AHC and WI: Iranians Take Basra in 1982

John Fredrick Parker · Sep 13, 2011

I'm referring mainly to this battle*, though I'm open to alternate approaches -- point is, how can the military objective of taking the port of Basra is achieved by Iran, and what happens after?

*I came across it skimming "1001 Battles That Changed the Course of History" -- only the book called it the "Battle of Basra"

aktarian · Sep 13, 2011

Worst case scenario. Iraqis refuse to surrender, rally conservative sunni states behind them who start pumping serious money there. Not loans but outright grants. US start backing Iraq with indirect support (sort of what they did later). War is a mess but Iran is better position as it basically controls Iraqi sea access so they have to reroute traffic elsewhere. While Saudis and Jordanians might allow outflow of oil I doubt they would allow Soviet weapons to be transported through their territory.

nastle · Sep 13, 2011

aktarian said:
Worst case scenario. Iraqis refuse to surrender, rally conservative sunni states behind them who start pumping serious money there. Not loans but outright grants. US start backing Iraq with indirect support (sort of what they did later). War is a mess but Iran is better position as it basically controls Iraqi sea access so they have to reroute traffic elsewhere. While Saudis and Jordanians might allow outflow of oil I doubt they would allow Soviet weapons to be transported through their territory.

Basra would be a Verdun like quagmire, sucking in hundreds of thousands of men with no clear victors.Even if iran controls Basra they would be able to do little to control the oil flow.
You are right the saudis, jordanians, egyptinans and gulf states will pour money and men to stabilize the rest of Iraq and saddam regime.KSA may even directly enter the war lending its navy and airforce to harrass the iranain forces.

HeavyWeaponsGuy · Sep 13, 2011

Even if they do it Iran stands to lose from winning that big of a victory over the Iraqis, that inches the game closer towards a US intervention (though historically we were more pissed about all that monkey business in the Gulf.) Short-term is good for Iran, long-term they have a very, very unwelcoming group of neighbors.

aktarian · Sep 13, 2011

nastle said:
Basra would be a Verdun like quagmire, sucking in hundreds of thousands of men with no clear victors.Even if iran controls Basra they would be able to do little to control the oil flow.

Well, POD states that Basra is taken, not what it would take to do it. With it you simply shut down main Iraqi port and rest of coast is under Iranian fire.

Not sure how pipelines were oriented but I think most were routed toward Gulf, not Turkey or Saudi.

nastle said:
You are right the saudis, jordanians, egyptinans and gulf states will pour money and men to stabilize the rest of Iraq and saddam regime.KSA may even directly enter the war lending its navy and airforce to harrass the iranain forces.

Saudi AF at that point was a joke and its entry would simply mean more air kills for IRIAF. Even when they got F-15s they were reluctant to engage even older Iranian planes like F-4. The one kill they did achieve was reportedly with USAF backseater and even that took long persuasion to engage.

HeavyWeaponsGuy · Sep 13, 2011

Sachielibag said:
cheap Belts outlet online store,we wholesale Belts online,we have many new style Belts clearance with low price,we have sale Belts high quality for years,we have put out many fashion Belts.we are biggest Belts warehouse in china.some style Belts offer free shipping.we offer good discount for Belts,as a good Belts suppliers and exporters.we alos accept Belts payment,if you need bulk order,please contact our sales for oem factory price.we are the best Belts manufacturerswe we aceept wholesale retail and oem order,we can make Belts with your design,as a good service Belts Traders

Zounds he's right! Iranian victory in the Iran-Iraq War could very possibly lead to Iran endangering the Iraqi belt market!

MerryPrankster · Sep 13, 2011

Spammer reported.

John Fredrick Parker · Sep 13, 2011

So it sounds like there's consensus that Iraq would get lots more foreign support than OTL. UIAM, aktarian is right, and Iraq does (or at least did) primarily export oil through the sea, a route an Iranian capture of Basra would definitely disrupt...

MerryPrankster · Sep 13, 2011

John Fredrick Parker said:
So it sounds like there's consensus that Iraq would get lots more foreign support than OTL. UIAM, aktarian is right, and Iraq does (or at least did) primarily export oil through the sea, a route an Iranian capture of Basra would definitely disrupt...

How long would it take to build an overland pipeline through Jordan and who would pay for it?

And where would it go? Going through Israel would be...problematic, while Lebanon is in the middle of a war.

azander12 · Sep 13, 2011

MerryPrankster said:
How long would it take to build an overland pipeline through Jordan and who would pay for it?

And where would it go? Going through Israel would be...problematic, while Lebanon is in the middle of a war.

It could go to Aqaba, which has been a major port for a very long time. The issue with going through Jordan is that it's likely to exacerbate conflict with both Israel and/or the Palestinians, who will see it as strengthening the hand of the Jordanian monarchy.

John Fredrick Parker · Sep 13, 2011

Any ideas for how the Iranians could win the battle?

MerryPrankster · Sep 13, 2011

azander12 said:
It could go to Aqaba, which has been a major port for a very long time. The issue with going through Jordan is that it's likely to exacerbate conflict with both Israel and/or the Palestinians, who will see it as strengthening the hand of the Jordanian monarchy.

I thought Aqaba was Israel's port on the Red Sea. Or was that Tiran?

Given how Israel assisted Iran and vice-versa during the Iran-Iraq War, I could imagine Israel sponsoring attempts to sabotage this project, perhaps using Palestinians as proxies.

(The Israelis sponsored Hamas to undermine the PLO, so it wouldn't be unheard of.)

If it's completed anyway--perhaps the U.S. prevents the Israelis from doing more than hiring saboteurs--it could make things more interesting in the long run. Jordan was an Iraqi ally and in TTL will be much richer.

John Fredrick Parker · Sep 13, 2011

Say, though, that Israel does manage to block a westward oil line (or even get the message to Iraq that such a project is futile if they have anything to say about it) -- does this mean that the Fall of Basra is effectively the beginning of the end of the Iran-Iraq War?

aktarian · Sep 13, 2011

John Fredrick Parker said:
Say, though, that Israel does manage to block a westward oil line (or even get the message to Iraq that such a project is futile if they have anything to say about it) -- does this mean that the Fall of Basra is effectively the beginning of the end of the Iran-Iraq War?

Whether this is beginning of the end depends on two things. How much fight Iraqis have in them after and how much support others are willing to give.

Answer to later is "a lot" but I don't see direct intervention. Money yes, "volunteer" pilots very likely. Former is tricky. Iranians managed to shut down main Iraqi trade route, halting oil exports making them dependant on foreign subsidies. I wouldn't rule out a military coup, specially if there are further Saddam's blunders, e.g. failed offensives to retake Basra.

azander12 · Sep 13, 2011

John Fredrick Parker said:
Say, though, that Israel does manage to block a westward oil line (or even get the message to Iraq that such a project is futile if they have anything to say about it) -- does this mean that the Fall of Basra is effectively the beginning of the end of the Iran-Iraq War?

Remember though, that the price of oil at this point is going to skyrocket. Without Iraqi oil exports, and with Iran's oil infrastructure having gone up in smoke during Saddam's invasion, plus massive speculation, the price of oil is going to be crushingly high. That might help the Soviets with their fiscal problems, but it will damage the US economy significantly. The Americans might at this point push Israel into allowing the Jordanian pipeline through, on pain of covert American support for the Jordanians, specifically their special forces.

John Fredrick Parker · Sep 13, 2011

^^Weird, thinking of the US blatantly propping up Saddam Hussein.

Actually, I like the idea of Saddam getting overthrown earlier, myself...

Plumber · Sep 13, 2011

Welllll, 1984 is colored all blue ITTL...

Hyperbolus · Sep 13, 2011

Perhaps the specter of decisively losing the war causes Iraq to use Sarin? Due to the danger of killing Iraqi troops, Saddam might launch gas-laden scuds on Tehran. The more sustained high oil prices could lead to more Nuclear plants being built; I could see 3 Mile Island being earlier and more thoroughly forgotten as well.

M79 · Sep 13, 2011

This means giving Iran a general who can get something done, if this person has some strategic planning ability and is not killed in the battle then the Iraqis will be quite anxious to get Basra back. Al-Faw will fall and give Iran control of the Iraqi avenue to the sea, jacking up the price of oil in the early Reagan years enough to potentially force a US intervention unless Iran wins the war fairly quickly. More likely we send in a team of spec ops and enact a "regime change" in Baghdad to one that makes a quick peace. If the war goes on too long then Reagan's chances of re-election are seriously hurt, which could be an interesting timeline in its own right. Complete Iranian victory would likely mean taking Baghdad, which is ASB under almost all circumstances I can think of, and besides all they would do is set up a puppet regime anyway. No local power would tolerate Tehran absorbing the whole of Iraq.

Ak-84 · Sep 13, 2011

This is ASB. The Iranian Army as stated was at the time like a chicken with its head cut off. They were undoubtedly brave but lacked the leadership to really take strategic offences like the one needed to take Basra.