US abandones Kuwait
- Thread starter ChadMachine999
- Start date
-
- Tags
- gulf war iraq kuwait saddam hussein
Couple of reasons, mainly seem to be the desires of Zia and strategic concerns.
By Zia I mean a combination of his Islamic ideals, a need to make sure the Pakistani Shia were appeased and above all his pragmatism saw the need for Iran to win as Iraq was supporting Baloch rebels in both Iran and Pakistan, something the USSR was also doing at the time and a serious risk for the nations security.
Strategic concern was that both Iran and Pakistan where housing millions of refuges since 1979 and had soviet armies sometimes shelling the border, both had a common interests in supporting afghan guerrillas and once Pakistani die hard supporters of the Shah saw he was not going anywhere simply adjusted, it was a dangerous time and Pakistan needed to shore up their border with Iran to deal with Afghanistan and India.
That said a lot of Pakistan army disliked the Shah once they heard he wanted to annex Baluchistan in the Indian 70s war and the Shah saw himself as the western backed hegemon in the region and their superior not supporting their nuclear efforts.
Iran being ruled a Islamic, isolated government that needed Pakistan to send over supplies, send their trained officers and be their smuggling route and was fighting a Pakistani enemy up to the point of Pakistan exported and sold numbers of Chinese and US made weapons to Iran, specifically the Silkworm and Stinger missiles which proved to be a crucial integrating factor in the Tanker War, originally bounded for Afghan mujahideen
Iran government is not trying to master of relationship and clearly needs one more than the other. Indeed even to this day Pakistan is often sought when nations want to negotiate with Iran. Pakistan benefited a lot from the Islamic republic in power.
True it's not likely to be a successful coup, I guess Saddam will probably get arrested once Baghdad falls and ''hang himself'' in his cell or get's killed during the fall, I say that as I can't see despite what he's done many people wanting to see him charged for crimes as A I'm pretty sure no one would stand the Kuwait's would to do a nation's leader, B Saddam might run his mouth at the trial and most of all C Iraq's friends or at least royalty sympatric to them would want him buried as soon as possible to avoid any issues preventing deals with Iraq, this is before a lot of bitterness and people still it as a Iran buffer so they would want Saddam to look like Satan to scapegoat any wrong doings that would it harder to restore status quo.
That said tbh I kind of see post Baghdad fall a kind of intentionally weak government put in place, by the Arab alliance if they can, no one want's any government that tries real democracy given what happened so soon to Kuwait in case their people get ideas of given their royalty looked weak what they should try. Plus the Kurdish issue Turkey, Syria, Iran and most of all the Iraqi army don't want them having equal in case they separate. Plus the fact that Iraq a majority Shia in a democracy would hold power and the risk of Iranian's influence getting in. Yeah I can see states try to make a almost show government rules the Baath/army can bully out without much issue or blood to restore status quo and I think the US would not mind much.
True that was me being dumb, that said I suspect the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar would be willing to use the crisis to at least try and rock the boat of Saudi dominance in the gulf, who would love to to have not the chance to rebuild Kuwait but try and make the royal family almost a subbranch if they could of house Saud.
So Iraq would proabaly be better off as Saddam family takes the punishment but the Gulf itself might enter a small war of influence ect for a while that could alter the politics of the region in a lot of ways overtime.
Last edited:
*Saddam annexes Kuwait as 19th province of Iraq
*US blusters but does little more than send angrily-worded letter to UN.
*Saudis are furious and behind the scenes decide that if the US won't help they'll ask Europe - but Washington gives Berlin, Paris, and London direction.
*Saudis jack the price of oil, Saddam offers goodwill by selling it for less.
*Tensions slowly deflate based on promises of Baghdad not to expand farther as the fall of the USSR captures the world's attention.
*Iraq begins retooling its army with second-line (and some 'acquired' first line) Soviet hardware along with export Western military vehicles.
*A few years later Saddam pushes hard and fast into Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, and all the way to the Straits of Hormuz in a matter of 10-14 days.
*Iraq makes open reference to atomic weaponry and detonates a small (purchased?) Nagasaki-style weapon (from former USSR?) in titanic bluff
*If successful, Baghdad controls ~40% of known oil supplies, if not the Middle East is the site of the first wartime use of atomic weaponry since Hiroshima
*US blusters but does little more than send angrily-worded letter to UN.
*Saudis are furious and behind the scenes decide that if the US won't help they'll ask Europe - but Washington gives Berlin, Paris, and London direction.
*Saudis jack the price of oil, Saddam offers goodwill by selling it for less.
*Tensions slowly deflate based on promises of Baghdad not to expand farther as the fall of the USSR captures the world's attention.
*Iraq begins retooling its army with second-line (and some 'acquired' first line) Soviet hardware along with export Western military vehicles.
*A few years later Saddam pushes hard and fast into Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, and all the way to the Straits of Hormuz in a matter of 10-14 days.
*Iraq makes open reference to atomic weaponry and detonates a small (purchased?) Nagasaki-style weapon (from former USSR?) in titanic bluff
*If successful, Baghdad controls ~40% of known oil supplies, if not the Middle East is the site of the first wartime use of atomic weaponry since Hiroshima
This all sounds ridiculous. Why does the US not do anything? Why does Europe not do anything? Why do the Saudi’s randomly jack up the price? How the hell does Iraq invade numerous other countries without any repercussions? Let alone actually do it, the Iraqi army wasn’t exaclty some great force. And how in the hell does it get its hand on a nuclear weapon without finally getting the rest of the world to come crush it like the upstart ant it is?
Want to change someone's behavior? Hit them in the wallet. Why does the US do nothing? Because (that's the OP and) the USSR is falling apart and potentially on the edge of a nuclear civil war depending on the timeframe. Europe might send token forces but unless Washington is on board I don't think they will risk an unstable Russian neighbor while sending their troops abroad. Iraq is important but they are not a nuclear power yet. Yes, they have T-72 export tanks and a mechanized army, but they will be somewhat underestimated as a paper tiger (which against the US is true but against other much smaller forces...). Control of the Straits of Hormuz and willingness to use a nuclear weapon even as a bluff will make planners think twice before moving in.
And in the immediate post-Soviet world unfortunately I think it was possible to get a lot of things if one had the money and proper connections.
The USSR collapsing clearly didn’t distract the US iotl so why does it here? Also if Europe feels threatened enough I feel they’ll definitely intervene and tell us to piss off, seeing as how in your scenario the US has lost all sense.
Why does the US just accept saddam and buy from him like it’s nothing. As other (far smarter) posters have already said we didn’t have good relations with him prior to this and these kinds of actions would massively upset the situation and power balance in the ME, the world wouldn’t accept that.
How would Iraq conquer so much? In another thread I can’t find some posters said how even without the war Iraq could never have invaded saudis arabi. It just didn’t have the logistical capabilities to do so.
If someone could get such things in the post socket world why didn’t anyone? Sounds like something out of an action/spy novel.
Paradoxer
Banned
He likely use indirect means against Saudi. Even if US pulled out of region directly. They would not tolerate someone going full blown Hitler or even Napoleon on expansion anywhere either would UN or Europeans or many places.
Saddam would become more popular among Arabs and Sunnis. Especially if he wins in Iran which will be most he could get away with indirectly in warfare. Saudi and other neighboring regimes needs to worry about Saddam playing on propaganda/cult of personality, economic competition, and espionage/corruption/bribery. Possible assassination too. His success propelling his popularity in Arab world especially Middle East.
plus side US and Europe are better off and no rise of Islam extremist or its much less bad and regional(possible aimed at more pan nationalist saddam within Sunni communities who oppose him. He still very polarizing figure there either way). He also promote coups and Republicanism against monarch regimes. Saudi will also destroy oil rigs in event of direct invasion or in cross fires. Better to win minds over using blunt force at least among Arabs and Sunnis(Arabs Shia should also be content under saddam. Kurds screwed over worse those especially if he wrestles away Syria deserts somehow).
Plus like otl if not more so Saddam has to promise US cheap oil or good prices. He has to walk a thin line after Kuwait and especially if they win parts of Iran. The rest has to be indirect.
I think the point was more to explain attitudes in the US and how policy was formed
There is still today a big chunk of the US for whom that still rankles (mixed in with the attitude that Iran defied / got one over the Super power US) and in the early 90's it was only stronger.
Three issues.
1 .Time Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990 . The USSR fell in December 1991. Thats too long a period to wait.
2. Saddam. Your scenario depends upon Saddam being able to use diplomacy, gifts, threats and soft power to get his way. Saddam is extremely bad at this. Witness this meeting in late August between Saddam and the western hostages he took. Saddam is not capable of carrying out your scenario.
Video 8/23/90: British Hostages in Iraq
In an appeal to the public, Saddam Hussein visits British citizens held in Iraq.
abcnews.go.com
3. President George H W Bush . Bush was feeling pretty hot after toppling Noriega in Panama in January 1990.. He did not like Saddam messing up his future post Cold War world order. Youd need a different President and for Panama to be a failure which is highly unlikely.
Last edited:
Of interest, Hussein had already rattled sabers against the United Arab Estimates and the road along the southern Persian Gulf coast was not inaccessible. Saddam was already preparing an invasion of the oil-rich eastern provinces of eastern Saudi Arabia, and grabbing Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, and even part of Oman would not be impossible if done quickly. Before the war there were notable Ba'athist claims by Iraq in Saudi Arabia:Three issues.
1 .Time Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990 . The USSR fell in December 1991. Thats too long a period to wait.
2. Saddam. Your scenario depends upon Saddam being able to use diplomacy, gifts, threats and soft power to get his way. Saddam is extremely bad at this. Witness this meeting in late August between Saddam and the western hostages he took. Saddam is not capable of carrying out your scenario.
Video 8/23/90: British Hostages in Iraq
In an appeal to the public, Saddam Hussein visits British citizens held in Iraq.
3. President George H W Bush . Bush was feeling pretty hot after toppling Noriega in Panama in January 1990.. He did not like Saddam messing up his future post Cold War world order. Youd need a different President and for Panama to be a failure which is highly unlikely.
File:Greater Iraq Ba'athist claims-ar.png - Wikimedia Commons
Eastern Europe is in chaos, Germany is reuniting, and the Soviet monolith is crumbling. While Saddam's ego is his own worst enemy, patience makes it possible if the US abandons Kuwait for any reason.
Last edited:
That last was not at all apparent at the time. And the the first two mean the USA can spend less attention on Europe.
Further this
Is incorrect. Saddams troops were digging in defensive positions in Kuwait. Th US actually faked photos to get the Saudis scared of an Iraqi invasion. Thats how much Bush was pissed at Saddam.
Last edited: