power. Due to its stipulation, reports Appian, the younger Antiochus was sent as a hostage to live amongst the Romans.   After the death of Antiochus III, the new king, Seleucus IV, recalled his brother to Syria. As Antiochus made his way back to Syria, he stopped off in Athens where he received the news that his brother had been killed as the result of a plot masterminded by a royal advisor named Heliodoros. The conspirator placed the slain king’s son, yet another Antiochus, on the throne.   Bust of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, circa 170-150 BCE. Source: The Altes Museum Berlin, Museum   Having spent over a decade in Rome, the politically savvy Antiochus spotted his opportunity and refused to yield the throne to his nephew. Garnering support from the Hellenistic dynasts Eumenes and Attalus of Pergamon, Antiochus forced himself onto the Seleucid throne, becoming Antiochus IV. His predecessor and nephew died a mysterious and obscure death, leading many to question Antiochus IV’s complicity and, in turn, the legitimacy of his ascension.   Moving eyes away from the internal strife and controversy, a dispute was raised by Ptolemy VI Philometer, who claimed control of the region of Coele-Syria. Much as his father had, Antiochus VI, in a typical decisive fashion, launched an invasion, the speed of his response surprising the Egyptians. In the course of his campaigns in Egypt, Antiochus reduced the rival dynast’s kingdom to little more than the city of Alexandria itself. Nearly victorious, it was only the intervention of the Romans, with whom he had strove to retain good relations, that stopped him.   The Office of the High Priest in Jerusalem An inscription warning foreign intruders not to enter the Temple of Solomon in the collection of Israel Museum. Source: The Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae, Jerusalem, Part 1.   In 175 BCE, a dispute had broken out between the Seleucid local authorities and the High Priest Onias III. Newly crowned, Antiochus IV could not afford dissent or a disruption in the stream of tax revenue. Jason, the brother of Onias, made overtures to Antiochus involving a substantial bribe if he were given the position. The bribe came in the form of a bid, or tax harvesting contract, through which he would raise the funds to pay Antiochus by raising a specified amount of revenue in the form of taxation on his prospective subjects.   It should be remembered that Antiochus III granted the Judaeans special fiscal dispensations after his conquest of the area in the Fifth Syrian War. This act was meant as a way to build loyalty with a people that occupied a strategic area of land between the Seleucids and the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt.   Jason also promised that additional taxes would be levied if Antiochus were to accept the construction of a gymnasium in the city, effectively reorganizing the city as a full-fledged Greek polis. Dr. Franz Mittag suggests that this served the purpose of both increasing tax revenue and counterbalancing against the older, traditionalist elite represented by Onias III.   According to 1 Maccabees, Jason’s program of Hellenization took hold, and “they sacrificed to idols and profaned the Sabbath.” Altars were built and animals were sacrificed upon them in a manner that did not adhere to the Judaean practice, including the sacrifice of “pigs and other unclean animals.”   As abhorrent as the acts are portrayed in Maccabees, there is nothing to suggest that there was widespread dissension amongst the wider populace. Jason’s problems did not come from an unruly populace but from his inability to hold up his end of the financial deal struck with Antiochus.   The Temple Treated as a Treasury  A later, fictionalized portrait of Flavius Josephus by J. Moffat, date unknown. Source: The National Gallery of Scotland   Three years after his initial ascendancy in 172 BCE, Jason was deposed by yet another claimant to the office. A man named Menelaus, 2 Maccabees tells us, bribed Antiochus for the post of High Priest. Eager to receive the money promised to him, Antiochus had Jason deposed.   There is no evidence to suggest that Menelaus was any less influenced by Hellenization than his predecessor. In fact, 2 Maccabees reports that his brother Lysimachus regularly desecrated the Temple by entering it and removing objects from the treasury.   Word spread of Lysimahcus’ sacrilegious actions and a mob formed. To make matters worse, it was believed that the new High Priest was complicit in his brother’s transgressions. Lysimachus called up 3,000 men to put down what had quickly become a riot. Stones, bits of wood, and even ashes were flung at the soldiers as they approached. Some were wounded, others were killed. Soon the soldiers broke and fled in panic. Lysimachus himself was not spared from their wrath; he was killed near the steps to the same treasury which he defiled with his presence.   Receiving reports of unrest, Antiochus stopped in the city on his way from Tyre. A delegation of three men had brought charges against Menelaus and sought the King to arbitrate. Proven to be reliable and effective, Menelaus offered the King another bribe to be found innocent. Rather than answering for his transgressions, he was found innocent and the Judaeans who had brought such charges against him were executed.   Much like the earlier episode with Lysimachus, Antiochus, at this time, entered the Temple to extract 18,000 talents of silver – presumably as a form of payment for back taxes owed to him. For a Greek, seizing funds from a temple was not unprecedented; for a Judaean this was inconceivable.   The Case Against Antiochus: The Siege of Jerusalem and the Issue of the Decree A prutah of John Hyrcanus I, a descendant of the Maccabees, circa 134-104 BCE. Source: Harvard Art Museum   Having extracted the necessary funds, Antiochus set off on another campaign in Egypt where it was rumored that he had fallen in battle. Seizing the opportunity, the deposed Jason returned to Jerusalem. Menelaus sought refuge in the Temple while the populace was subjected to the rapaciousness of Jason’s men, who began slaughtering them “without mercy” or regard for kinship.   Hearing of the unrest, the local Seleucid commander, who resided in Samaria, moved quickly to quell the revolt. The city was retaken and a new stronghold was built next to the Temple called the Akra. Both Josephus and the author of 2 Maccabees tell us that Antiochus IV was there himself, giving the order to sack and plunder the city, which resulted in the deaths of “80,000 people.” The walls were torn down, the city was plundered, and many of the able-bodied inhabitants were enslaved.   Sources such as the Book of Daniel, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Josephus report that in 167 BCE an edict was issued by Antiochus IV which suspended the worship or practice of native beliefs. They tell us that Jewish holy law was suspended, circumcision was prohibited, daily sacrifices were banned in favor of impure ones, violations of the Sabbath, the construction of foreign altars, and the worship of foreign deities such as Zeus was conducted.   The two most egregious reports of religious suppression come from 2 Maccabees and tell the story of Eleazar the Mother and Seven Sons. In both stories, the Judaeans are threatened with death to eat unclean food. Their piety and refusal to eat the food eventually results in their torture and death. In the latter episode, Antiochus is personally on hand and the cruelty shown to the local populace is spurred by his ire.   Antiochus in Jerusalem: Fact vs. Fiction Christ Cleansing the Temple by Domenikos Theotokopoulos (El Greco), pre-1570. Source: The National Gallery of Art   The siege of Jerusalem and the reported slaughter of the populace can, in all probability, be taken as factual. Purging a local populace through death and enslavement was not uncommon amongst victorious Hellenistic generals. Judaean sources report the deposed High Priest Jason doing the very same thing. It is entirely possible that Antiochus took the discord caused by Jason re-entering Jerusalem as a more general revolt and moved to put it down quickly.   However, the stories of him forcing Judaeans to eat pork in front of him upon the threat of death are reported nowhere else and almost certainly embellished. There would be no incentive for him to single out the Judaeans amongst the many other religious groups in the empire for persecution. This would only sow the seeds of civil unrest; something Antiochus could ill afford with the Syrian Wars raging. His fear of even minor rebellions is demonstrated by his swift and heavy-handed reaction to Jason’s re-entry into Jerusalem.   The next issue surrounds the existence of the edict that is cited in Josephus and Maccabees. What is troubling about these sources is that they are often inconsistent on the exact circumstances of their stipulations. Taken in tandem with the fact that there are no other sources that cite this “decree,” it is dubious that such an edict was issued in this manner, especially on an empire-wide scale as 2 Maccabees claims. The introduction of foreign cults would not have been a strange consequence for a victorious Greek king, especially in the neighborhood of Akra where Greek troops were now permanently stationed. We know that other elements of Greek culture had already been introduced to the city (and even adopted by some of the populace), so their presence there does not inherently prove the suppression of native beliefs.   Antiochus IV and Seleucid Rule in Judaea: Conclusion The Triumph of Judas Maccabeus, by Peter Paul Rubens, 1635. Source: Fine Art America   The exact event that sparked the beginning of the Maccabean Revolt is not clear. Was it the economic burden (increased levels of taxation), civil strife between the two factions of presumptive High Priests, or Antiochus’ excessive cruelty?   The issues the Judaeans experienced in the years leading up to the Maccabean Revolt were certainly not helped by the internal sectarianism present amongst the populace, most notably in the form of the dispute over the office of the High Priest between Jason and Menelaus. The consequences of their respective ambitions were exacerbated by the interference of a cultural outsider who did not fully understand the intricacies of Judaea himself, nor did he have the time to focus solely on it. Wars with Ptolemaic Egypt, dissension in Bactria, and the other administrative duties of running a huge, multi-ethnic empire would have consumed his days.   The strategy of controlling local authority by displacing older elites was not new. In Ptolemaic Egypt, priestly families were often replaced and, as Dr. Honigman points out, Antiochus IV had already supplanted ruling elites in Uruk. “The Seleucids’ attempt to control the appointment of the Jerusalem High Priests was indeed an innovation introduced by Antiochus IV, who exploited his appointees’ weakness—their lack of dynastic legitimacy—to extort sharp tax rises from them.”   There was a fundamental difference in philosophy that the “gentiles” never quite squared. To the Judaeans, the state’s political apparatus was the means to perpetuate their faith. Many in the Greco-Roman world would have held the inverse to be true. While the Julio-Claudians styled themselves as the descendants of Venus, deifying their own deceased family members, the people of Judaea could never truly accept any head of state that put themselves in between the mortal and divine realms in such a manner. It was a divergence in perspective at the most basic philosophical levels.

  The Iranian Revolution and Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979 shocked the world and turned the West against the new Islamic revolutionary government of Iran. Less than a year later, the neighboring nation of Iraq, a secular dictatorship under former army officer Saddam Hussein, invaded Iran. For eight years, the two Middle Eastern nations fought an intense and brutal war, generating the largest industrialized military conflict since World War II. The Iran-Iraq War featured modern weaponry and tactics, including the extremely controversial use of chemical warfare. Both superpowers—the United States and the Soviet Union—became involved as arms suppliers. The US even experienced armed attacks by Iran, influencing US-Iran relations for decades.   Setting the Stage: Rise of Saddam Hussein in Iraq A photograph of Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein, who governed the Middle Eastern nation from the 1970s until 2003. Source: PBS   A young Iraqi man named Saddam Hussein joined the Ba’ath Arab Socialist Party in 1957, beginning his controversial path into politics. Six years later, after having fled into exile, Saddam returned to Iraq following a US-supported regime change. As a member of the Ba’ath Party, he was jailed but ran for political office anyway. In 1968, a Ba’ath-led coup replaced the government, and Saddam Hussein, having risen up the party ranks, became vice president of Iraq. The young vice president quickly sought to remove any potential opponents to the Ba’ath Party’s control of Iraq.   In 1972, Saddam nationalized the oil industry in Iraq. A year later, this paid tremendous dividends when the OPEC oil embargo skyrocketed the price of oil. Thanks to rising oil revenue, Saddam was able to rapidly urbanize and industrialize Iraq, including providing education and health care to citizens. In 1979, Saddam was elected as the secretary-general of the Ba’ath Party, becoming a totalitarian ruler of Iraq. This occurred around the time of a substantial purge of senior party membership, allegedly to remove potential challenges to Saddam’s power.   Setting the Stage: The Iranian Revolution of 1979 A photograph of pro-revolution protesters in Iran in 1979 who successfully overthrew a US-installed monarchy. Source: Socialist Party of the UK   As Saddam Hussein consolidated power in an increasingly wealthy Iraq, the nation of Iran was beginning to suffer political turmoil. Many intellectuals and young people were dissatisfied with the rule of the pro-Western Shah, or monarch. This monarchy had been established in 1953 by an American and British-backed coup. Many Islamist protesters disagreed with the Shah’s focus on building a Westernized state, which had become a major US ally. In 1978, increasing waves of protests heightened tensions between young Iranians and the Shah’s security forces. By December, there were mass protests to replace the American-backed Shah with the religious leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.   In early 1979, the Shah began making some requested reforms. Khomeini was allowed to return and promptly urged protesters to rise up and ignore government-imposed curfews. With the military refusing to engage the protesters, the Shah fled into exile on February 11. The US embassy was attacked days later, but the government dispersed the crowds. Between February and October, Iran formally became an Islamic Republic with the creation of a new constitution. In October, the Shah traveled to the United States for medical treatment, with the US hospitality condemned by Ayatollah Khomeini.   Setting the Stage: The Iran Hostage Crisis (1979-81) American hostages being held in Iran for 444 days during the Iran Hostage Crisis. Source: Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)   A few weeks after the deposed Shah of Iran entered the US for medical treatment, thousands of student protesters stormed the US embassy in Tehran, the capital city. This began the lengthy Iran Hostage Crisis, which pitted the administration of US President Jimmy Carter against the radical Islamic regime of Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini refused to negotiate with Carter’s emissaries, and the US froze all Iranian assets it could access. As the 53 hostages were often threatened and paraded before news cameras, President Carter approved a military rescue mission known as Operation Eagle Claw.   The special operations mission, launched on April 24, 1980, failed due to equipment malfunctions and poor weather. For another nine months, the Carter administration used diplomatic efforts to free the hostages. This lengthy timeline frustrated many Americans, and the hostage crisis, combined with the December 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, made Carter look weak on foreign policy and national defense. In November 1980, Republican challenger Ronald Reagan won the presidential election, replacing Carter. On January 20, 1981, a departing Jimmy Carter finally secured the release of the hostages in Iran.   September 1980: Iraq Invades Iran A photograph of Iranian troops with an American-made Jeep in the early days of the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88). Source: Foreign Policy   The Iranian Revolution of 1979, which sparked the Iran Hostage Crisis, was viewed as a threat by Saddam Hussein. Despite Iran and Iraq being neighbors and predominantly Muslim, Iran had become a strict theocracy while Iraq was a secular dictatorship. As a result, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was wary of Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini. Specifically, the Iranian Revolution led to Shia Muslim protests in southern Iraq, with Saddam resorting to martial law to check the minority group demonstrations. Violence by Iranian-inspired Shias continued into 1980, leading Saddam to expel up to 100,000 Iraqi Shias to Iran.   With Khomeini defiantly resisting Western demands during the ongoing Iran Hostage Crisis, Saddam felt increasingly threatened by his religious counterpart. He seized the initiative to target Iran, taking advantage of both his nation’s recent oil wealth and Iran’s status as a reviled and isolated state. Militarily, Iran had a major weakness: its Shah-era arms supplier, the United States, had placed it under an embargo, making it difficult to repair damaged equipment. Finally, Saddam felt the time was ripe for a leader of the Arab world to rise again, renewing its vigor after defeats by Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. On September 22, 1980, he invaded Iran.   Superpower Support for Iraq An Iraqi MiG-25 from the Iran-Iraq War era, made by the Soviet Union, undergoing restoration after being confiscated by U.S. forces in 2003. Source: National Museum of the US Air Force, Dayton, Ohio   International reaction to the new war was complex. Few nations supported the radical theocracy of Iran, which threatened to mobilize minority Shia Muslim populations across the Middle East. Iran had directly struck the United States with the hostage crisis and also criticized the Soviet Union. Thus, both superpowers saw Khomeini’s regime as a threat: it hated both American (imperialist) capitalism and Soviet (atheistic) communism. While the USSR had little direct reason to oppose Iran, it was incentivized to publicly support Iraq to appeal to Muslim nations in the aftermath of its recent invasion of Afghanistan.   Both superpowers feared their new discovery of Islamic fundamentalism, which they viewed as akin to terrorism. In response, both gave Iraq plenty of aid. The United States supplied funds and intelligence on Iran, while the Soviet Union provided military equipment, including fighter jets. Funds and weapons poured into Iraq throughout the eight-year war as Iran proved to be a powerful adversary. Despite lacking as much heavy firepower, Iranian forces were considered more skilled, adaptable, and determined.   Complex: Israel and China Support Iran A modern aerial view of the former Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq, which was bombed by Israel in 1981 to destroy potential nuclear weapons development. Source: George Washington University   Iraq was largely supported by the West, especially France, and the Soviet bloc during the 1980s. However, as one of the Arab aggressors in the Yom Kippur War, Iraq was strongly distrusted by Israel. Despite being a staunch American ally, Israel backed Iran, and not Iraq, during the Iran-Iraq War. This was ironic given that Ayatollah Khomeini was not supportive of Israel or Jews. Despite the religious animosity from Khomeini’s regime, Israel felt that it was important to militarily aid Iran to both weaken Iraq and to “buy” some support for Jews living in Iran. In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, alleging that it was being used to attempt to develop nuclear weapons.   China, despite being communist, was no friend of the Soviet Union in the 1980s due to the Sino-Soviet Split of 1960. As a result, it supported Iran instead of the Soviet-backed Iraq, though likely more as part of growing its arms exports than for any political affinity. China also sought to develop its own international ties and break free from the Cold War dichotomy, which meant avoiding following the lead of either superpower. This relative isolation helped forge sociopolitical ties between Iran and China, both of whom felt rejected by the two superpowers.   The Iran-Contra Affair A photograph of US President Ronald Reagan (right) meeting with Contra leader Adolfo Calero (right) and Colonel Oliver North (center) in 1985. Source: National Archives US   Although Iran had arms suppliers in Israel and China, the bulk of its pre-revolutionary equipment came from the United States. Under current sanctions, it struggled to repair this equipment and keep it battle-ready. Therefore, Iran secretly reached out to the United States with a request to purchase American arms in 1985. Time had passed since the Iran Hostage Crisis had been peacefully resolved, and the US now had an incentive to work with Iran: US hostages had been taken by Hezbollah radicals in Lebanon…and Iran insinuated that it could secure their release.   The Reagan administration agreed to sell the arms to Iran and send the money to anti-communist Contra rebels in Nicaragua. This allegedly violated a 1984 law passed by Congress stating the US would not aid the Contras, who supposedly used violence against civilians. When the American public learned of the “arms-for-hostages” deal, Reagan apologized and weathered the scandal. It remains debatable how much Reagan himself knew about the situation and, therefore, how culpable he was for breaking the law. The complexity of the Iran-Contra Affair (as compared to the Watergate scandal) likely prevented it from becoming a bigger problem for Reagan.   Post-War Politics: Iraq (Over)Confident in Western Support A map of the Persian Gulf War (1990-91), which was triggered by Iraq’s invasion of neighboring Kuwait in August 1990. Source: Florida Atlantic University   Iran and Iraq battled back and forth, with Iran using human wave attacks and special forces operations to counter Iraq’s reliance on Soviet-supplied machine guns and armor. Both nations inadvertently damaged US ships in the Persian Gulf, exasperating the superpower that had provided weaponry to both combatants. Finally, Iran sued for peace in 1988 after Iraq threatened to increase the use of chemical weapons…which were allegedly made possible by the United States through “dual use” equipment. Khomeini’s regime agreed to accept a UN cease-fire agreement in July, with some observers crediting increased US support for Iraq in 1987-88 with forcing Khomeini’s hand.   A photograph of abandoned Iraqi military equipment in the aftermath of the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88). Source: Atlantic Council   Despite no territorial change, Iraq was largely seen as the geopolitical victor, as it had more international support and was on the offensive when Iran agreed to the UN peace deal. The US had also largely blamed Iran for the accidental 1987 Iraqi missile strike on a US ship in the Persian Gulf, claiming Iran’s escalation of the war led to Iraq’s mistake. With much of the world focused on the end of the Cold War in Europe, Saddam Hussein thought the time was ripe for his regime to seek increased power. In August 1990, he invaded his oil-rich southern neighbor, Kuwait, to access its resources and eliminate debts owed from the Iran-Iraq War. This triggered the Gulf War, with most former allies swiftly turning on Iraq.   Post-War Politics: Western Wariness of Iran A map of the Middle East showing operations of Iran’s government and military in recent years, triggering continued Western economic sanctions. Source: Institute for the Study of War (ISW)   Although Iran was far from victorious in the Iran-Iraq War, it had fought well against overwhelming odds. This made the West wary of Iran as an adversary, as the isolated nation had fought with tenacity and skill. Khomeini’s regime would not give up easily and apparently only backed down in 1988 after threats of widespread chemical weapon usage against cities like Tehran. Unfortunately, it was Iraq’s chemical weapons use—allegedly aided by the United States—that led Iran to pursue its own weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) after the conflict.   After the Gulf War decimated Iraq’s military, though Saddam Hussein was allowed to maintain his position, Iran became the dominant military power in the Middle East. In fact, Saddam’s sudden invasion of Kuwait brought Iran back into international affairs, with Iran hosting fleeing Iraqi fighter jets and assuring the Coalition against Iraq that it would not return those jets. Iran went a step further and apparently incorporated most of the fighter jets into its own air force, irking the West. With Iraq having been toppled as a regional power, Iran returned to prominence, much to the chagrin of the West.   Aftermath: The Axis of Evil & Russia Ties An image of the flags of [clockwise from top left] Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. Source: United States Military Academy at West Point Iran’s geopolitical isolation since 1979 led to it developing deep ties with other “rogue states” like North Korea. Reviled by the West due to the Iran Hostage Crisis, as well as other hostage-taking in the Middle East during the 1980s allegedly backed by Iran, Iran was forced to develop ties with China and its allies. This has created a split, with Iran oriented toward the West prior to 1979 but being rejected by the West during the Iranian Revolution and afterward. China, however, agreed to sell arms to Iran and is a growing trading partner.   Arms sales from China and North Korea, coupled with Iran’s own post-1980s WMD ambitions, got the nation named as part of the Axis of Evil by US President George W. Bush in 2002. Politically, this term has colored American views of Iran ever since. The Global War on Terror included close examination of Iran, which had been considered a supporter of Islamist terrorism since the Revolution. In addition to alleged links to terrorism, Iran was condemned for its pursuit of nuclear weapons, leading to strong diplomatic efforts to curtail them. While Iran has agreed to such limits, it has provoked Western ire in recent years by strengthening ties with Russia during the Russo-Ukrainian War.

  On April 26, 1986, the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant exploded. The fallout left large parts of modern-day Ukraine and Belarus uninhabitable. Six years after the explosion, the Soviet Union collapsed. Many historians, including Mikhail Gorbachev himself, believe Chernobyl was the real cause of the collapse. The disaster undoubtedly proved a catalyst for the collapse in two key ways: first, it helped to dismantle Soviet censorship, and second, it proved a rallying point for the nationwide independence movement.   The Chernobyl Disaster as the Catalyst for Glasnost Chernobyl. Last Day of Pripyat by Alexey Akindinov. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The typical way Soviet authorities dealt with domestic incidents was to downplay their effects and control the spread of information about the real consequences. Their reaction to Chernobyl was no different. The authorities in Moscow responsible for nuclear power did not report the accident for almost four days until a vague two-sentence announcement was made in the Central Committee Council of Ministers. The consequence of this delay was that until the following afternoon, the inhabitants of Pripyat were freely walking the streets, during which time they were unnecessarily exposed to harmful radiation.   Outside the directly affected area, the Soviet public remained unaware of the scale of the Chernobyl disaster. It wasn’t until three weeks later that Gorbachev made a public statement about the situation. After the cover-up campaign was lifted and the authorities acknowledged that a nuclear incident had occurred, a 30-kilometer zone surrounding Chernobyl was designated an “exclusion zone,” and the inhabitants were evacuated. The nature of the evacuation from this zone was highly chaotic, leading to cases of people being left behind after the area had been cleared out and those who were evacuated being separated from their families or unable to find housing.   Facing growing internal and external criticism about the government’s reaction to the crisis, Gorbachev decided to allow his newly formed policy of Glasnost (transparency and openness) to be given free rein to transform Soviet national discourse. Reporters were allowed to interview Soviet nuclear scientists and medical professionals caring for radiation-exposed individuals. These interviews revealed the shocking nature of the disaster that had been kept from the public and showed the real shortcomings of the communist regime to the Soviet population for the first time.   Glasnost and the Fall of the Soviet Union Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and US President George Bush, 1990. Source: RIA Novosti archive/Wikimedia Commons   In the wake of this newfound freedom of the press, Soviet journalists began to investigate various long-standing issues that permeated society. They interviewed survivors of Stalin’s purges, exposed economic hardships, and highlighted government corruption. By exposing the government’s flaws, the Soviet press provoked widespread contempt among the Soviet people and triggered a further decline in the public’s confidence in state authorities.   A defining factor in the role of Glasnost and the end of the Soviet Union lay in the hands of Gorbachev himself. A different leader may have responded to the criticisms about his regime’s handling of the Chernobyl disaster with further oppression, but Gorbachev opted to uphold his role as a progre­ssive leader and to persevere with Glasnost.   While Chernobyl may have initially shown the necessity of Glasnost, it eventually manifested in the collapse of the Soviet Union itself. As Gennady Gerasimov, Soviet Foreign Ministry spokesperson under Gorbachev, described, “It was glasnost that destroyed the Soviet Union, people opened their eyes and saw what kind of a country they were living in, and they looked at the nation’s horrible history.”   Radiophobia in the Soviet Union  Memorial to the liquidators at Chernobyl. Source: Wikimedia Commons   In the wake of the Chernobyl disaster, a new term spread across the Soviet Union, “radiophobia.” For many in the Soviet Union, the concept of radioactivity posed a new threat, and the way in which the authorities informed the public only heightened their concerns. Because radioactivity is completely invisible and undetectable to the human eye, the Soviet people had to rely on those in power for accurate information regarding the safety of public spaces, food, and agricultural products. However, the Soviet people found themselves without reliable information about radiation levels, and in many cases, they didn’t believe the official reports. This resulted in fear and distrust spreading among the people.   Even the clean-up workers (liquidators) at Chernobyl were not spared the official inconsistencies concerning the true dangers of radiation. Liquidators were ordered to remove graphite fuel rods from the roof of the reactor, to allow the containment of the damaged building. The liquidators involved were referred to as “bio-robots,” and they were exposed to a lifetime’s worth of radiation in as little as thirty seconds. Their commanding officers assured them that if they worked on the reactor roof, they would be discharged soon after and heavily compensated. The reality was they were never compensated, and some died soon after their time on the rooftop. This episode is just one example of how the liquidators were treated during the decontamination campaign.   As stories of radiation sickness spread, anxious citizens reinforced each other’s apprehensions and distress. Radiophobia spiraled out of control and the authorities lost control over the public discourse. In a matter of months after the Chernobyl disaster, radiophobia had sent Gorbachev’s concept of Glasnost into chaos, driven by the intensifying fear surrounding the perceived dangers of radiation.   How Chernobyl Eroded Trust in Soviet Authorities  A doll head among gas masks in Pripyat. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The Chernobyl disaster was a significant turning point in the relationship between ordinary Soviet citizens and their government. Before Chernobyl, people broadly supported the regime, they accepted its flaws, and looked forward to a future within the Soviet system. However, after Chernobyl exposed to the public how broken the system was, many became aware that such a system posed a direct threat to their well-being and that a future under such a system was not possible. While Glasnost may have brought the worst of Stalin’s crimes to light, for many these events felt distant from everyday life. In contrast, Chernobyl made the safety of every individual a personal concern.   Significantly, Chernobyl had spread radioactive materials over Ukraine, Belarus and Russia,  contaminating crops, poisoning pastures, and sickening livestock. Safety of food began to worry people and they started suspecting their milk and other products to be radioactive. Contamination was dealt with by Soviet authorities in the worst manner possible, by mixing  irradiated beef with uncontaminated meat to lower the overall radiation levels and make it look like the food was within the acceptable levels of radiation; this meat was later distributed throughout the country. Once these practices came to light, the already fragile level of trust Soviet authorities had among the general population was permanently damaged, at a time when it mattered most.   Green World and the Ukrainian Movement for Independence  “We request a Nuremberg trial for Chernobyl,” 1989. Source: Igor Kostin, Chernobyl: Confessions of a Reporter; with Abandoned schoolhouse in Pripyat. Source: Wikimedia Commons.   One of the most significant turning points in the green protest movement occurred when Yuriy Scherbak founded “Green World” in 1987 with the goal of encouraging responsibility in the nuclear sector. Green World grew more politically engaged under Sergei Plachynda, pushing for openness and public monitoring of nuclear regulations. Roughly 10,000 people attended the 1988 Green World rally, which was a reflection of nationalist feelings and calls for Soviet authorities to be held accountable. Through this demonstration and the ones that followed, various Ukrainian groups were brought together and a national identity focused on political and ecological reform was fostered.   Green World changed its focus from environmental action to a more political posture in 1989 when it joined the Ukrainian Popular Movement for Perestroika (RUKH). RUKH’s push for increased democracy, sovereignty, and openness had a profound effect on the political climate and helped prepare the way for the ultimate independence of Ukraine.   Pripyat in the Chernobyl Zone. Source: Public Domain/pxhere.com   In addition to igniting environmental activism, the Chernobyl accident gave rise to a political force that opposed Soviet authority and ultimately supported Ukraine’s sovereignty. By 1990, the RUKH movement had become politically influential, running on a platform of bettering ecological management and managing the fallout from the Chernobyl tragedy. With a sizable election mandate, RUKH used the opportunity to push for legal responsibility for the Chernobyl catastrophe as well as Ukrainian sovereignty. The campaign reached its conclusion when in November 1991, Vladimir Yavorivsky filed criminal charges against Soviet leaders who he deemed responsible for the Chernobyl disaster, including Mikhail Gorbachev himself. However, due to the disintegration of the Soviet Union on December 25, 1991, the lawsuits were never brought to bear.   The Economic Burden of Chernobyl  Chernobyl Liquidator, 1986. Source IAEA Image Bank   The economic effect of the Chernobyl disaster and its significance to the fall of the Soviet Union should not be underestimated. The first liquidation operations involved more than half a million Soviet people and cost an estimated 68 billion rubles. One of the most substantial economic consequences was a loss of 784,320 hectares of agricultural land and another 694,200 hectares reconverted into forestry land. Some of this land has been reclaimed, although the costs of farming have increased due to the need for specialized cultivation techniques and fertilizers.   Before Chernobyl, the communist system had endured decades of economic stagnation, and coupled with the cost of the war in Afghanistan and falling oil prices, the cost of the Chernobyl disaster and its liquidation campaign proved to be a significant factor in the collapse of the Soviet Union.   Chernobyl’s Dark Legacy  Pripyat Today, 2021. Source: Courtesy of the author Robin Gillham   In the years following the Chernobyl disaster, the Soviet Union persevered in a permanently damaged state, before its eventual dissolution on December 25 1991. With the Soviet Union gone, the toxic legacy of Chernobyl was left largely to the newly independent nation that was ill-equipped both financially and politically to deal with such a permanent crisis.   However, with the help of the international community, a new permanent containment dome was erected over the damaged reactor. Today, Chernobyl endures as an inadvertent nature reserve for various species like elk, wolves, and wild boar. It also serves as a tourist destination for dark tourism. If Gorbachev’s theory is correct, Chernobyl represents the final resting place of the Soviet state, a government undone by the power of free expression. It took only one nuclear explosion to unleash that power.

"[The] triumphal arc, which was built in the 3rd century in memory of the Roman Empire's victory against the Persians, looks magnificent." The post 2,000-Year-Old Roman Gladiator Arena Uncovered In Turkey appeared first on All That's Interesting.