AHC Iraq wins the Iran-Iraq war
- Thread starter La Rouge Beret
- Start date
More US support would be the easiest way to do this. Reagan declines the arms for hostages deal, and instead tries to build a united Sunni front, isolating Iran, in an attempt to bring down the revolution. Could fit well with support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.
The blowback though...Dear God, the blowback
The blowback though...Dear God, the blowback
La Rouge Beret
Donor
The blowback would be horrific. But how would the USA provide aid, a mix of military and economic assistance? Would we see military advisers in Iraq?
Last edited:
It'll require more than just the U.S. supplying arms to Iraq. At the time of the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq had one of the most modern militaries in the Middle East. The big issue Iraq had was internal. Conscripts had little motivation to fight, and NCO's and officers at all levels exercised little initiative; they simply executed the mission given to them without regard to the conditions on the ground-sometimes with disastrous results. These are problems that need to be fixed several years or even a decade before the start of the war to have an effect; which is doubtful with Saddam Hussein in charge.
The U.S. could send advisors in addition to arms. This may help somewhat, but ultimately Hussein is going to have to give free reign to his generals to run the war; this simply won't happen given the type of person that he was.
The U.S. could send advisors in addition to arms. This may help somewhat, but ultimately Hussein is going to have to give free reign to his generals to run the war; this simply won't happen given the type of person that he was.
It depends on how they win, and it depends on what kind of win.
For instance, suppose that Saddam Hussein succeeds in his 'lightning war' strategy - a fast brutal blow against a weak and disorganized Iran that brings about the collapse of the Ayatollahs Regime.
Iraq wins and imposes its territorial aspirations on Iran. I'd say this wouldn't be huge. There's no stomach these days for massive border redrawing.
But I do think that Saddam might try to hive off the Arab-ethnic Khoramshar (sic) region as a new 'liberated' state, and perhaps occupy or turn it into a client state. It would make a terrific buffer, and it's got a lot of Iran's oil capacity. So an independent Khoramshar would really hurt.
The Iranian Mullahs collapse, Iran devolves into bitter civil war, or a succession of weak backwards governments ideally. Which leaves a power vacuum in the Persian Gulf.
Which means that the US needs a new client: Saddam Hussein. Who is happy to make nice, given that he's allowed his liberties.
Meanwhile, a screwed up unstable Iran is going to be a major geopolitical problem for US policy makers, considering that its next door to both the USSR and the bulk of the West's oil. Oops!
If it happens that way, then financially Iraq is far better off. The expenses of the war are a fraction of what they were OTL. Iraq doesn't go into debt borrowing from Kuwait, etc. etc. That's even without possible reparations.
Saddam has a lot more money to indulge in kleptocracy, economic development, throwing his financial weight around with poor arabs. I figure that Saddam would opt in for megaprojects - pipelines, highways, universities, bridges, nuclear programs. Whatever is big. Dictators always think in terms of big building projects. Utility is about 50/50.
Relations with Kuwait will be different. The Kuwaiti's will probably not mess with slant drilling Iraq's oil fields, or will be more easily intimidated not to do it. There's not going to be the same financial issues in place as in Kuwait and Iraq arguing about debt. The Kuwaiti government may be much more cautious. This may save them from invasion. Maybe, maybe not.
Assuming wild success - Iraq emerges as the dominant power in the Persian Gulf and the Arab World, essentially trumping Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Lots of political cachet.
Likely radical Islamism would decline, as the technocrats and technocratic movement could show a genuine win. Islamism is, in part, a response to the consistent failure of any model of muslim government in the middle east.
On the other hand, Israel gets to tout Iraq is a genuine existential threat. Israel's been having a hard time lately with existential threat's. The effort to ramp up Malaysia for the role is not going well.
But as much as the US is pro-Israel, it needs Iraq in the region. So it's going to be like Archie going on dates with Betty and Veronica simultaneously - awkward.
How likely was it to happen. Well, I don't think a smarter Saddam or tougher Iraq is the answer. For this to take place, you need Iran to be markedly weaker, or to make some disastrous early decisions the blow the game for it.
Of course, if its just Iran screwing up, and Saddam is no smarter, then we likely have the usual situation where a stupid arrogant man get lucky and wins one - he assumes its skill, not luck, doubles down and keeps pushing until it all blows up in his face.
As to what that blowup would be? Gulf War with America? Revenge of Iran? Middle-East Jihad and Israeli Mushroom clouds over Baghdad? War with Saudi Arabia? Who knows.
A smart Saddam would have probably avoided the war with Iran entirely.
For instance, suppose that Saddam Hussein succeeds in his 'lightning war' strategy - a fast brutal blow against a weak and disorganized Iran that brings about the collapse of the Ayatollahs Regime.
Iraq wins and imposes its territorial aspirations on Iran. I'd say this wouldn't be huge. There's no stomach these days for massive border redrawing.
But I do think that Saddam might try to hive off the Arab-ethnic Khoramshar (sic) region as a new 'liberated' state, and perhaps occupy or turn it into a client state. It would make a terrific buffer, and it's got a lot of Iran's oil capacity. So an independent Khoramshar would really hurt.
The Iranian Mullahs collapse, Iran devolves into bitter civil war, or a succession of weak backwards governments ideally. Which leaves a power vacuum in the Persian Gulf.
Which means that the US needs a new client: Saddam Hussein. Who is happy to make nice, given that he's allowed his liberties.
Meanwhile, a screwed up unstable Iran is going to be a major geopolitical problem for US policy makers, considering that its next door to both the USSR and the bulk of the West's oil. Oops!
If it happens that way, then financially Iraq is far better off. The expenses of the war are a fraction of what they were OTL. Iraq doesn't go into debt borrowing from Kuwait, etc. etc. That's even without possible reparations.
Saddam has a lot more money to indulge in kleptocracy, economic development, throwing his financial weight around with poor arabs. I figure that Saddam would opt in for megaprojects - pipelines, highways, universities, bridges, nuclear programs. Whatever is big. Dictators always think in terms of big building projects. Utility is about 50/50.
Relations with Kuwait will be different. The Kuwaiti's will probably not mess with slant drilling Iraq's oil fields, or will be more easily intimidated not to do it. There's not going to be the same financial issues in place as in Kuwait and Iraq arguing about debt. The Kuwaiti government may be much more cautious. This may save them from invasion. Maybe, maybe not.
Assuming wild success - Iraq emerges as the dominant power in the Persian Gulf and the Arab World, essentially trumping Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Lots of political cachet.
Likely radical Islamism would decline, as the technocrats and technocratic movement could show a genuine win. Islamism is, in part, a response to the consistent failure of any model of muslim government in the middle east.
On the other hand, Israel gets to tout Iraq is a genuine existential threat. Israel's been having a hard time lately with existential threat's. The effort to ramp up Malaysia for the role is not going well.
But as much as the US is pro-Israel, it needs Iraq in the region. So it's going to be like Archie going on dates with Betty and Veronica simultaneously - awkward.
How likely was it to happen. Well, I don't think a smarter Saddam or tougher Iraq is the answer. For this to take place, you need Iran to be markedly weaker, or to make some disastrous early decisions the blow the game for it.
Of course, if its just Iran screwing up, and Saddam is no smarter, then we likely have the usual situation where a stupid arrogant man get lucky and wins one - he assumes its skill, not luck, doubles down and keeps pushing until it all blows up in his face.
As to what that blowup would be? Gulf War with America? Revenge of Iran? Middle-East Jihad and Israeli Mushroom clouds over Baghdad? War with Saudi Arabia? Who knows.
A smart Saddam would have probably avoided the war with Iran entirely.
I agree with this. Iraq needs a quick victory to prevent it becoming a nationalistic war for the Iranians.
Other option is extending the war even longer then OTL. The Iraqi Army ended the war stronger then when it started. If Saddam had of continued the fighting for a few more years he could have defeated Iran militarily. Not sure if the Iraqi economy could survive though. The MEK was also growing in strength in 1988 and if supported correctly could have had success.
I'm not sure if it would allow the Iraqis to win, but something I've been mulling over lately is what would happen if the Soviets backed the Iraqis from the start.
IOTL, the Soviets were trying to woo Iran over to their side for most of the war, so support for Iraq, their ally (though Saddam wasn't the most loyal ally either), was pretty much zero. This only changed when Iran got the upper hand and the Soviets started thinking that maybe Iran could actually conquer Iraq. With the restoration of arms imports from the Soviet Union, Iraq was able to turn things around again and reach OTL's stalemate.
So it is interesting to think about what might have happened if Iraq was able to import Soviet military material courtesy of generous trade credits for the whole war.
Heck, even suffering less damage in the war would have been a big win for Iraq. The country really ruined itself in the Iran-Iraq war.
fasquardon
IOTL, the Soviets were trying to woo Iran over to their side for most of the war, so support for Iraq, their ally (though Saddam wasn't the most loyal ally either), was pretty much zero. This only changed when Iran got the upper hand and the Soviets started thinking that maybe Iran could actually conquer Iraq. With the restoration of arms imports from the Soviet Union, Iraq was able to turn things around again and reach OTL's stalemate.
So it is interesting to think about what might have happened if Iraq was able to import Soviet military material courtesy of generous trade credits for the whole war.
Heck, even suffering less damage in the war would have been a big win for Iraq. The country really ruined itself in the Iran-Iraq war.
fasquardon
Best not to get into a war of attrition with an enemy three times your population and four times your territory.
After the first year or two, Iraq ceased offensives and focused entirely on defense. Iran ignored repeated peace initiatives because they wanted to wipe Saddam out and figured that they could.
Agreed, however the Iranians seemed to have had it by 88. They were running low on equipment and getting crushed. I don't know what they could have done to halt Saddam at this point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War
Iran had to win before 1988, by that point Saddam had an huge industrial grade chemical weapons program up and running and could and would have started gassing Iranian city after city with VX and countless other nerve gasses.
La Rouge Beret
Donor
Interesting findings if Iraq wins this late in the day, what are the results? My understanding was that her economy was basically down the gurgler by this stage.
Saddam becomes hero of the Arab world for defeating the Persian hordes or something like that. Iraq becomes dominate power in the Middle East in alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Yemen. Kuwait will be too afraid to provoke Iraq and Saddam will be too busy to invade. The Saudi-Iraqi nonagression pact will also remain intact.
The Iraqi economy is totaled Saddam will have to rely on his allies to get it back into shape. The Gulf States invested too much already during the war and probably won't want to help. The Arab Cooperation Council states can provide some assistance. U.S. and Soviet Union are another option depending on which way Saddam is leaning.
La Rouge Beret
Donor
Reparations from post war Iran would form part of any peace treaty, and the post war butterflies would be huge.
Thinking about another TL & was considering setting it during the Iran - Iraq war.
Thinking about another TL & was considering setting it during the Iran - Iraq war.
I don't think that there's any way to get Iraq out of its economic hole.
There's no real indigenous armaments industry, the war was supplied mainly through foreign purchase, massive debts pile up. End of the war, Iraq is collapsing under interest rates.
With the war over, munitions imports slow down dramatically, there's demobilization. That 'mighty army' begins to disintegrate on the vine.
Demobization exacerbates unemployment, already bad.
Iraq wins in the sense that the other guy cried uncle. But it's a broken state. Iran is just as broken, forget about reparations.
The only way to truly win is to win fast at the outset.
Winning late is just another kind of losing.
La Rouge Beret
Donor
The question I have is if an attack is postponed by six months to a year, does the transitional turmoil worsen within Iran or improve? Iraq within the interim can exacerbate the tension by supplying separatist groups, but eventually they will be crushed by the fundamentalist government.
Yeah thats a very good point. Every country after war has serious problems when demobilization starts. Egypt and Jordan aren't in great economic shape themselves. More oil pipelines to Jordan might help and they could send Iraq workers abroad to work. Yemen is way behind the rest of the Arab world in development, perhaps Saddam could do something there.
Sounds interesting.
Last edited:
This is the problem with winning after attrition. The only asset Iraq has left is its military, and it can no longer afford to maintain that, so it will disintegrate.
Jordan is perhaps a quarter of Iraq's population, has no oil reserves itself, and has to stay on the right side of Israel. There's no conceivable way that Jordan has any ability to lift Iraq's economy, or any inclination to.
Might help Jordan and even Israel. Wouldn't really make a huge difference to Iraq.
Most of the money going back would go back to Iraqi families. The state wouldn't capture. Iraq doesn't have a lot of 'worker export' tradition the way Pakistan, Mexico and the Phillipines do.
I don't see it. After winning a war of attrition, he's broke, his economy is wrecked. Bad news.
This is basically what the ACC was going for. Sounds like Jordan comes out of this best:
"marriage of Jordan's highly educated labor force, Iraq's military strength and Egypt's vast manpower could create a powerful entity with ports on the Red Sea, Mediterranean and the Shatt al Arab waterway."
"King Hussein hoped that as Iraq recovered from the war jobs would be found for many of his people, and that Iraqi and Egyptian markets would also be more receptive to Jordanian exports. As part of a regional complex with both petroleum and agricultural exports, Amman might become an important financial market. Even the barrenness of Jordan's eastern regions could be eased if Iraq would share some of its Euphrates water.
"A further attraction was that Jordan's access to the Red Sea at the port of Aqaba had proved indispensable for Iraq's supply lines during the war, when its ships were unable to use the Gulf and the Shatt al Arab waterway was closed. This proved a boon for both countries increasing economic activity in Jordan to the point that 70 percent of its external business was with Iraq."
Saddam Hussein also thought that Iraq's economic problems might be more manageable if it were part of a larger body. Already faced with huge debts, Baghdad needed to spend vast sums, partly to guard against a further war with Iran and partly to convert the economy back to peacetime priorities. The new body would give Iraq greater negotiating muscle in seeking financial support from the Gulf states, while skilled labor forces of Jordan and Egypt could help economic recovery."
"Iraq's reconstruction needs could offer openings for the Egyptian contracting industry and jobs for thousands who had returned home after the collapse of oil prices. "
Illusions of Triumph Mohamed Heikal
.....................................................................
Seize and hold Iran's western provinces, most notably Kuzestan Province and gain control of the Shat al Arab waterway. Control of the Shat al Arab would limit Iranian oil exports.
Saddam claimed that he was "liberating" Shia Arabs living in Kuzestan, but that was pure propaganda. Saddam was not shy about draining swamps, destroying the swamp Arab lifestyle/economy.
Saddam ran rough-shod over a variety of minorities when it served his purpose. For example, when Iraqi Kurds allowed Iranian soldiers to cross the northern border and devistate an Iraqi army garrison. Iranian soldiers quickly escaped back across the border, but Saddam retaliated by spraying poison gas on Kurdish civilians.
The deepest legacy of the Iran-Iraq War was a lost-generation of Iraqi soldiers who had been conscripted when they were too young to learn civilian skills. During the war, they lost limbs and suffered psychological injuries. After the war, they returned home to an almost bankrupt Iraq. Many of this lost-generation could not find jobs in the Iraqi economy.
So Saddam needed to find ways to employ this million-man lost-generation. One way was to launch a political war against neighbouring Kuwait. When I say "political war" I really mean a distraction for all the idle young Iraqi young men.