WI: US doesn't intervene in Iraqs invasion of Kuwait?

What would the effects of America not intervening in the Kuwait invasion be?

Iraq controls Kuwait's oil and can pretty much wipe out its debt. That said the USA gets a bad international reputation and scares the crap out of Saudi Arabia that the US won't defend them, so they may actually start taking guys like bin Laden up on their offers for defense if they get scared enough.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait#International_condemnation_and_Gulf_War

The early '90s would look very similar to the late '70s if the U.S didn't intervene IMHO...

A complete non US reaction, would have inspired many other military powerful states in the Global South to pursue hegomonic ambitions with in their own regions. Without the massive display of American military, Desert Storm, that buried the ghosts of Vietnam US power would have been feared a lot less. The effects on the Balkan Wars of a more isolationist America would be interesting to examine.

Bin Laden actually doesn't plan 9/11 in this instance. One of his biggest pet peeves was the presence of US military (and woman!) in a nation that holds the 2 holiest cities in Islam. He's still a radical, still anti-American (US supports Israel after all), but he's not going to be to the point where he feels a need to do 9/11, his focus will be on Israel, and ironically- Iraq. Iraq under Hussein was secular, anti-Wahhabi, and a threat to Saudi Arabia. He may also be anti-Iranian given Iran's designs on Persian Gulf domination which is a direct threat to Saudi Arabia. It's possible that Iraq, if it does or doesn't invade Saudi Arabia, becomes embroiled in a three-way cold war over Persian Gulf domination. Almost certainly the US and Europe still embargo Iraq and cause it to not be able to sell as much oil as it could have, making occupying Kuwait not pay for itself. Israel is in a much better position to bomb Iraq at will. OTL Jordan and Yemen were the only two nations to lend any support to Iraq, it's possible Iraq and Jordan try unification for a second time. In which case does Iran, with their satellite of Syria, find Iraq enough of a threat to intervene on two fronts? And if so, what do the Kurds do? Iran and Syria have some to lose in the case of a Kurdish uprising and probably don't want to see it, same with Turkey. Israel sits back and lets them fight it out and intervenes with airstrikes against anyone who gets chemical or nuclear programs too far. A Middle East without US troops on the ground is actually safer for Israel because US troops in Saudi Arabia and Iraq starting in 1990s hamper Israel's choices to deal with such technological advances by Arab nations resulting in more covert activities of computer viruses and such.

The sanctions against Iraq were pretty ruinous*. And as I remember the international community was solidly in favor of sanctions, with my own country the United States and the UK the two nations in favor of military force.

*Yes, the sanctions hurt Iraqi industry, but the thirteen years of sanctions between 1990 and 2003 may have cost more loss of life than the war itself. Please remember, the sanctions started before the Jan. '91 coalition-led military effort.

Saddam eventually takes control of the entire Peninsula unless the U.S., at some point, decides to act. He almost certainly acquires serious nuclear capacity to go with his CBW capabilities and decides to either have a go at the Israelis and/or Iran II.

In short MASSIVE regional war, probably with the WMD taboos completely shattered, including the Nuclear threshold.

Make every other conflict since WW II look like a ball game (except maybe the Rwandan Civil War, where at LEAST 500,000 people were killed, mainly by having a limb removed with an edged weapon and resultant exsanguination).

Once Iraq controls its oil plus Kuwait's oil, they can ignore sanctions because at best they will be highly leaky. The WMD programs ended by the Gulf War will continue, and Saddam will certainly have lots of chemicals, and sooner or later some basic fission weapons. The Saudis and the smaller Gulf states will consider the US unreliable, and Saddam will have a lot of say there. Iran and Iraq may have round 2.

Israel will go nuts, in that they will now believe that the USA is unreliable...sure they'll want weapons etc but if/when they think Saddam or Iran is going to be a nuclear threat they will take action and screw the US. The Middle East becomes a free for all. NATO will have a very hard time, because the Europeans will really wonder what they can trust the US to do.

While Gulf War II was a bad idea, letting Saddam take over Kuwait...very bad.

People are ignoring that Israel will stop any Iraqi attempts at nuclear weapons before it becomes an option that Hussein can use. Any ideas of a nuclear Iraq prior to 2015 is ASB.

sloreck said:

Once Iraq controls its oil plus Kuwait's oil, they can ignore sanctions because at best they will be highly leaky. The WMD programs ended by the Gulf War will continue, and Saddam will certainly have lots of chemicals, and sooner or later some basic fission weapons. The Saudis and the smaller Gulf states will consider the US unreliable, and Saddam will have a lot of say there. Iran and Iraq may have round 2.

Israel will go nuts, in that they will now believe that the USA is unreliable...sure they'll want weapons etc but if/when they think Saddam or Iran is going to be a nuclear threat they will take action and screw the US. The Middle East becomes a free for all. NATO will have a very hard time, because the Europeans will really wonder what they can trust the US to do.

While Gulf War II was a bad idea, letting Saddam take over Kuwait...very bad.

Click to expand...

Not sure if Israel would see it that way. The U.S. didn't really have a serious deal with the Kuwaitis, certainly nothing like the connection with Israel (or even Egypt for that matter).

CalBear said:

Not sure if Israel would see it that way. The U.S. didn't really have a serious deal with the Kuwaitis, certainly nothing like the connection with Israel (or even Egypt for that matter).

Click to expand...

Agree with you about Israel.

The US did allow Kuwaiti shipping to be reflagged as American during the Iraq-Iran War in the 1980s. Probably the last time it was safer to be American! This due to American warships not being allowed to escort non-American assets therefore this was an end-run around the law. I believe this was one of the precedents cited for why the US had a "moral responsibility" to Kuwait. Albeit a weak one, but when it's all you have other than "they have boat loads (literally) of oil" it's what you go with.

Iraq invades Kuwait and annexes Kuwait. This is not recognized by the international community. It is able to pay off its debt and to rearm.

I never believed hat Saddam was ever interested in attacking Saudi Arabia. There is no evidence to support he ever intended to invade. He may try to invade Iran again or to build up a WMD arsenal such as a nuclear weapons program to intimidate them now though.

redlightning said:

Iraq invades Kuwait and annexes Kuwait. This is not recognized by the international community. It is able to pay off its debt and to rearm.

I never believed hat Saddam was ever interested in attacking Saudi Arabia. There is no evidence to support he ever intended to invade. He may try to invade Iran again or to build up a WMD arsenal such as a nuclear weapons program to intimidate them now though.

Click to expand...

Or he can bribe Saudi Arabia into siding with him against Iran.

If america stays out of it?

Iraq uses the oil money pays off its debts and rearms then Sadam goes after some one else because of his ego.

Options include.

Israel
Saudi Arabia
Jorden
Iran.


My money is on Iran.

Could the U.S. get any benefits by allowing this, Iraq becoming a stronger ally?

Why does everyone think that a country with oil can (or will) pay off its debts? Especially if it is being sanctioned and embargo! Look at Iran- http://www.tradingeconomics.com/iran/government-debt-to-gdp not a huge debt to GDP but it still exists. Nigeria's debt (govt and private) is at 64% of GDP. Russia's government debt to GDP is 18% of GDP. Venezuela is facing debt default! A poor backwards nations is a poor backwards nation, and oil will not change Iraq and the massive corruption and overspending on things that Hussein will feel he needs, either more palaces, corruption, secret police, or military; he will not invest in the needs of the people, tourism, or diverse economy (such as the UAE does) and what is his need for paying down debt? None. And why should he? It's money going out of the country to nations who hate him anyways. Pay the interest and keep borrowing. Don't need to pay them back and who's going to come knocking wanting to collect? Nobody said anything when he invaded Kuwait, and gone are the days the German, British, or American governments took your ports and collected duties in order to pay your debts down for you.

Pesterfield said:

Could the U.S. get any benefits by allowing this, Iraq becoming a stronger ally?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what kind of plausible circumstances will prevent the US intervention in Iraq, how about a soviet veto and (empty) threatening support against any US aggression, this just to show their ME allies that they mean business? Would Gorbachev ever do anything like this (probably not)?

Anyway, i guess it's possible there won't be an intervention, but on the understanding that really that is as far as Iraq can go, or else. Embargo is still in place, Iraq goes about the same way as Iran during those years (unless they manage to convince the soviets/russians to still supply them), but they might go the route we see today, training and supporting a most despicable lot of jihadists by the KSA, GCC and the like and all backed by US to destabilize Iraq. Meanwhile Saddam's first second and third concern is stay in power, even if he gets nukes i seriously doubt he will ever use them, because he would not want to die by US or israeli nuke!

Alternatively as the posts above says, perhaps the US might offer Saddam a deal to target Iran, concede Kuwait to Iraq, full support and FMS in exchange for no nukes, not sure if it will go to a shooting war again, or we're looking at a slowly rumbling jihadist insurgency in Iran supported by Iraq among others. Mind you, perhaps the US powers that be are still very eager to start a war, eliminating Iran as an opponent, something the israelis would very much dream about too, but that will be a massive royal mess. Millions of iranians will die, but probably the ME will be on fire like today, and the US & co will have ten or twenty times the losses.

Oil per se does not mean you can ignore the economic effects of sanctions. having said that if Saddam has Kuwait the combination of Iraqi oil plus Kuwaiti oil in 1990 adds up to a significant percentage of the world's oil supply. The changes in efficiency, new oil supplies from outside the Persian Gulf (including increased US & Canadian supplies), etc have not kicked in so if you have between 25 and 40 percent of the oil flow controlled by Iraq the willingness of the international community to impose real sanctions against Iraq and have difficulties with their oil supply won't be there. Furthermore a large part of the Iraqi debt can simply go away like that owed to Kuwait (which no longer exists), and debt owed to Saudi Arabia and Gulf States may very well be "forgiven" - leaving only debts to western banks to be dealt with.

While Saddam probably wasn't going to invade Saudi Arabia in the summer of 1990, and probably could not have pulled it off, if the US rolls over the Saudis are going to have to come to some sort of accommodation with the new 800 pound gorilla next door. There is no question Saddam will use his new cash to buy new toys (which the Russians will be happy to sell him) as well as move his WMD programs (nuke, chem, bio) forward making his gorilla even bigger in the neighborhood. To stiffen the Saudis and Gulf States the US would need to sign very very clear mutual defense treaties (which might not sell well in the US) and the Saudis et al will have to really really believe the US won't bail on them.

As far as the Israelis go, hitting a WMD program in Iraq which is chem, nuke, bio (which it was in various stages) is very different than a one off raid on a single reactor. While in many ways Saddam was not the sharpest pencil in the box, he had done a good bit to hide his WMD programs as was discovered during the aftermath of the first Gulf War. Even if all the targets are known a surprise like Osirak is not likely and the Iraqis will upgrade their air defense system to make this more difficult/costly. This may mean attacking early to nip things in the bud, or even using nukes on select targets.

The consequences of the USA letting Saddam get away with this would be world wide and long lasting. Correct or not the USA would be perceived as a "paper tiger".

redlightning said:

I never believed hat Saddam was ever interested in attacking Saudi Arabia.

Click to expand...

I agree. Saddam once told a SA dignitary that the smaller nations of the gulf just 'didn't make sense', and suggested that SA taker over the small sheikdoms while he took over Kuwait. The SA (a bit stunned) declined. Nothing in the whole event indicated that he thought of taking on SA, but he did seem to have an interest in 'cleaning up' the smaller gulf nations. Of course, in OTL, once the US started basing troops in SA, his attention was pulled in that direction, and he had to have considered the possibility of invading before Coalition troops got there in any large numbers...

West said:

My money is on Iran.

Click to expand...

That will end... poorly for him.