How would Mideast tensions have played out had during the invasion of Iran in 1980/81, Saddam Hussein's army managed to defeat the Ayatollah's untrained, poorly led (due to the 1979 Revolution's purge of the Western-trained Iranian officer corps) martyrs ? What would Iraq have gained had the planned quick conquest of Iran gone according to schedule apart from the repossession of the Shatt al-Arab and the undermining of the Shi'ite Islamic revolutionary fervour ? Would the US and allied regional powers at that point have come to the conclusion sooner rather than later that Saddam was a madman needing to be stopped ?
1980/81- Saddam defeats Iran
- Thread starter Melvin Loh
- Start date
probably later rather than sooner... at the time, Khomeini was seen as the madman, and the US would have been rather delighted to see him get taken down a peg. If Saddam had won in this war, I wonder if he would have gone ahead with invading Kuwait.... I'd always thought this was more or less a result of losing the war with Iran...
To some degree people overestimate effects of purges. I(R)IAF were purged hardest but they had enough trained people to fall back to even though leadeship was imprisoned/killed. IRIAF was better than IrAF even in 1988. What did them in was lack of spares, not lack of trained pilots/personel. Even in 1988 IrAF was reluctant to engage IRIAF in anything simialar equal terms. IrAF had reverse situation. Very good equipment, lack of skilled pilots and strategists (IIAF developed plans to fight with Iraq and IRIAF just used these plans in 1980). Hence European mercenaries, Arab (specially Egyptian) pilots and Soviet "advisors".
OTOH army wasn't purged that bad but was soemwhat neglected undes shah (hey, supersonic jets are much sexier and much more visible status symbols than lowly MBTs and arty). What IRIA lacked was NCO corps (backbone of every army), logistics (unable to sustain deep penetrations and so many oportunities were wasted) and planning. Also Army/IGRC/Basij units lacked coordination.
Until Iran crossed into Iraq US was giving aid (and looking other way when companies sold Iran equipment). Also Israel was quick to give aid (they started sending it in 1980). Later US interests were that both sides exhaust each other so they woun't make troubles down the road.
Saddam had plans for entire Gulf. Had he defeated Iran in 1980/early 81 period he would use new wealth to build up his armed forces even more (specially navy) and move south, toward smaller states.
OTOH army wasn't purged that bad but was soemwhat neglected undes shah (hey, supersonic jets are much sexier and much more visible status symbols than lowly MBTs and arty). What IRIA lacked was NCO corps (backbone of every army), logistics (unable to sustain deep penetrations and so many oportunities were wasted) and planning. Also Army/IGRC/Basij units lacked coordination.
Until Iran crossed into Iraq US was giving aid (and looking other way when companies sold Iran equipment). Also Israel was quick to give aid (they started sending it in 1980). Later US interests were that both sides exhaust each other so they woun't make troubles down the road.
Saddam had plans for entire Gulf. Had he defeated Iran in 1980/early 81 period he would use new wealth to build up his armed forces even more (specially navy) and move south, toward smaller states.
Here's an Idea
Saddam, like the Nazis against the Sovs or the Japanese against the US, could defeat his more powerful neighbor if he won FAST. Say he took that city he was besieging during the early stage of the war but never could capture and then sues for peace.
After all, capture of that city would get him the "Arabistan" province and he's got his "self-determination for his Arab brothers" thing AND his greed for oil (most of Iran's oil is in that area) satisified.
Of course, assuming Iran is willing to sue for peace at that point (with its military in shambles and a big hunk of its territory under occupation, it might), Saddam might be hoisted by his own petard. ALL of the Shi'ite Arab lands (except for those in Saudi Arabia) are united and the Sunnis of the center around Baghdad and Tikrit might not be able to control them all.
It would be poetic justice if the Shi'ite Arabs successfully revolt against overextended Ba'athist forces and establish their own state or, even worse (for Saddam), impose a Shi'ite theocracy (assuming there's an Arab Khomeini waiting in the wings) on the Sunni lands too.
Saddam, like the Nazis against the Sovs or the Japanese against the US, could defeat his more powerful neighbor if he won FAST. Say he took that city he was besieging during the early stage of the war but never could capture and then sues for peace.
After all, capture of that city would get him the "Arabistan" province and he's got his "self-determination for his Arab brothers" thing AND his greed for oil (most of Iran's oil is in that area) satisified.
Of course, assuming Iran is willing to sue for peace at that point (with its military in shambles and a big hunk of its territory under occupation, it might), Saddam might be hoisted by his own petard. ALL of the Shi'ite Arab lands (except for those in Saudi Arabia) are united and the Sunnis of the center around Baghdad and Tikrit might not be able to control them all.
It would be poetic justice if the Shi'ite Arabs successfully revolt against overextended Ba'athist forces and establish their own state or, even worse (for Saddam), impose a Shi'ite theocracy (assuming there's an Arab Khomeini waiting in the wings) on the Sunni lands too.
Matt Quinn said:
Ahwaz, key to Khuzestan (Arabistan), or Dezful, key Iranian position in area with Vahadi AB and Ew radars? I think you are refering to Ahwaz, where biggest rafinery in the world was.
Matt Quinn said:
Or it just might piss of Iranians enough to mobilise more, make people fight harder. Sprinkled with fair dosage of propaganda about Iraqi atrocities...
Matt Quinn said:
The problem is can Iraq keep this gains without peace treaty? Taking it is one thing, keeping it on the end of long supply line, with IRIAF bombing your supply routes, with constant attacks on flanks....
Matt Quinn said:
I doubt Saudis and US would be thrilled with prospect of this. OTOH, they might not be thrilled strong Saddam with regional ambitions as well.
I'm referring to Ahwaz (thanks); however, if they take Dezful, too, they'll be able to keep the Iranians for reclaiming the city easily (them taking Ahwaz and immediately retreating due to overextension probably won't have the needed effect). Once Dezful has fallen, then's the right time to call for peace talks. Saddam's gotten what he's wanted, after all.
"Or it just might piss of Iranians enough to mobilise more, make people fight harder. Sprinkled with fair dosage of propaganda about Iraqi atrocities..."
If the Iraqis hold Dezful (good military site) and Ahwaz (more oil for Iraq and less for Iran to sell) and poison-gas to death the human waves of fanatics Khomeini will send, all the popular opinion in Iran won't mean diddly. All Iraq will need to do after seizing the two sites is fight defensively until Iran exhausts itself.
"The problem is can Iraq keep this gains without peace treaty? Taking it is one thing, keeping it on the end of long supply line, with IRIAF bombing your supply routes, with constant attacks on flanks...."
If these two sites fall, could Iraq exploit the "military momentum" to secure the flanks, and keep the Iranians off long enough to improve their supply lines? If so, yes; if not, then it's up in the air.
"I doubt Saudis and US would be thrilled with prospect of this. OTOH, they might not be thrilled strong Saddam with regional ambitions as well."
What if the US decides that a popular broad-based state is more likely to be a stable ally in the region rather than a dictatorship (the apply the Shah's example to Saddam) and ally with the Shi'ites? They're just as good an oil source as Saudi Arabia, esp. if the US arm-twists the Shi'ites into renouncing all claims to the Hasa and arm-twists the Saudis into not oppressing the Shi'ites as much?
Also, if the US is afraid of Saddam, couldn't they wait until Saddam's control over Shi'ite Arabistan starts to slip and then aid the Shi'ite rebels? Iran's been screwed over by the war and if Saddam's out of the way, no strong and antagonistic state to threaten the flows of oil.
Of course, if the US doesn't do this and continues aid to Saudi Arabia (and Saddam if needed), Shi'ite Arabs could be this TL's equivalent of the Kurds, oppressed by many nations and lacking a homeland of their own. You have a good point.
"Or it just might piss of Iranians enough to mobilise more, make people fight harder. Sprinkled with fair dosage of propaganda about Iraqi atrocities..."
If the Iraqis hold Dezful (good military site) and Ahwaz (more oil for Iraq and less for Iran to sell) and poison-gas to death the human waves of fanatics Khomeini will send, all the popular opinion in Iran won't mean diddly. All Iraq will need to do after seizing the two sites is fight defensively until Iran exhausts itself.
"The problem is can Iraq keep this gains without peace treaty? Taking it is one thing, keeping it on the end of long supply line, with IRIAF bombing your supply routes, with constant attacks on flanks...."
If these two sites fall, could Iraq exploit the "military momentum" to secure the flanks, and keep the Iranians off long enough to improve their supply lines? If so, yes; if not, then it's up in the air.
"I doubt Saudis and US would be thrilled with prospect of this. OTOH, they might not be thrilled strong Saddam with regional ambitions as well."
What if the US decides that a popular broad-based state is more likely to be a stable ally in the region rather than a dictatorship (the apply the Shah's example to Saddam) and ally with the Shi'ites? They're just as good an oil source as Saudi Arabia, esp. if the US arm-twists the Shi'ites into renouncing all claims to the Hasa and arm-twists the Saudis into not oppressing the Shi'ites as much?
Also, if the US is afraid of Saddam, couldn't they wait until Saddam's control over Shi'ite Arabistan starts to slip and then aid the Shi'ite rebels? Iran's been screwed over by the war and if Saddam's out of the way, no strong and antagonistic state to threaten the flows of oil.
Of course, if the US doesn't do this and continues aid to Saudi Arabia (and Saddam if needed), Shi'ite Arabs could be this TL's equivalent of the Kurds, oppressed by many nations and lacking a homeland of their own. You have a good point.
"How would the Arabistan residents feel about being under Saddam's rule? Namely, would they like it better than under Iranian rule?"
I dunno. They might welcome it at first, and then turn on it when they realize it's basically a Sunni-benefiting apartheid system. Sort of like the attitudes of many Ukrainians towards the Nazis during WWII...welcome them as liberators from Soviet oppression, only to realize they're as bad if not worse and turn on them later.
That's why I postulate the enlarged Iraq splintering soon afterwards.
However, does anyone know more about the region? My analogy to the Ukrainians is largely supposition.
I dunno. They might welcome it at first, and then turn on it when they realize it's basically a Sunni-benefiting apartheid system. Sort of like the attitudes of many Ukrainians towards the Nazis during WWII...welcome them as liberators from Soviet oppression, only to realize they're as bad if not worse and turn on them later.
That's why I postulate the enlarged Iraq splintering soon afterwards.
However, does anyone know more about the region? My analogy to the Ukrainians is largely supposition.
I think this was an unbelievably crazy war, exp. fr the weapons that were used.
Gas (!), biotoxins (!!), if one of them had a nuke it would end in using it on the other's capital... and a MASS trench war like WWi, but fought with the most modern automatic and electronic weaponry, jets, armor, etc... and hordes of children as minesweepers with Heaven's keys hung around their necks -and I know Allah welcomed all of them.
ONE MILLION FATALITIES. Maybe I exaggerate, but still here's something to reflect upon, exp. after seeing how quickly the Americans crushed Iraq in both Gulf wars.
Gas (!), biotoxins (!!), if one of them had a nuke it would end in using it on the other's capital... and a MASS trench war like WWi, but fought with the most modern automatic and electronic weaponry, jets, armor, etc... and hordes of children as minesweepers with Heaven's keys hung around their necks -and I know Allah welcomed all of them.
ONE MILLION FATALITIES. Maybe I exaggerate, but still here's something to reflect upon, exp. after seeing how quickly the Americans crushed Iraq in both Gulf wars.
I think a more interesting POD would be for NO war. Iraq doesnt go into debt fighting a war it cant really win. What would the repercussions of that happening?
And what about Iran? Iran is a real Balkins of the middle east. Really all that unites its people is the hostility its neighbors showed against their one faith, Shittism. With no war with Iraq I think that Iran could very well inplode in and incredibly bloody civil war. Farsi(Persian) only make up a little over half of the nations population. The next biggest gruops o\are the Azeri, Kurds, Baluchi, and other Turkish and Aryan ethnicitys, as well as the Arabs near the southern border with Iraq. If the Kurds in Iran try and set up their own state, most likely Iraq and Turkey will intervene to crush it. This could spred the civil war to Turkey and Iraq.
THAT sounds interesting to me.
And what about Iran? Iran is a real Balkins of the middle east. Really all that unites its people is the hostility its neighbors showed against their one faith, Shittism. With no war with Iraq I think that Iran could very well inplode in and incredibly bloody civil war. Farsi(Persian) only make up a little over half of the nations population. The next biggest gruops o\are the Azeri, Kurds, Baluchi, and other Turkish and Aryan ethnicitys, as well as the Arabs near the southern border with Iraq. If the Kurds in Iran try and set up their own state, most likely Iraq and Turkey will intervene to crush it. This could spred the civil war to Turkey and Iraq.
THAT sounds interesting to me.
"their one faith, Shittism"
I think "Shi'a Islam" is a better way of describing it.
"Iran is a real Balkins of the middle east"
Supposedly it was the invasion by Saddam Hussein that kept Iran from splintering after the Shah fell. Perhaps Hussein could have waited a little bit and then picked off what he wanted once everything had come apart.
I think "Shi'a Islam" is a better way of describing it.
"Iran is a real Balkins of the middle east"
Supposedly it was the invasion by Saddam Hussein that kept Iran from splintering after the Shah fell. Perhaps Hussein could have waited a little bit and then picked off what he wanted once everything had come apart.
Straha
Banned
theres a WI there... WI the main faith in the middle east was Shittism which involved Coprophagy and coprophilia as main tenets in the religion. The later the POD the better. Bonus points if you get a middle east with recognizable names and borders and some form of an isreal/palestine conflict.
Kuralyov said:
They felt Iranians first, Arabs later, same as Iraqi shi'ias felt Irqis first, shi'ias later. Loyal to their country regardless of differences. That's why there was no Arab revolt, which Saddam hoped for (same as there was no shi'ia revolt).
FYI, Iranian embassy in London (SAS and all that) was taken over by Liberation front of Arabistan (or something like that), Arabs who didn't like Homeini.
Make Mohammad anounce sucessor. Even if he is same on as in OTL there isn't schism. If it is Ali than there isn't shi'aism as we know it (shi'a means shiat Ali, followers of Ali). With that you rewrite history in such way that region will be drastically different from what we know.
It did. there were already inner tensions non religios vs religious, religios zealots vs religios moderates, religious zealots who beleived in theocracy and concentration of power in hands of one man vs those who didn't. Plus shah loyalists (e.g. Vahadi rebellion), communists....
Muhammad appointed Abu Bakr as his successor. The trouble arose over who was to succeed Abu Bakr. Muhammad died leaving a daughter and her 2 sons, but hia nearest relatives in the male line were uncles.
Only problem with the scenario that has been presented about a Shia revolution in an enlarged Iraq is that the Arabs of Iran (in Arabistan or Khuzestan) are Sunnis. So they should have no trouble with the Sunni-loving Ba'ath party should they be incorporated into Iraq. Of course as someone mentioned earlier, those Arabs thought of themselves as Iranian first and Arab second.
Uhhhh, I think you might want to read Straha's post over again. Then look up the definition of coprophilia and coprophagy. Then go throw up. Suffice to say, it was a pun on shittism, which is just plain disgusting.aktarian said:
Even for Straha.