Five Years Less - Brezhnev dies in 1977

Up until the Iran War I found it relatively believable. The Iran War isn't unbelievable, but I'm not seeing how the Soviets go from losing hostages in an embassy to throwing soldiers to die over some hostages who are already dead. It feels like a piece is missing.

Based on the set up I could certainly see and would expect that the USSR would launch missile and possible air attacks against Iran as a consequence of hostages dying (and in fact I would have thought there would have been a KGB operation to get the hostages released rather than the Soviet version of EAGLE CLAW) and that this could in turn be bad enough that Iran's airforce is essentially wiped out.

In turn this would give Iraq a much easier time invading (plus Iranian troops needing to be deployed along the Soviet border for a feared Soviet invasion will leave them weaker when facing Iraq.

In OTL the USSR's leaders were actually quite reluctant to send Soviet forces into Afghanistan on a large scale. I think for them to do so with Iran would require not only the hostages but perhaps Soviet supported Tudeh members being able to gain control of a town like Tabriz and then pleading for Soviet intervention.
 
Up until the Iran War I found it relatively believable. The Iran War isn't unbelievable, but I'm not seeing how the Soviets go from losing hostages in an embassy to throwing soldiers to die over some hostages who are already dead. It feels like a piece is missing.

Based on the set up I could certainly see and would expect that the USSR would launch missile and possible air attacks against Iran as a consequence of hostages dying (and in fact I would have thought there would have been a KGB operation to get the hostages released rather than the Soviet version of EAGLE CLAW) and that this could in turn be bad enough that Iran's airforce is essentially wiped out.

In turn this would give Iraq a much easier time invading (plus Iranian troops needing to be deployed along the Soviet border for a feared Soviet invasion will leave them weaker when facing Iraq.

In OTL the USSR's leaders were actually quite reluctant to send Soviet forces into Afghanistan on a large scale. I think for them to do so with Iran would require not only the hostages but perhaps Soviet supported Tudeh members being able to gain control of a town like Tabriz and then pleading for Soviet intervention.


Yes, but the geography is different and also there are some pretty hefty benifits (warm water ports, bases on an major oil route, more oil (=cash), higher oil prices (= more cash), acces to western to line equipment & weapons (F-14 / TOW etc.)
 
Yes, but the geography is different
Iran is just as mountainous as Afghanistan but with a larger area and population.
iran-geography.gif

also there are some pretty hefty benifits
There is also the risk of war with the United States and occupying 40 million people.

(warm water ports, bases on an major oil route, more oil (=cash),
All of these are in Southern Iran and if the Soviets are going full hog, the United States is certainly going occupy them.
 
Thread watched!

Regarding officers of air force and army imprisoned or driven into retirement, do you have any statistics on that?

Wikipedia said:
In Iran, severe officer purges (including numerous executions ordered by Sadegh Khalkhali, the new Revolutionary Court judge), and shortages of spare parts for Iran's U.S.-made and British-made equipment had crippled Iran's once-mighty military. Between February and September 1979, Iran's government executed 85 senior generals and forced all major-generals and most brigadier-generals into early retirement.[69]

By September 1980, the government had purged 12,000 army officers.[69] These purges resulted in a drastic decline in the Iranian military's operational capacities.[69] Their regular army (which, in 1978, was considered the world's fifth most powerful)[77] had been badly weakened. The desertion rate had reached 60%, and the officer corps was devastated. The most highly skilled soldiers and aviators were exiled, imprisoned, or executed. Throughout the war, Iran never managed to fully recover from this flight of human capital.[78]

Continuous sanctions prevented Iran from acquiring many heavy weapons, such as tanks and aircraft. When the invasion occurred, many pilots and officers were released from prison, or had their executions commuted to combat the Iraqis.

Link

I feel the narrative gives the impression he massively purged the military and left it with an unprofessional skeleton crew of ideological hacks. I don't think that was the case though, so I was wondering if you had some hard numbers giving a sense of the actual scale of this category of former imperial officers not accepted for the Republic.

His purges did quite some damage IMHO.

I also wondered just why the US task force struck at Iran too. I rather assumed their major purpose in steaming into the Persian gulf was to deter the Soviets, not gang up on Iran in conjunction with them! I certainly recall the Iranian crisis as noted, and there was no love lost between Carter and the Islamic Republic. But I would have thought the US fleet would keep its powder dry but not actually use it unless struck at first, and that Carter would be asking Soviet and Iranian troops to stand down in a cease-fire, to contain the otherwise inevitable Soviet curbstomp. As you noted, "the resources" meaning not exclusively but let's be frank here, mainly, the oil, was in the southwest, most distant from Soviet (though not Iraqi of course) attackers and most reachable by a US Naval task force. For US troops to land would be insanely reckless and unless I overlooked something, none did. But why open fire? Why issue an ultimatum against Iran even? (I don't recall an ultimatum but that would at least be expected before US missiles and bombs start joining in the general kicking the stuffing out of Iran).

I figured the Americans would desperately want to prevent Soviet tanks from showing up on the Persian Gulf. Fear is often not a good motivation and induces rash decisions.

I'd actually think this might have been a moment for Carter to position himself as peacemaker, by offering good offices to the Iranians with all the high-minded unction Carter could dispense. I'm not saying it would work or be expected to work, I am saying I'd think the USA would want to be seen angling to quell the fighting, while actually securing the Iranian coast to deny it as a Soviet client port, and to put some limits on Saddam Hussein's schemes. By no means was Iraq considered the adversary it became later, but I had the impression back in high school Iraq was more or less a Soviet client--I was not aware then of how much help he'd be getting from the USA and other NATO powers in the following decade of course. So what I would expect is for the US security people to be very very concerned about a Soviet takeover in effect (via Hussein as ally in Iraq) of both the major northern Persian Gulf regional powers.

The partitioning of the narrow Shatt al Arab disfavored Iraq and was imposed as an accomplishment of Henry Kissenger's after all. Impeding it with half the channel going to Iran would tend to limit the potential of Iraqi naval power. Now that Iran was a lost cause, perhaps the US would wish to court rather than impede Hussein, and so perhaps would want to make concessions to him--but just jumping into the fighting seems to give him, and the Soviets, what they might have negotiated for, for free, and gain the USA no leverage and much infamy.

I have interesting plans for Iraq in a few updates. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, after all. I won't reveal too much now. Let me suffice by saying the Soviets won't be getting their hands on the oil as they had undoubtedly planned.

I'd think Carter would be declaiming a desire for cease fire and mediation, pretty confident that Khomeini would never humble himself or the Islamicist movement to take the patronage of the Great Satan, even if it means martyrdom--if the USN came in and were not observed doing anything violent, just standing by prepared, if as predicted the Islamicist revolutionaries scorned up despite their goose being already cooked, the resulting chaos in Iran would be cover for covert agents to infiltrate in, seeking to organize an ostensibly spontaneous domestic appeal for help from the Navy on the level of securing the port cities. If no substantial numbers of people living in Iran would flock to the US banner for protection, Carter could still turn to the heir to the Pahlavi throne to bless a limited coastal occupation as aiding the true royal government of Iran. If the USN could control the coastal ports that would be both bases of operation and leverage to negotiate with both Soviets and Iraq.

No doubt Khomeini would declare all such maneuvers "satanic" and die affirming that being mauled by the Lesser Satan is no excuse for submitting to the Great Satan.

Why then does the USN have orders to act so---satanically?

I considered what you're saying here, but ultimately concluded the Pahlavis were way too hated at this point to make a comeback, especially with US backing as they'd be viewed as American puppets.
 
Link



His purges did quite some damage IMHO.

Aha! there are the facts indeed! Thank you!
...I considered what you're saying here, but ultimately concluded the Pahlavis were way too hated at this point to make a comeback, especially with US backing as they'd be viewed as American puppets.

A Pahlavi restoration was an aside, and not the top priority clearly nor the wisest course to choose first. It was just an option should the USA desire a fig leaf of plausibly affirmable credibility and better options all fall through. It was not meant to be the major takeaway!

The major thing was for the USA to seek the appearance, again mostly for those who want to see it that way, of high ground as distinct from Soviet hotheadeness or Iraqi opportunism (without saying anything invidious about either until that becomes expedient).

It would of course be laughed at bitterly by critics of the USA or western imperialism generally of course.

Just saying, showing up and immediately strafing the place without even the courtesy of an ultimatum is pretty much like putting up a banner saying "Bad Guy." The Soviets and even Saddam Hussein had excuses at least. And IIRC, issued ultimata.[/QUOTE]
 
Yes, but the geography is different and also there are some pretty hefty benifits (warm water ports, bases on an major oil route, more oil (=cash), higher oil prices (= more cash), acces to western to line equipment & weapons (F-14 / TOW etc.)

1. The geography isn't that different to Afghanistan.

2. As for the warm water port idea....this makes for interesting reading (if that doesn't open, simply download/open the pdf from here). The bases on a major oil route are pretty much useless as even if the Americans didn't occupy southern Iran in response (something Onkel Willie has already postulated) they would likely blockade the Straits of Hormuz in response to the USSR violently taking over Iran and setting up bases on Iran's shore line - so what use is a base on a major oil route if that route is blockaded?

3. More oil representing more cash only works if the Western countries will actually buy that oil for cash. What seems more likely is that the Western countries do not increase imports and begin to shift towards imports from the unoccupied Gulf countries, so it could mean more cash....for the Arab monarchies who would be implacably opposed to the Soviet Union and quite willing to fund Islamic rebels in Soviet-occupied Iran.

4. Higher oil prices resulting in more cash would work but only with those countries actually buying Soviet oil. (see 3 above)

5. Accessing western equipment like F-14s? How? Because if I'm not mistaken the Soviet attack on Iran is aimed at destroying this very same equipment so it cannot be used to challenge Soviet forces in the air or on the ground.


I'm not saying a Soviet war with Iran in 1979-1980 isn't ASB or out of the question. But the war depicted here is one where the USSR straight up intends on conquering Tehran and all of Iran from the onset because its embassy was occupied by Iranian students, its staff held hostage and in a rescue attempt (which was partially successful by the way insofar as some of the hostages were rescued), half of the hostages were killed. That's an incredible leap from the apparent justification. It doesn't develop organically and basically equates Kirilenko (one of the most vocal opponents of the Afghan intervention in OTL and the person who bristled at the Afghan leadership under Hafizullah Amin attempting to justify their radical and murderous actions in Afghanistan by saying they were following in the footstep of Lenin) with Saddam Hussein (who had a very different background leading it seems to a greater propensity for violence, in addition for Saddam Hussein the Iran-Iraq war was not just about seizing Khuzestan as a new province or about gaining leadership in the Arab world, but also about survival - Ayatollah Khomeini in early 1979 had called on Iraqis to overthrow the Ba'ath government (which angered Iraq); Saddam attempted to cool things down by giving a speech in which he praised the Iranian Revolution, called for Iraqi-Iranian friendship and for non-interference in each other's affairs.....this was rejected by Khomeini and instead he called for an Islamic revolution in Iraq).

Based on what happened so far a more plausible outcome as I stated was for the USSR to rescue the hostages and maybe conduct major airstrikes (with warning of further actions if Iran did anything more provocative) and throw more support behind Iraq's attack. They might also try to support a communist overthrow of the new Revolutionary Islamic government and then maybe intervene with ground forces if that showed a high chance of success if such help were provided.

MacCaulay had a very good TL about a Soviet invasion of Iran in which the Soviets attempted to support a leftist counter-revolutionary movement that was declaring provisional governments in Iranian Azerbaijan. This had the benefit of limiting Soviet involvement while keeping Soviet options open for a move on Tehran if circumstances favoured it.

Indeed that would be at most what I expected here unless Onkel Willie had Khomeini doing the same thing to the USSR as he was doing to Iraq which was outright calling for Azerbaijan and the Central Asian republics to have Islamic Revolutions and become independent of the USSR and was actually supporting it. If there was say some kind of skirmish with Islamic rebels in the Azeri SSR and Turkem SSR and it was discovered that these Islamic rebels were being funded and supported by the Islamic revolutionary government in Iran then I could easily see that pushing the USSR into aiming to overthrow that government in Tehran. Khomeini didn't seem that gung-ho in OTL and I doubt even with a seizure of the Soviet embassy he would be doing that.

A mission creep scenario where:

- Soviet embassy is taken over and staff taken hostage

- Soviet rescue attempt results in some hostage deaths

- Soviets attempt to support Tudeh and other Iranian socialists and communists in a second revolution in Iran on the model of Afghanistan

- Soviets bomb Iranian airbases and army bases as retaliation for the embassy incident and hostage deaths and to weaken the Iranian military substantially (warning of further actions if Iran does anything more provocative)

- Iraqi invasion of Iran for all of Saddam's historical reasons plus the opportunity presented by Iran's isolation and the weakening of its military by the Soviet aerial bombardment

- Soviet support of Iraqi invasion

- More successful Iraqi invasion, weaker Iranian security forces and Soviet support for Iranian socialists allow Iranian communists to seize a major town (say Tabriz) and declaring a local "democratic republic" as part of a future Iranian federal people's republic with apparent popular support leading maybe to Soviet ground forces coming into Iranian Azerbaijan

- Khomeini (if still alive) supporting Islamic rebellion in the Azeri and Central Asian SSRs and in Iraq in response...

could very conceivably see:

- large scale Soviet invasion aimed at conquering Tehran and the rest of Iran.


That's not what we get though. We get:

- Soviet embassy is taken over and staff taken hostage

- Soviet rescue attempt results in some hostage deaths

leading directly to:

- large scale Soviet invasion aimed at conquering Tehran and the rest of Iran.


Mission creep was part of the reason the Soviets got more involved in Afghanistan and why the US became more deeply involved in Indochina. It could plausibly have happened in Iran.
 
Chapter V: Peace in Iran and Crackdown in Poland, 1980-1983.
I hope that the changes to the two last chapters were to everyone's satisfaction. Fortunately, no other rewrites were required in chapters that are still 'under construction', so to speak. Therefore, I can now present the next installment.


Chapter V: Peace in Iran and Crackdown in Poland, 1980-1983.

After the nuclear strike on Mehrabad International Airport, the Soviets further increased Cold War tensions by issuing a communique that threatened Khomeini’s regime with “total annihilation” if it didn’t stand down within 72 hours. Surprisingly, a coup d’état took place against Khomeini on Tuesday February 19th 1980. Under the leadership of Rear Admiral Bahram Afzali three marine divisions, that had been called in to aid in the city’s defence, instead seized control. While he’d covered up his leftist sympathies, he no longer did after the Soviet nuclear strike because he realized Khomeini’s foolhardy stance would result in extreme devastation. He had to go. Afzali’s marines seized control of key government and infrastructural targets in the capital whilst simultaneously arresting Khomeini and almost all members of his government. A kangaroo court found them guilty of high treason for causing an unwinnable and very costly war, sentencing them to death and executing them by firing squad the very same day. Afzali’s marines proclaimed their loyalty to the Government of National Unity that day and many other units in the capital followed Afzali’s orders to do the same.

After that, dispersed military units across the country announced that they switched allegiance to the Government of National Unity in Rasht and to its Iranian People’s Liberation Army, causing it to swell to a force of 100.000 enlisted men with potentially hundreds of thousands of supporters spread across the country, ranging from leftist Iranians to everybody who was fed up with the Islamists enough to take up arms. Iranian resistance in Teheran to the Soviets crumbled and Soviet forces entered the city, encountering sporadic resistance from diehard supporters of Khomeini who wouldn’t follow Afzali’s orders or those of Kianouri’s government. Khomeini’s government disappeared overnight and Kianouri’s replaced it, agreeing to a ceasefire.

This allowed cooler heads to prevail in Moscow and Washington DC. The Soviets announced a phased withdrawal from the country, planning to reduce their presence from almost 400.000 troops to only 10.000 military advisors. In return, Carter announced the withdrawal of American forces from Bandar Abbas and Bushehr, though secretly continued supplying anti-communist opposition with weapons. Both sides stood down and demobilized, averting World War III. The US and the USSR would both, however, keep tabs on the situation in Iran, knowing what the stakes were.

Iran remained unstable, with skirmishes between forces of the new regime and remaining supporters of Khomeini continuing and with the latter carrying out terrorist bombings. Meanwhile the parties in the Government of National Unity were, ironically, anything but unified as they couldn’t agree on the future of the country and the next best course of action. In response, they organized national elections for the Majles (Iran’s parliament, which was unicameral with the abolition of the Imperial Senate and the Guardian Council that had succeeded it under Khomeini’s rule). On Soviet instigation the Tudeh Party, the MEK and the Fadaian merged into the Iranian Socialist Workers’ Party. Using government control of the public TV and radio channels the communists spread their message nationwide. The police were used to persecute opposition candidates and activists, leading to more than 100.000 arrests under false charges in the months leading up to the election. The new secret police (said to be as bad as the Shah’s ruthless SAVAK) summarily executed several hundred prominent opponents. During the elections, which took place in October 1980, the communists destroyed ballot boxes without counting or replaced them with boxes containing prepared votes in areas where they had sufficient control to get away with it. The result still didn’t look pro-communist enough, so the result was blatantly falsified.

The result was that the communists in the shape of the Iranian Socialist Workers’ Party obtained 80% of the vote. The country formally changed its name to Federal Democratic People’s Republic of Iran. After that the mullahs were purged and the countryside saw extreme repression after protests against secular reforms. In the meantime, US forces were painfully slow to withdraw and kept supporting an insurgency against the new regime that last until the late 80s.

Meanwhile, they were confronted by Azeri and Kurdish demands for autonomy (this was the first of a number of autonomous republics established in Iran to cater to minority groups – with powers particularly pertaining to cultural policies – hence its federal structure). They had no choice because the Soviets supported it. Furthermore, the Iraqis wouldn’t vacate Khuzestan and enjoyed Moscow’s backing as well. In the Yerevan Accord mediated by the Soviets, Iraq’s annexation of the predominantly Arab province of Khuzestan was recognised by Iran. The northern half of West Azerbaijan, the entirety of East Azerbaijan Province and finally Ardabil Province formed the Azeri Autonomous Socialist Republic. The autonomy of Kurdistan Province, which included the Kurdish inhabited southern part of West Azerbaijan Province as well, was formally granted by Teheran. Established in 1980, it became the closest thing to a Kurdish state in history and had a population of over 1.2 million at the time.

Moscow supplied Iran’s army with trainers and state of the art equipment like T-80 and T-72 tanks, AK-47 assault rifles, SA-6 anti-aircraft missiles, MiG-21 and MiG-23 fighters, Su-22 fighter-bombers, Mil Mi 24 helicopter gunships and Scud missiles. Given the hostility toward Iran’s new regime by Iraq and Turkey and the autonomy it gave to the Kurds, Teheran felt the need to arm itself heavily.

Iraq and Turkey also didn’t appreciate how Iran showcased its minority policies, contrasting them against their repression. For example, the Kurdish economy was weak, so the new regime decided to make the Iranian Kurds an example to be followed: the majority of the population was involved in agriculture, with wheat, barley, grains and fruits were the major agricultural products; the main industrial activities were limited to the chemical, metal, textile, leather and food industries. Soviet aid was used to improve the economy, for example to buy modern farming equipment, build new railroads and paved roads, build a new national airport at the capital of Sanandaj, launch a literacy campaign, provide free education up to the university level and establish a system of universal healthcare. Besides modernizing its agricultural sector and the textiles industry, the Kurdish autonomous region began gearing to the production of specialized medical equipment. All these reforms were carried out on the national level to a greater or lesser degree as well.

In the meantime, Moscow temporarily put on hold any foreign adventures due to a crisis that erupted in Poland in the summer of 1980. Attempts to create an export based economy, using Western loans, had failed due to the economic crisis in the West (the notable exception being the Polski Fiat factory). Unrest after price increases in 1970 and 1976, after which food ration cards became a feature of Polish life, had been suppressed violently. Unable to make the necessary reforms as it would topple the communist system and unable to meet society’s staple needs due to the need to make foreign debt and interest payments produced an unsolvable quandary. The system of centrally planning couldn’t meet the complex, ever changing demands of a modern economy. Western bankers providing loans at a meeting at the Bank Handlowy in Warsaw on July 1st 1980 made it clear that low prices of consumer goods could no longer be subsidized by the state, On the same day a system of gradual but continuous price increases was announced. A worker rebellion indeed resulted, with a wave of strikes and factory occupations commencing at once. The strikes reached the politically sensitive Baltic Sea coast with a sit-down strike at the Lenin Shipyard on August 14th. The economy came to a halt.

The workers occupying the various factories, mines and shipyards across Poland organized as a united front. They were not limiting their efforts to seeking economic improvements, but made and stuck to a crucial demand: an establishment of trade unions independent of government control. Among other issues raised were rights for the Church, the freeing of political prisoners and an improved health service. The party leadership was faced with a choice between repressions on a massive scale and an amicable agreement that would give the workers what they wanted, and thus quieten the aroused population. They chose the latter. On August 31st Lech Walesa signed the Gdansk Agreement with Mieczyslaw Jagielski, a member of the politburo. The agreement acknowledged the right of employees to associate in free trade unions, obliged the government to take steps to eliminate censorship, abolished weekend work, increased the minimum wage, improved and extended welfare and pensions, and increased autonomy of industrial enterprises, where a meaningful role was to be played by workers’ self-management councils. The rule of the party was significantly weakened (to a “leading role in the state”, not society) but nonetheless explicitly recognized, together with Poland's international alliances. Solidarity was subsequently founded as the country’s first independent trade union and was officially recognized by the government. The fact that these economic concessions were absolutely unaffordable was overlooked in the wave of national euphoria that followed.

Unrest lingered as the concessions were postponed because of their cause, leading to the 1981 general strike in Bielsko-Biala in January and February 1981, a nationwide strike on March 24th and hunger demonstrations in the summer. Stanislaw Kania, who had replaced Edward Gierek, was replaced by General Wojciech Jaruzelski. Determined to suppress Solidarity, Jaruzelski claimed the country was on the verge of economic and civil breakdown and he alleged the threat of Soviet intervention to justify martial law. After martial law was imposed on December 13th 1981, state militia, the paramilitary riot police ZOMO and the military suppressed Solidarity violently. Not the intelligentsia but primarily working class people were the victim of the violence. Failing to get the Solidarity leadership to collaborate and turn the movement into an instrument of the state socialist system, the regime opted for total liquidation. The last large street demonstrations Solidarity was able to muster took place on August 31st 1982 after which the organization was formally banned on October 8th by the “Military Council of National Salvation” (the junta that led the country during martial law). Solidarity was broken and became a small underground organization. Martial law ended in July 1983.
 
Last edited:
Chapter VI: The Second Cold War, 1983-1987.
No replies? I hope a fresh update can change that!


Chapter VI: The Second Cold War, 1983-1987.

The crackdown on Solidarity was met negatively by the West and President Reagan even imposed sanctions on Poland, which was indicative of the reawakening Cold War tensions. This had begun after the Soviet invasion of Iran: though there had been some understanding for the Soviet desire to retaliate against Khomeini for the hostage taking, the invasion was seen not only as an overreaction resulting in needless loss of life but also as a grave threat to American interests in the region. Through the prism of the renewed Cold War, the dead hostages were a blatant excuse to impose communism on Iran and gain its oil and warm water ports.

The installation of a communist regime added insult to injury and one of the final decisions of Carter’s Presidency was to free up a budget of $10 billion to fund Iranian anti-communist underground resistance organizations and guerrilla movements. This took place under the codename “Operation Cyclone”. The anti-communist resistance was disparate and ranged from Khomeini supporters to remnants of SAVAK and the Shah’s military and a wide variety of democratic opposition in between. The CIA managed to mediate a feeble truce between the heavily divided anti-communist movement to at least make them focus solely on the communists instead of also fighting each other. A second measure was Carter’s decision not to present SALT II to the Senate for ratification.

The Iranian anti-communist movement distributed anti-communist writings, audiotapes and videotapes and guerrillas managed to take control in sparsely populated areas in the east of the country. There was, however, a significant support base for the communist regime consisting of leftist Iranians. Moreover, the new government took a dynamic approach to reconstruction: while having lost two thirds of its oil fields, Iran still controlled 15% of the world’s natural gas reserves and actively began expanding exploitation of its natural gas reserves to compensate for the lost oil revenues. Given that gas prices were coupled with oil prices, Iran managed to obtain large revenues as oil prices soared in the mid-80s. The revenue was used well: the damage done by the war was repaired; investments took place in the country’s other natural resources such as iron ore, lead, zinc, copper; a metallurgic industry was developed; manufacture of automobiles, home and electrical appliances, telecommunications equipment, cement and industrial machinery was developed; sectors such as textile production, processed foods, rubber products, leather products and pharmaceuticals were revived; universal healthcare and free education up to the university level was also introduced; and society was secularized again. Besides rebuilding society and the economy, Iran also rebuilt its armed forces with Soviet equipment such as T-72 tanks and Mil Mi 24 helicopter gunships. Iran also became the first recipient outside the Warsaw Pact of the MiG-29 jetfighter. For its navy, it acquired five Kilo-class diesel electric submarines, three Udaloy-class guided missile destroyers and later also one Slava-class missile cruiser. Of course, it would take years for the economic recovery would benefit the people given the tremendous damage done.

Where Iran differed positively from other communist regimes was that it adopted a “socialist market economy” similar to China’s in which state-owned enterprises operated in a market economy and (small to medium sized) privately owned companies also existed. What didn’t change was that Iran remained repressive and authoritarianism, the differences being ideological rather than practical. Tens of thousands of Islamic scholars opposing secularization were executed. The anti-communist insurgency began in 1980 and persisted in force until 1988, after which it withered away and ceased in 1990.

The survival and success of the communist regime in Iran was an eyesore to the US. They warned that though the Soviets now had their warm water ports, the US would use military means to prevent Soviet warships from being based there as well as any other military uses. While not profiting militarily, economically the Soviets did benefit: high oil prices were good for them as they were oil exporters; besides that, they built a pipeline through Iran in the 80s to more easily and cheaply export the oil they extracted in the Kazakh and Turkmen SSRs.

By 1983, the reinvigorated Cold War was in full swing and a key person in this development was President Ronald Reagan. In January 1977, four years prior to becoming president, Reagan bluntly stated, in a conversation with National Security Advisor Richard V. Allen, his basic expectation in relation to the Cold War. “My idea of American policy toward the Soviet Union is simple, and some would say simplistic,” he said. “It is this: we win and they lose. What do you think of that?”

In 1980, Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter in the 1980 US Presidential election. The latter has been considered a rather poor President ever since by critics, while his remaining supporters have pointed out that certain developments were not under his control. The economy of the 1970s had taken a turn south after the 1973 oil crisis, which began when OPEC imposed an oil embargo on countries perceived as supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War. This first oil shock caused oil prices to rise by 400% from $3 a barrel in 1973 to $12 a barrel in ’74. Some countries introduced gasoline rationing and a longer term consequence was stagnant economic growth and in the US also lower sales of domestically produced “gas-guzzling” cars in favour of more fuel efficient Japanese models. Western central banks decided to sharply cut interest rates to encourage growth, deciding that inflation was a secondary concern. Although this was the orthodox macroeconomic prescription at the time, the resulting stagflation surprised economists and central bankers. The 1979 oil shock was a response to the Iranian Revolution and saw oil prices double. The Soviet-Iranian War saw oil prices rise by another 50% in 1980, extending economic stagnation well into the first half of the 80s, the third oil shock. Besides being blamed for the poor economy, Reagan in a televised debate against his opponent said: “You’ve lost us Iran, Mr. Carter.” Carter responded by saying “keeping Iran would’ve meant confronting the Soviets militarily. Would Iran have been worth the risk of nuclear war to you?” Reagan simply said “Yes.” Being promised an economic alternative that quickly became known as Reaganomics, which should revive the economy, and the perceived need to respond to the apparent Soviet ascendancy made Reagan immensely popular. He carried 44 states, won 489 electoral votes and got 50.9% of the popular vote.

Reagan vowed to increase military spending and confront the Soviets everywhere. Both Reagan and new British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher denounced the Soviet Union and its ideology. Reagan labelled the Soviet Union an “Evil Empire” and predicted that communism would be left on the “ash heap of history,” while Thatcher accused the Soviets of being “bent on world dominance.” American defence spending was increased from 5.3% of GDP to 6.5% in Reagan’s first term. Reagan revived the B-1 Lancer program cancelled by the previous administration and announced the US would adopt the MIRV capable LGM-118 Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missiles, capable of carrying eleven 300 kiloton warheads. Secondly, starting in 1983, the US began placing Pershing II medium range nuclear ballistic missiles in Western Europe within ten minutes from Moscow (this elicited major public demonstrations in the West). Furthermore, Reagan launched the 600-Ship Navy which consisted of a large new construction program, stepping up production of the Nimitz-class super aircraft carriers, keeping older ships in service longer and recommissioning and upgrading the iconic Iowa-class battleships.

November 1984 saw US Presidential elections. The economy finally began showing modest signs of recovery in 1984 after one of the longest recessions in US history: a small growth of about 1%. Reagan’s tough stance against the Soviets remained popular. Reagan only faced token opposition in the Republican primaries, so he and Vice President George H.W. Bush were easily re-nominated. Former Vice President Walter Mondale defeated Senator Gary Hart and several others in the Democratic primaries and chose Geraldine Ferraro, member of the US House of Representatives from New York’s 9th district, as his running mate. Reagan touted the economic recovery and emphasized the revival of national confidence and prestige. Mondale rebutted by pointing out that the revival of the economy was modest and that it was part of the natural economic cycle, which meant the economy would’ve recovered in the early 80s despite and not because of the policies enacted. He also criticized the administration’s neoliberal supply-side economics for disproportionally disaffecting the lowest income classes, who got poorer rather than feeling the growth of the economy in their wallets, while the rich and big business got tax cuts. Mondale criticized Reagan’s increased deficit spending for almost doubling the national debt, advocated nuclear disarmament talks with the Soviets and called for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. Mondale carried eight states plus DC, got 120 electoral votes and 47.6% of the popular vote. Reagan got 51.8% of the popular vote, carried 42 states and got 418 electoral votes.

In the meantime, the USSR responded by placing RSD-10 Pioneer ballistic missiles threatening Western Europe in response to the American Pershing missiles, but didn’t step up its own defence spending. In the early 1980s, the military consumed 25% of Soviet GDP and that wasn’t just because of military necessity: massive party and state bureaucracies relied on the defence sector for their own power and privileges and this pushed the Soviet Armed Forces to become the world’s largest in the varying types of weapons and the total quantity they possessed. This gave Moscow a sense of security. Another reason why the Soviets didn’t match the US military build-up was economics: the enormous military expenses, along with inefficient central economic planning via five year plans and collectivized agriculture, were already a heavy burden for the Soviet economy.

Fortunately for the Soviet Union, the experiment with the “Special Economic Zones” was very promising: allowing privately owned small to medium businesses to exist and deal with investors, customers, suppliers and employees independently, keep their profits and provide above average workers with material rewards made the SEZ’s very productive with higher economic growth than the national average, greater employee satisfaction and greater general happiness. To the existing list of SEZ’s consisting of Murmansk, Kaliningrad, Sevastopol, Sochi, Baku, Alma Ata and Vladivostok, Kirilenko added Arkhangelsk, Tallinn, Odessa, Rostov, Volgograd, Novorossiysk, Yerevan, and Irkutsk. Besides that, oil prices remaining high throughout the early 80s and lubricated the gears of the otherwise cumbersome command economy. There was even enough money to provide aid to Poland, enabling it to maintain subsidies on a handful of staple products like potatoes, bread and meat.

Kirilenko resigned as General Secretary in 1983 for health reasons (he died in 1990). In the climate of a renewed Cold War, a dove like Mikhail Gorbachev was not seen as a suitable leader and instead Viktor Grishin became the new General Secretary. He continued the economic experiment of the SEZ’s but maintained the authoritarian political system. Grishin also reaffirmed the Brezhnev doctrine with his statement at a meeting of the Polish politburo that “a move toward capitalism by one socialist state is of grave concern to all socialist states.” In practice this meant that the satellite states’ communist parties had only limited independence and that none of these countries would be allowed to compromise the cohesion of the Warsaw Pact; the flipside for the various communist regimes was that Moscow supported their monopoly on power.

The Reagan administration emphasized the use of quick, low-cost counterinsurgency tactics to intervene in foreign conflicts. Besides funding an insurgency against the new Iranian communist regime that lasted for a few years, the US intervened in the Lebanese Civil War, invaded Grenada and (unsuccessfully) backed anti-communist paramilitaries called “Contras” against the Soviet backed Sandinista regime in Nicaragua.

Meanwhile, tensions between the US and Libya dating back to the Gulf of Sidra incident and were revived by a terrorist bombing of a Berlin discotheque that injured 63 American military personnel and killed one serviceman in early April 1986. Libya in the 1980s harboured and supported many terrorists from Abu Nidal, to the PLO, the IRA and the Red Army Faction. The US accused Libya of being behind the Berlin bombing and the Soviets responded by accusing the Americans of jumping to conclusion. After a visit by Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs Gromyko, the Soviets decided to supply Libya with state of the art equipment.

Likewise, aid to Angola was stepped up, and the MPLA was close to success. Particularly in the Angolan case, thousands of Cuban troops contributed to communist success, leading to a de facto MPLA victory by the late 1980s. Other socialist states got material assistance from Moscow as well such as Ethiopia, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos and Congo-Brazzaville for example. Some of them were a serious money sink, such as Ethiopia which needed massive economic aid due to drought and famine that plagued the country in the late 1980s, besides US attempts to destabilize the regime there. The Soviets retaliated by supporting insurgents against Somali leader Siad Barre who, despite being a communist, was pro-US. Africa too was a Cold War battlefield.
 
Last edited:
OK, I think I see what you are doing here; you are trying to focus solely on the USSR and thus, most things aside from Iran go pretty much as OTL.

I certainly noticed that both Carter and Mondale did better in popular votes than OTL; in particular in 1984 the only state that cast EV for Mondale was his home state of Minnesota, all 49 others went for Reagan. (I presume without bothering to look it up that DC also voted for Mondale, that practically goes without saying). And yet just about every other damn thing going on the world seemed pretty close to exactly the way I remember it going. And the fact that Reagan and the Republicans had to work harder for their victories seems not to have done one damn thing to alter their agenda or the narrative by the mainstream powers that be in US society that they were "popular" and owned the future.

I should go back and read your retconns of the events leading up to and falling out from the invasion of Iran. One huge ATL difference is that of course Iran and Iraq are not in fact in a murderous war throughout the period you describe in this later post.

And so now I am wondering, can you connect certain dots here?

Another ATL thing--you mention oil prices remaining high in the early decade.

I am trying to figure, how the heck does that happen?

As I understand it, what happened OTL was,

1) the Yom Kippur war led to a Saudi-led oil squeeze by OPEC, though not a few Americans of the day believed that actually the major oil companies were taking advantage of it and exacerbating the apparent shortage of oil in the USA far beyond what the foriegn embargo could have accomplished. True or not, gasoline prices at the pump skyrocketed, though we would laugh to see the prices they rose to. I distinctly remember my grandmother complaining about having to pay over 50 cents a gallon.

Then the OTL Iranian crisis led to another surge in gasoline prices .

2) but a major response to this was a general panic and eventually conventional wisdom that we were in an "energy crisis." And therefore people should all do their part to fight the crisis, such as turning off lights when we left a room and so forth. And the high price of oil at the pumps was definitely real enough, whatever its detailed causes, and not changing anytime soon, and never for the better. People accordingly went looking for more fuel efficient cars, and weatherstripped their homes; industrial users I presume found ways and means to conserve. President Carter put up a solar heating system on the White House (which Reagan, in a stunning display of sheer mean ideology triumphing over economic rationality, removed upon taking control).

All this penny packet conservation added up. The upshot was, demand for oil fell, or anyway ceased to rise, and the prices--did not come down, exactly, but the rather ongoing and relatively rapid inflation caused the more or less stable new prices, around a dollar a gallon, to seem less and less outrageous as wages crept upward too.

Therefore by the early '80s I remember talk of the new "oil glut."

So, is your remark about oil remaining pricy and scarce seems ATL to me--but maybe it reflects something, say in Europe, or in other circles than I knew or heard from?

---

I was really hoping Carter would be able to win reelection, but assuming the point of the TL is mainly to focus on alternate Soviet/WP developments, it makes sense he would not win.
 
I’d also love to know how Iran payed for all those natural resource injections. Purely gas would imho not be enough if you do the rebuild and exploitation at the same time, though you did allude to that not resulting in a better life.

plus I’d love to see some more interest in India. Other than that, keep up the good work!
 
OK, I think I see what you are doing here; you are trying to focus solely on the USSR and thus, most things aside from Iran go pretty much as OTL.

I certainly noticed that both Carter and Mondale did better in popular votes than OTL; in particular in 1984 the only state that cast EV for Mondale was his home state of Minnesota, all 49 others went for Reagan. (I presume without bothering to look it up that DC also voted for Mondale, that practically goes without saying). And yet just about every other damn thing going on the world seemed pretty close to exactly the way I remember it going. And the fact that Reagan and the Republicans had to work harder for their victories seems not to have done one damn thing to alter their agenda or the narrative by the mainstream powers that be in US society that they were "popular" and owned the future.

Maybe I could have gone more divergent there. Suffice to say, that the list of Presidents after Reagan and the subsequent US policies will significantly differ from OTL.

I should go back and read your retconns of the events leading up to and falling out from the invasion of Iran. One huge ATL difference is that of course Iran and Iraq are not in fact in a murderous war throughout the period you describe in this later post.

And so now I am wondering, can you connect certain dots here?

As far as Iraq goes, I can divulge that the next update is devoted to that.

Another ATL thing--you mention oil prices remaining high in the early decade.

I am trying to figure, how the heck does that happen?

As I understand it, what happened OTL was,

1) the Yom Kippur war led to a Saudi-led oil squeeze by OPEC, though not a few Americans of the day believed that actually the major oil companies were taking advantage of it and exacerbating the apparent shortage of oil in the USA far beyond what the foriegn embargo could have accomplished. True or not, gasoline prices at the pump skyrocketed, though we would laugh to see the prices they rose to. I distinctly remember my grandmother complaining about having to pay over 50 cents a gallon.

Then the OTL Iranian crisis led to another surge in gasoline prices .

2) but a major response to this was a general panic and eventually conventional wisdom that we were in an "energy crisis." And therefore people should all do their part to fight the crisis, such as turning off lights when we left a room and so forth. And the high price of oil at the pumps was definitely real enough, whatever its detailed causes, and not changing anytime soon, and never for the better. People accordingly went looking for more fuel efficient cars, and weatherstripped their homes; industrial users I presume found ways and means to conserve. President Carter put up a solar heating system on the White House (which Reagan, in a stunning display of sheer mean ideology triumphing over economic rationality, removed upon taking control).

All this penny packet conservation added up. The upshot was, demand for oil fell, or anyway ceased to rise, and the prices--did not come down, exactly, but the rather ongoing and relatively rapid inflation caused the more or less stable new prices, around a dollar a gallon, to seem less and less outrageous as wages crept upward too.

Therefore by the early '80s I remember talk of the new "oil glut."

So, is your remark about oil remaining pricy and scarce seems ATL to me--but maybe it reflects something, say in Europe, or in other circles than I knew or heard from?

I figured that given what's just happened in Iran and with Iraq seizing three quarters of its oil by taking Khuzestan oil prices would stay high for a little while longer due to worries about Middle Eastern instability and about what Saddam is going to do next.


I was really hoping Carter would be able to win reelection, but assuming the point of the TL is mainly to focus on alternate Soviet/WP developments, it makes sense he would not win.

I understand, but if you like Democrats winning, I've got some surprises down the line.

I’d also love to know how Iran payed for all those natural resource injections. Purely gas would imho not be enough if you do the rebuild and exploitation at the same time, though you did allude to that not resulting in a better life.

Yes, perhaps I should have been clearer that the investments Iran is making won't bear fruit until the 90s.

plus I’d love to see some more interest in India. Other than that, keep up the good work!

Will do!
 
Chapter VII: Iraq and the Gulf Crisis, 1987-1988.
And now Saddam comes out to play.


Chapter VII: Iraq and the Gulf Crisis, 1987-1988.

Perhaps the biggest twist of the Cold War in the 80s concerned Iraq and its dictator President Saddam Hussein. In 1968, Saddam participated in a bloodless coup that replaced President Abdul Rahman Arif with Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr while he became Vice President as well as Deputy Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council and oversaw the subsequent purge of the non-Ba’ath faction led by Prime Minister Naif, regardless of its support for the coup. An effective politician behind the scenes, Saddam became the moving force of the regime and effectuated stable rule in a country split along ethnic, religious, social and economic fault lines through massive repression and the improvement of living standards. The high oil prices of the 1970s and the early 80s enabled the expansion of this agenda.

Oil revenues rose from half a billion to tens of billions of dollars in the 70s and the money was put to good use. Saddam provided free education all the way up to the university level, initiated a successful anti-illiteracy campaign during which hundreds of thousands of people learned to read, gave subsidies to farmers, mechanized agriculture, granted free hospitalization to everyone, electrified most of the country, nationalized banks, and initiated a national infrastructure campaign that made great progress in building roads and railroads, building power plants and hydroelectric dams, promoting mining and developing other industries. By the late 70s, Iraq had the most modern public healthcare system of the Arab world, earning Saddam a UNESCO award.

The flipside was that Saddam built a strong security apparatus able and willing to engage in massive human rights violations (torture, unlawful imprisonment, murder, genocide) and suppress internal coups and external insurrections. Besides that, a colossal personality cult was built around Saddam. This continued unabated after Saddam drove al-Bakr out of power in 1979 (to prevent the merger of Iraq and Syria, which would’ve made Syrian President Hafez al-Assad al-Bakr’s deputy, pushing Saddam into obscurity).

After annexing Khuzestan in 1980 at Iran’s expense, Iraq controlled even more oil and firmly established itself as the world’s third oil exporter behind Saudi Arabia and the Soviet Union. Iraq had acted as an important junior partner in the Soviet-Iranian War and Soviet-Iraqi relations had been friendly during the 60s and 70s. During a brief window in 1980-’82 it seemed like Iraq would become Moscow’s primary Middle Eastern ally.

Very soon the Kremlin would find it impossible to juggle the interests of its Middle Eastern partners Iran, Iraq and Syria. Iran was angry about losing Khuzestan to Iraq and quickly re-establishing normal relations with Iraq, as mandated by the cordial relations of their Soviet sponsor with the Iraqis, required near impossible levels of restraint. Relations between Damascus and Baghdad weren’t any better. Ever since Saddam had sabotaged the Syrian-Iraqi merger, relations between the two countries had been poor and Soviet mediation only raised that to mediocre. Ultimately it was Saddam himself who threw a monkey wrench into Iraq’s ties with its Soviet patron and ironically uncomplicated Moscow’s Middle Eastern diplomacy.

Saddam became increasingly furious at the newly established Kurdish Autonomous Socialist Republic, a federal subject of Iran with a great degree of freedom. His intelligence and repression apparatus informed him that weapons shipments to aid the KDP and PUK were coming in from there. This later proved to be untrue: as much as the Kurdish leadership in Sanandaj wanted to, the Iranians and the Soviets forbade them from aiding their brethren in Iraq, Syria and Turkey. The KDP and PUK in Iraq and the PKK in Turkey had nothing to with the autonomous Kurds in Iran.

Soviet foreign minister Gromyko went to Baghdad to defuse the situation in March 1987. He was confronted by an irrational Saddam who demanded that Moscow withdrew its support for the Iranian Kurds (and preferably for Iran as a whole) and who disbelieved evidence that the Kurdish Autonomous Socialist Republic (KASR) wasn’t supporting Iraqi Kurds against him. During the talks Gromyko crossed his legs and inadvertently showed Saddam the bottom of his shoe, an insult in the Arab world. An agitated Hussein threw a temper tantrum, talks were abruptly ended then and there, and Gromyko packed up and left, reporting to Moscow about the breakdown in talks. Subsequent talks through diplomatic backchannels mediated by Romania amounted to naught. Soviet-Iraqi relations were damaged to say the least.

Shortly thereafter the Iraqi army fired Scud missiles at several locations in the KASR. The Soviets responded by deploying an S-300 long range surface-to-air missile system that could shoot down Scuds with relative ease. They also stationed a squadron of MiG-29s at a Kurdish airfield base near the capital of Sanandaj and sent 150 “military advisors.” Supplies of arms to Iran also increased. Soviet-Iraqi relations were now irreparably damaged.

Meanwhile, it was feared by the White House and the Pentagon that without American support, Iran could topple the Ba’ath regime with Soviet help and install a communist regime somewhere down the road. The US Department of Defence projected the use of a combination of direct military aggression and exploitation of the country’s ethnic fault lines by supporting the Shia majority and the Kurds against the Sunni dominated regime, resulting in military collapse and revolution. Though damaged from the revolution and the war with the Soviets, Iran still held the demographic advantage and the US estimated it also still had greater economic potential than Iraq in the medium to long term due to greater economic diversity. Besides that, Moscow had already directly intervened against one Middle Eastern regime. Who was to say they wouldn’t do it again? Iraq was the second most powerful Arab country after Egypt. If it fell to communism, the Americans expected other Arab countries to fall like dominos.

Knowing his country couldn’t go it alone in the bipolar Cold War system, Saddam responded to American overtures and accept them as his new superpower sponsor for lack of alternatives. Iraq had been removed from the US list of “State Sponsors of Terrorism” as early as 1980 in a bid to open full diplomatic relations between the two countries. For lack of success, both countries put relations with the other on the backburner until 1987. Weeks after Gromyko left, in May 1987, US Secretary of State George P. Shultz visited Baghdad as Reagan’s proxy and promised Saddam more weapons than he knew what to do with: M60A3 main battle tanks, M113 armoured personnel carriers, F-16 multirole fighters, C-130 Hercules transport planes, Chinook transport helicopters, Bell AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters, Huey utility helicopters, Patriot surface-to-air missiles, BGM-71 TOW anti-tank missiles and M-16 assault rifles (the existing Soviet equipment was kept in reserve, used for training purposes or sold). The Iraqi Navy also got attention as it now had to guard a significantly longer coastline: originally consisting of only eight Soviet made Osa-class missile boats and vessels for riverine warfare, Iraq got the four Kidd-class guided missile destroyers originally intended for Iran and placed orders in the Netherlands for four Zwaardvis-class (Swordfish-class) diesel electric submarines and in Italy for four Lupo-class frigates and six Assad-class corvettes.

By 1988, Saddam had an army equipped with the best equipment the US had to offer and he knew America saw his country as an indispensable buffer against communist Iran. It was time to exploit this advantage to the hilt. In June 1988, Saddam started to make noise about Kuwait’s unwillingness to abide by OPEC quotas for oil production. Discipline was required to achieve the desired price of $18 per barrel, but as a result of Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates consistently overproducing the price got as low as $10. Not that Iraq was desperate for cash, but it missed out on $7 billion worth of revenues as a result. Iraq was supported by Jordan in its demand for more discipline, with little success. Iraq pictured it as a form of economic warfare, which it claimed was aggravated by Kuwaiti slant-drilling across the border into Iraq’s Rumaila oilfield. The Iraq-Kuwait dispute also involved Iraqi claims to Kuwait as Iraqi territory. Kuwait had been a part of the Ottoman Empire’s province of Basra, something that Iraq claimed made it rightful Iraqi territory. Its ruling dynasty, the al-Sabah family, had concluded a protectorate agreement in 1899 that assigned responsibility for its foreign affairs to Great Britain. Britain drew the border between the two countries in 1922, making Iraq virtually landlocked. Kuwait rejected Iraqi attempts to secure further provisions in the region.

Saddam secured a statement from the US State Department that “the United States government has no position on inter-Arab conflicts.” He was correct that they’d appease him. After that Iraq deployed 100.000 troops to its border with Kuwait. The Iraqi Army was capable of fielding one million men and 850.000 reservists, 5.500 tanks, 3.000 artillery pieces, 700 combat aircraft and helicopters; it held 53 divisions, 20 special-forces brigades, and several regional militias, and had a strong air defence. By contrast, the Kuwaiti military was believed to have numbered only 16.000 men, arranged into three armoured, one mechanised infantry and one under-strength artillery brigade. The pre-war strength of Kuwait’s air force was around 2.200 men, with 80 fixed-wing aircraft and 40 helicopters. Kuwait stood no chance.

The attack began at 03:30 AM on Sunday October 23rd 1988, precipitating the Gulf Crisis. After Iraqi commandos had already entered the country, the main prong consisting of elite Republican Guard tank divisions commenced its advance south to Kuwait City along the main highway at 05:00 AM while a supporting force simultaneously invaded from the west and cut off the city. Kuwaiti aircraft scrambled to meet the invaders, but one fifth were lost or captured during the opening phase of the conflict. Meanwhile, the partially mobilized 35th Armoured Brigade (fielding 36 Chieftain tanks, a company of APCs, a company of anti-tank vehicles and seven self-propelled guns) conducted an effective defence west of the town of Al Jahra. Not anticipating resistance, the Iraqis were caught by surprise when they arrived around 11:00 AM and were held up until 10:00 PM. It was at that point that the Kuwaitis were almost out of ammunitions. Besides that, commandos, deployed by helicopters and boats were already attacking targets in Kuwait City.

Within 36 hours all military resistance had ceased and the royal family had fled the country. After that, an Iraqi controlled provisional government held power for a few days until Saddam appointed his cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid as Governor. Kuwait had ceased to exist, a situation to which the Kuwaiti government-in-exile protested against without any results. Iraq tried to legitimize its annexation of Kuwait through a bogus referendum: the voter turnout was said to be 98% and 90% supposedly voted in favour of the merger with Iraq. Though the real results weren’t known, nobody was fooled by the obviously falsified Iraqi numbers. And yet they did nothing.

Being allowed to keep Kuwait was a boon for Iraq’s economy as it was now the world’s second largest oil exporter. The state suppressed dissidents with its security forces, using torture, unlawful imprisonment and murder. A pervasive personality cult utilizing film, radio, music, the visual arts and the education extolled the virtues and achievements of Saddam Hussein. Of course no mention was made of the cruelty and brutality with which opponents were treated, about corruption or the rapes committed by Saddam’s oldest son Uday that scandalized Baghdad. With oil money the Ba’ath regime continued to buy the silence and political support, or apathy in the worst case, of the majority of the Iraqi people. The oil paid for universal healthcare, free education, cheap public housing, investments in infrastructure and projects to diversify the economy. One of those was a Fiat factory in Basra where the first generation Fiat Panda and the Fiat Tipo continued to be produced years after production in Italy ended as these cheap models proved popular among common Arabs and became a major export to neighbouring countries. A second project was a plan to produce the required spare parts for Iraq’s new American weapons locally.

The West, by contrast, experienced a fourth oil shock, though milder than the ones in 1973, 1979 and 1980. After the price of oil had peaked at $37 per barrel in 1981 (nominal) it had dropped back to only $15 by 1987. After the Gulf Crisis resulted in the Iraqi annexation of Kuwait, the price of a barrel of oil peaked again at $30 in 1989 and stayed stable at $25 the next year before returning to a more normal price of $18. This oil shock contributed to the 1989-’91 recession along with factors like restrictive monetary policies enacted by central banks out of inflation concerns, a loss in consumer and business confidence, a slump in office construction due to overbuilding in the 80s, and the savings and loan crisis.

For the Soviets it was easy to choose their political position (despite the obvious economic benefit of oil money lining their pockets). They had cut off ties with Iraq earlier and now vehemently denounced Iraq’s unilateral action. Permanent Representative of the Soviet Union to the United Nations Alexander Belonogov proposed sanctions that included an arms embargo, an economic embargo that would stop anything but food and medicine from entering Iraq, travel restrictions for senior members of the Iraqi government, and freezing the bank accounts of all members of the Iraqi government. Belonogov made a statement in the UN: “The leader of the so-called free world refuses to condemn the annexation of one country by its larger, more powerful neighbour. This reeks of appeasement, like 1938, with the modern Hitler getting his loot in exchange for peace. The American position is hypocritical and dangerous.”

The representative of China but also those of Washington’s British and French allies criticized the American position, albeit not so aggressively. The American representative in the UN weakly rebutted the original US position that inter-Arab conflicts weren’t America’s business. The US had been forced into a position, partially through their own actions, that they had to veto sanctions against Iraq after the latter’s act of aggression to protect its new ally. The USSR, its Warsaw Pact allies and many individual European countries enacted sanctions of their own in response. In regards to Kuwait the US policy was ambivalent: they continued to recognize the Kuwaiti government-in-exile and tried to negotiate with Iraq on their behalf, but not to the point of jeopardizing US-Iraqi relations. This success made Iraq the leader of the Arab world through fear. If the US wouldn’t stop Iraq from annexing a neighbour, who would? Saddam was emboldened and that would have consequences somewhere down the line.
 
Last edited:

BigBlueBox

Banned
Saudi Arabia would be shitting its pants right now about Saddam. If America doesn’t do a 180 on its Iraqi policy then the Saudis could even end up begging the Soviets for protection. If that’s too embarrassing, they could try for an alliance with Iran instead of a direct one with the Soviets, but that would almost be the same.
 
Saudi Arabia would be shitting its pants right now about Saddam. If America doesn’t do a 180 on its Iraqi policy then the Saudis could even end up begging the Soviets for protection. If that’s too embarrassing, they could try for an alliance with Iran instead of a direct one with the Soviets, but that would almost be the same.
Would be hilarious, as well. Saudi Arabia begging Iran for protection.XD
 
Top