AHC: Iraqi Victory in Desert Storm.

Unlikely, they can plan, but how did that work out with Kuwait OTL?

As far as I know the Kuwaiti fields incurred no serious damage until Iraq, with little to lose, fired them after the start of the '91 war. I seem to recall something else which may have a bearing on this question. In '91, coalition aircraft targeted Iraqi oil and other infrastructure but the Iraqis were able to repair them without foreign assistance.


Really I don't know, but I don't think it worked out well, foreign technical specialists tend to bug out at the first sign of trouble and you have to worry about scorched earth, or just troops making mistakes

I think a key difference between OTL and this scenario is that the industrial nations could manage without Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil, but probably couldn't if saudi oil were taken--and denied--too. The oil companies and various nations would be more likely to tell their employees to stay in KSA or return there--provided Iraq kept its word not to hurt them--since they just couldn't manage with that much oil taken off the market for any appreciable length of time.

The Soviet Premier also said "It is not reasonable to become engaged in a war with the United States because of Egypt and Syria,". The Soviets wanted to keep their proxies from collapsing, they figured the Arabs would take huge losses and might collapse, and they were right, their proxies collapsing was not what they wanted, and they were willing to take some risks and directly intervene to prevent that, however they knew that their proxies only had a limited war in mind even before it started

I think the USSR, even in its waning days in the 1980s, probably would've stood up for Iraq, in view of what was at stake--geopolitically far more important than who controlled Sinai or Golan. If Iraq could get away with its seizure of gulf oil, that, plus the fact it was Soviet armed, might give the USSR considerable indirect leverage over the West. Or, at least, a very lucrative new market for its arms, once the big bucks started rolling into Iraq's coffers. Saddam would've bought even more arms. Conceivably, a lot more hard currency would've alleviated Soviet economic woes or at least postponed collapse.


Iraq wanted to displace Egypt as the head of the Arab states, they aren't going to help Iraq with this.I imagine the Arabs would be more worried about Saddam coming for them next,

I don't think the danger of that was very great. Syria for example, may not have been on great terms with Saddam but it was hardly the pushover that gulf monarchies were. Jordan was no wimp either and attacking it might've led to war with Israel.


unlike OTL with Iran, which had border disputes with Iraq OTL in the 70's that included fighting at a decent scale, Iraq has no grudges with KSA absent debt from a war with Iran, any attack on them is just naked Imperialism

Sure but Saddam had no problem with that and, had it been preplanned so it worked out OK the Soviets might've been tempted to go along.
 
As far as I know the Kuwaiti fields incurred no serious damage until Iraq, with little to lose, fired them after the start of the '91 war. I seem to recall something else which may have a bearing on this question. In '91, coalition aircraft targeted Iraqi oil and other infrastructure but the Iraqis were able to repair them without foreign assistance.

I think a key difference between OTL and this scenario is that the industrial nations could manage without Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil, but probably couldn't if saudi oil were taken--and denied--too. The oil companies and various nations would be more likely to tell their employees to stay in KSA or return there--provided Iraq kept its word not to hurt them--since they just couldn't manage with that much oil taken off the market for any appreciable length of time.
I meant during the war, did Iraq manage to extract and sell any oil from Kuwait OTL?

Also how much time did fixing the oil infrastructure take? Would Western help have done it quicker?

The oil is off the market for as long as the war lasts, OTL the USN needed to escort tankers during Iran/Iraq or else the shippers would not risk them in the Gulf. Only the USN has enough blue water escorts to do that, without them going along, oil will not flow as long as the war lasts. At a minimum a week, the OTL 2 days to take Kuwait and 5 days for the ~250 miles to take all the oil infra in Saudi. That assumes the Iraqi's don't script their attacks, which they can get away with against Saudi's, if they do double that timeline. That still leaves most of their country out of their control, and if the Saudi's are smart they will bomb the oil infrastructure to deny it to Iraq and encourage the West to bail them out, and the Saudi Air Force has enough Western mercenaries to be competent enough for the job. Saddam can't hold the oil hostage if it is already out of service, and given a choice between status quo ante, or Iraq having it all, the West will go for status quo
I think the USSR, even in its waning days in the 1980s, probably would've stood up for Iraq, in view of what was at stake--geopolitically far more important than who controlled Sinai or Golan. If Iraq could get away with its seizure of gulf oil, that, plus the fact it was Soviet armed, might give the USSR considerable indirect leverage over the West. Or, at least, a very lucrative new market for its arms, once the big bucks started rolling into Iraq's coffers. Saddam would've bought even more arms. Conceivably, a lot more hard currency would've alleviated Soviet economic woes or at least postponed collapse.
Saudi oil being so important is why the Soviets won't stand up for Saddam, the West doesn't really care who holds Golan, and is interested who holds Sinai, but willing to let Egypt, friendlier with the West than Iraq have it, partly because Egypt would open Suez up again, which is in their interest. The West does care a hell of a lot about Saudi oil, because Europe needs it, and a Soviet proxy having it would open up them to energy blackmail, which they will not allow. It is a lot safer for the Soviets just to extort a few concessions and stay neutral, they gain and don't have to do anything
I don't think the danger of that was very great. Syria for example, may not have been on great terms with Saddam but it was hardly the pushover that gulf monarchies were. Jordan was no wimp either and attacking it might've led to war with Israel.
Syria and Jordan aren't my point, they are somewhat friendly with Iraq, my point was Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman, they are the ones who would be scared of being next, and they have money to convince the West to Do Something
Sure but Saddam had no problem with that and, had it been preplanned so it worked out OK the Soviets might've been tempted to go along.
OTL Saddam had reasonable justifications for war with Iran and Kuwait, and OTL nobody was happy about Kuwait and only the Gulf Monarchies were happy about Iran until the war. The USSR would not have been tempted, because it would have been a propaganda gold mine for the west "USSR supporting blatant imperialist land grab", just Kuwait might work, Saddam arguably has some flimsy justification, but the KSA? That's bad optics, makes them look bad in the west, and means that the West is going to raise its military budgets more
 
I think the USSR, even in its waning days in the 1980s, probably would've stood up for Iraq, in view of what was at stake--geopolitically far more important than who controlled Sinai or Golan. If Iraq could get away with its seizure of gulf oil, that, plus the fact it was Soviet armed, might give the USSR considerable indirect leverage over the West. Or, at least, a very lucrative new market for its arms, once the big bucks started rolling into Iraq's coffers. Saddam would've bought even more arms. Conceivably, a lot more hard currency would've alleviated Soviet economic woes or at least postponed collapse.

Except the Soviets HAVE to know that the West will NEVER allow that degree of economic blackmail over them, and will be willing to go to war if need be to prevent it from happening. And knowing that, is it really in your best interest as a nation to back the scheme of one of your client states if it basically guarantees World War Three and thus likely a nuclear exchange starting at some point within the next year? No, if Saddam had asked them, the Russians would have said no. And if he had gone ahead and ignored them, they would have either had him replaced by someone more tractable, or just gone ahead and told the West, "Do what you want, we are no longer supporting Iraq" or something along those lines.
 
Last edited:
Except the Soviets HAVE to know that the West will NEVER allow that degree of economic blackmail over them,

In fact, they had to live with "economic blackmail" when arab OPEC nations including KSA embargoed oil to the US in '73 for backing Israel. There was rhetoric at the time about seizing arab oil by force. The embargo ended after a few months but the US and West still had to live with the specter of another possible embargo--which would've been a very serious matter, as Schlesinger clearly indicated around 1980. Around 1980 Sheik Yamani warned, in effect, under certain circumstances KSA would teach the west a lesson it would never forget. The threat was there even without Saddam and, assuming he wanted to make big bucks, it wouldn't necessarily have been worse (i.e, from the point of view of willingness to supply oil to the West).

and will be willing to go to war if need be to prevent it from happening. And knowing that, is it really in your best interest as a nation to back the scheme of one of your client states if it basically guarantees World War Three and thus likely a nuclear exchange starting at some point within the next year?

If the US knew what Iraq was planning it would've moved forces to prevent it and warned the USSR to either reign in Saddam or not intervene. But what if Iraq took over Kuwait and eastern KSA in a swift operation thus presenting the US with a fait accompli before it could act? In theory control of gulf oil by a Soviet armed state would be a serious geopolitical setback. Still, Iraq wasn't part of the Warsaw Pact. It was fully independent, and Saddam's goal was to make $ not to shut off oil to help the Soviets win the cold war. Negotiation would've been an option. Maybe they could talk him into buying advanced western weapons to replace his Soviet ones, so in time he becomes dependent on the WEST, lol.

No, if Saddam had asked them, the Russians would have said no. And if he had gone ahead and ignored them, they would have either had him replaced by someone more tractable,

I tend to doubt that was possible. Saddam was very security conscious. The Soviets tried once or twice to get rid of Sadat without success.

or just gone ahead and told the West, "Do what you want, we are no longer supporting Iraq" or something along those lines.

Possible but I don't think a war was necessary; also Saddam's possession of so much output, and the risk of its destruction, might've inhibited US moves even if the soviets didn't.
 
I meant during the war, did Iraq manage to extract and sell any oil from Kuwait OTL?

No way he could sell it in wartime or during the prewar crisis since the USN prevented any exports from Iraq or Kuwait.

Also how much time did fixing the oil infrastructure take? Would Western help have done it quicker?

Maybe a year or two. But there's a difference between deliberately targeted infrastructure in Iraq and that which (hypothetically) suffers a bit of colateral damage at worst.

That still leaves most of their country out of their control, and if the Saudi's are smart they will bomb the oil infrastructure to deny it to Iraq and encourage the West to bail them out, and the Saudi Air Force has enough Western mercenaries to be competent enough for the job. Saddam can't hold the oil hostage if it is already out of service, and given a choice between status quo ante, or Iraq having it all, the West will go for status quo

There's no doubt the Iraqis were aware of the RSAF and would've planned to knock it out at the start. Maybe they could've used commandos.


Saudi oil being so important is why the Soviets won't stand up for Saddam, the West doesn't really care who holds Golan, and is interested who holds Sinai, but willing to let Egypt, friendlier with the West than Iraq have it, partly because Egypt would open Suez up again, which is in their interest. The West does care a hell of a lot about Saudi oil, because Europe needs it, and a Soviet proxy having it would open up them to energy blackmail, which they will not allow. It is a lot safer for the Soviets just to extort a few concessions and stay neutral, they gain and don't have to do anything

I'm not sure Iraqi possession of most gulf output would've made the West vulnerable to Soviet blackmail. Iraq isn't an east european satellite. I think the key problem for the West wouldn't have been oil blackmail--which as I pointed out was an already existing threat anyway--but the prospect of the Kremlin replacing the west as the market for gulf oil bucks i.e. to pay for weapons.

Syria and Jordan aren't my point, they are somewhat friendly with Iraq, my point was Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman, they are the ones who would be scared of being next, and they have money to convince the West to Do Something

I don't think they were suitable as bases for a big buildup--assuming they weren't taken too.

OTL Saddam had reasonable justifications for war with Iran and Kuwait, and OTL nobody was happy about Kuwait and only the Gulf Monarchies were happy about Iran until the war. The USSR would not have been tempted, because it would have been a propaganda gold mine for the west "USSR supporting blatant imperialist land grab",

The Soviets could've painted it as a war of liberation for the saudi masses against an archaic monarchy linked to western imperialism.
 
Though not leading to a victory:

A well equipped, well trained and well led reinforced Iraqi division stays behind in Kuwait City. Heavy artillery fire from Kuwait City disrupts US convoys moving towards the Kuwait / Iraq border and forces many to be re-routed, thus slowing the advance.

Even when surrounded, the Iraqi units in the city continue to offer surprisingly effective resistance to US probing attacks. One attack in particular is beat back with heavy U.S. losses. US commanders then make the logical decision to let the Iraqis "Whither on the Vine". But... the Iraqis are well prepared and whither slowly. Daily propaganda broadcasts by Iraqis in the city give a juiced up account of heroic Arabs resisting waves of crusaders- something like Thermapolae (sp).

Five weeks later, and the Iraqis are still resisting, causing a steady trickle of US casualties and still broadcasting propaganda messages. Their latest images even juxtapose the Iraqi defenders with Apache, Lakota, and Cheyenne warriors. The US decides not to assault the city, and makes every effort to stop the propaganda broadcasts (more than a few people in the Muslim world find them appealing).

Finally, the Iraqis are negotiated out as an undefeated army- as such, they must be allowed to leave with their small arms. Even this is a propaganda win for the Iraqis as global news broadcasts images of armed, defiant looking Iraqi soldiers slowly boarding buses and trucks for the trip back to Iraq.
 
Though not leading to a victory:

A well equipped, well trained and well led reinforced Iraqi division stays behind in Kuwait City. Heavy artillery fire from Kuwait City disrupts US convoys moving towards the Kuwait / Iraq border and forces many to be re-routed, thus slowing the advance.

Even when surrounded, the Iraqi units in the city continue to offer surprisingly effective resistance to US probing attacks. One attack in particular is beat back with heavy U.S. losses. US commanders then make the logical decision to let the Iraqis "Whither on the Vine". But... the Iraqis are well prepared and whither slowly.

Either you put an RG division in Kuwait City, in which case that's one less to act as the speedbump to the Coalition advance, or you put a regular army one in and it just surrenders the moment it's cut off. If it doesn't, the US attacks the city, drowns out propaganda claims with their own message depicting them as losers trying to use the population as a shield, and takes it anyway with a few more casualties[1]. The outcome will not be in doubt, as they can mass their entire army against one division.

[1]One thing I've read, although this is from the low points of the early Iran-Iraq War and the wreck that was the 2003 army, is that most of the Iraqi military wasn't that good at fighting in cities even on the defensive. So the MOUT operation, while obviously worse than plinking tanks in the desert, won't be a First Grozny for the US.
 
No way he could sell it in wartime or during the prewar crisis since the USN prevented any exports from Iraq or Kuwait.

Maybe a year or two. But there's a difference between deliberately targeted infrastructure in Iraq and that which (hypothetically) suffers a bit of colateral damage at worst.

There's no doubt the Iraqis were aware of the RSAF and would've planned to knock it out at the start. Maybe they could've used commandos.
Okay then oil is out for quite some time. So no reason to recognize Saddam to get the oil flowing

Knocking out an airforce is hard. Iraq tried that against Kuwait OTL, they only got 20%, RSAF would stay intact enough to den Iraq oil infrastructure if that was to be a factor
I'm not sure Iraqi possession of most gulf output would've made the West vulnerable to Soviet blackmail. Iraq isn't an east european satellite. I think the key problem for the West wouldn't have been oil blackmail--which as I pointed out was an already existing threat anyway--but the prospect of the Kremlin replacing the west as the market for gulf oil bucks i.e. to pay for weapons.
Absent possibility of oil blackmail, why then should the USSR have any reason to support Iraq. They are not going to make that much money on sales, Iran Iraq war was ~10 billion USD worth 86-88, which was heavily underwritten by the Gulf States. So basically I do not think an Iraq controlling all Gulf Oil will buy more than $5Billion a year from the USSR. And when your GDP is over 2 Trillion, you don't risk a war for $5 Billion a year

Also there was at least one attempt at a pro Soviet coup in Iraq that came close to success, West has to worry about Moscow tightening the leash

Finally the USSR did manage to sell arms to the Gulf Monarchies, OTL. They just collapsed before relations improved enough, and Desert Storm gave Soviet Kit a bad rap
I don't think they were suitable as bases for a big buildup--assuming they weren't taken too.
The US keeps a lot of forces there OTL, they could be used. Plus worst case Jeddah in Saudi Arabia is suitable and Saddam is not taking that barring ASBs
The Soviets could've painted it as a war of liberation for the saudi masses against an archaic monarchy linked to western imperialism.
Maybe, but that's a big if, probably not going to work, Saddam is a brutal dictator and atrocities are likely to happen. Plus the people with big pockets, are going to be funding a counter propaganda effort. I'd imagine it would only be believed in the poorest third world and the Soviet bloc
 
Either you put an RG division in Kuwait City, in which case that's one less to act as the speedbump to the Coalition advance, or you put a regular army one in and it just surrenders the moment it's cut off. If it doesn't, the US attacks the city, drowns out propaganda claims with their own message depicting them as losers trying to use the population as a shield, and takes it anyway with a few more casualties[1]. The outcome will not be in doubt, as they can mass their entire army against one division.

[1]One thing I've read, although this is from the low points of the early Iran-Iraq War and the wreck that was the 2003 army, is that most of the Iraqi military wasn't that good at fighting in cities even on the defensive. So the MOUT operation, while obviously worse than plinking tanks in the desert, won't be a First Grozny for the US.

And if you stick the RG in Kuwait City, well what's stopping the Coalition forces from destroying the routing regular army forces and then sweeping into Basra and beyond. Put the Arab contingent in position to mask the RG and stiffen them with the USMC units. No ones going to care what Iraq's propaganda ministry claims if CNN is showing live footage of an Abrams battalion rolling down Baghdad's Main Street.
 
They can't win conventionally. But if victory means causing maximum damage while surviving, then here's what they could do. Launch spoiler attack on the coalition in Saudi Arabia before they build up. Fire everything they have at Israel, the air force is to be compleletly expended in offensive action. Concentrate occupation forces into Kuwait City.

This would force an Israeli retaliation which alienates the Arab coalition memebers. Intitial attack on Saudi Arabia against weak coalition forces would achieve some early victories. The urban battle to liberate Kuwait City will be very bloody. Iraq loses Kuwait but inflicts heavy losses on the coalition and Israel. Should US invade Iraq for regime change, the Iraqi army would refuse to give battle and focus on guerilla warfare. Saddam's strategy would be to wait the US out and retake power when they leave.
one book I have notes that the whole idea of 'Israel retaliates, the Arabs all go nuts' idea is vastly overblown. The Arab states were really pissed at Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in the first place, and regarded his attacks on Israel as a blatant and obvious attempt to distract them from it. Apparently, US diplomats had some quiet talks with various Arab leaders, and they were more or less okay with the idea of Israel retaliating. Even so, the US still didn't want to throw any more kerosene on the fire, and worked hard to keep Israel from retaliating...
 
Okay then oil is out for quite some time. So no reason to recognize Saddam to get the oil flowing

It was out OTL because Iraq had only taken Kuwait; KSA could make up the shortfall so they could safely embargo Saddam. But not if KSA output were taken too. The West probably would've had to come to terms since they couldn't avoid a serious economic downturn if that much oil were kept off the market for any appreciable length of time.
If the West were forewarned of Saddam's plan and had troops already there at the start, that would've been one thing. But if Saddam suddenly presented the West with a fait accompli (taking KSA as well as Kuwait output) it probably would've been too late at the start. To avoid a major economic downturn the West had to have gulf oil flowing continuously but they couldn't have it if they were preparing to intervene militarily.

Knocking out an airforce is hard. Iraq tried that against Kuwait OTL, they only got 20%, RSAF would stay intact enough to den Iraq oil infrastructure if that was to be a factor

What if Iraqi heliborne commandos stormed airfield(s) at dawn. I think the RSAF, while it lasted, would've given its full attention to the invading Iraqi army not the country's own infrastructure. And btw Saudi pilots weren't renowned for courage. There was an incident in which F-15 pilots almost panicked when facing Iraqi F-1s and US controllers had to lead them by the hand so to speak.


Absent possibility of oil blackmail, why then should the USSR have any reason to support Iraq.

To to try to maintain as much influence as possible over a state that had just become far more important regionally and internationally.


They are not going to make that much money on sales, Iran Iraq war was ~10 billion USD worth 86-88, which was heavily underwritten by the Gulf States. So basically I do not think an Iraq controlling all Gulf Oil will buy more than $5Billion a year from the USSR. And when your GDP is over 2 Trillion, you don't risk a war for $5 Billion a year

Iraq would've bought a lot more if only it had more money. That, I assume, was the whole point of grabbing more output hence revenue. The gulf monarchies almost certainly limited what they were willing to pay for. I think if Saddam had really had his way, he'd blow $20 billion plus per annum on the best weapons the Soviets, and others, were willing to sell, to get regional superpower status. And the USSR would've gotten the vast bulk of the orders because it's weapons were cheaper, giving Saddam more bang for the buck.

Also there was at least one attempt at a pro Soviet coup in Iraq that came close to success, West has to worry about Moscow tightening the leash

Well, one possible solution would be to avoid threatening Saddam thus reducing his need to turn to the Soviets.

Finally the USSR did manage to sell arms to the Gulf Monarchies, OTL. They just collapsed before relations improved enough, and Desert Storm gave Soviet Kit a bad rap

Even before then they knew US weapons, albeit very costly, tended to be the best hence the F-15, AWACS deal.

The US keeps a lot of forces there OTL, they could be used. Plus worst case Jeddah in Saudi Arabia is suitable

I guess Jeddah would be useful if Saddam had gone deep into KSA. One possible problem is the close proximity of Mecca, leading to propaganda claims that infidels were defiling the muslim holy places. Such claims occurred OTL but didn't have much weight because US forces weren't really close to them. Things might've been different if they were. In any case if Saddam already had too much of world output from the start...

Maybe, but that's a big if, probably not going to work, Saddam is a brutal dictator and atrocities are likely to happen. Plus the people with big pockets, are going to be funding a counter propaganda effort. I'd imagine it would only be believed in the poorest third world and the Soviet bloc

I think the vast bulk of ordinary arabs would've loved to see Saddam get all the gulf oil $ and depose the rich monarchies. They'd assume, to an extent rightly, he'd use the money to ultimately fight Israel instead of just living it up, and doing business with western nations.
 
Last edited:
Btw, like i stated repeatedly before, there was not just one american aircraft shot down in OTL, there were 4 or 5 according to reconcilliation of records from iraqi sources.


Can you elaborate (I presume you mean 4-5 shot down in air to air combat with Iraqi jets)? I didn't see those earlier posts. What 4-5 US jets were shot down by the Iraqi Air Force?
 
It was out OTL because Iraq had only taken Kuwait; KSA could make up the shortfall so they could safely embargo Saddam. But not if KSA output were taken too, the West probably would've had to come to terms since they couldn't avoid a serious economic downturn if that much oil were kept off the market.

What if Iraqi heliborne commandos stormed airfield(s) at dawn. I think the RSAF, while it lasted, would've given its full attention to the Iraqi army not the country's own infrastructure. Abd btw Saudi pilots weren't renowned for courage. There was an incident in which F-15 pilots almost panicked when facing Iraqi F-1s and US controllers had to lead them by the hand.
The downturn is happening anyways, oil is going to be cut off for at least a month even if the west gives in to Iraq, that is going to cause a downturn anyways. OTL Iraq committed its heliborne commandos to the attack on Kuwait, and took pretty big casualties. Plus KSA has 7 major airbases, 2 are within normal Helicopter Range of Iraq. Saudi Pilot's are incompetent, Western mercenary pilots rather less so, and the Saudi's used plenty
To to try to maintain as much influence as possible over a state that had just become far more important regionally and internationally.
That requires Iraq reaching that stage, which requires the USSR supporting them, Chicken and Egg thing, they have to support Iraq to get to that point, which is risk and risks confrontation with the west. By throwing Iraq under the bus they could get more concessions from the west, oh yeah and keep oil prices higher longer and profit there
Iraq would've bought a lot more if only it had more money. That, I assume, was the whole point of grabbing more output hence revenue. The gulf monarchies almost certainly limited what they were willing to pay for. I think if Saddam had really had his way, he'd blow $20 billion plus per annum on the best weapons the Soviets, and others, were willing to sell, to get regional superpower status. And the USSR would've gotten the vast bulk of the orders because it's weapons were cheaper, giving Saddam more bang for the buck.
Why does he need to blow $20billion per annum. $5billion was enough to more than replace losses actively fighting Iran. He can't expand his army much larger than OTL, not enough people, unless he wants to go full DPRK. He is starting to manufacture his own lower end stuff, and expanding into mid end (Tanks, APC's Arty, rockets). $20 billion would be in excess of 20% the annual US procurement budget at the time, and Saddam isn't going to be sold the really high end stuff. No way he is spending anywhere near that
Even before then they knew US weapons, albeit very costly, tended to be the best hence the F-15, AWACS deal.
No they had better relations with the US, and people tend to buy from friends, gear tended to be comparable, or would if the Soviets did not sell deliberate downgrades.
I guess Jeddah would be useful if Saddam had gone deep into KSA. One possible problem is the close proximity of Mecca, leading to propaganda claims that infidels were defiling the muslim holy places. Such claims occurred OTL but didn't have much weight because US forces weren't really close to them. In any case if Saddam already had too much of world output from the start...
The result can't really be much worse than OTL. That oil is out of service until Saudi gives up even if the West gives in

I think the vast bulk of ordinary arabs would've loved to see Saddam get all the gulf oil $ and depose the rich monarchies. They'd assume, to an extent rightly, he'd use the money to ultimately fight Israel instead of just living it up, and doing business with western nations.
I doubt that, the Gulf States relied more on bribery than terror to keep their people in line. Outside those states, Gulf States can afford better PR
 
Can you elaborate (I presume you mean 4-5 shot down in air to air combat with Iraqi jets)? I didn't see those earlier posts. What 4-5 US jets were shot down by the Iraqi Air Force?

As you probably know when someone questions the propaganda coming from the Pentagon some particular folks are getting butthurt to say the least, i have raised this subject before although i don't really have now nor the time nor disposition to go through that again, but two sites to check for the iraqi perspective are iraqimilitary.org, and surprisingly, f16.net, there are some post there detailing the iraqi view from someone apparently part of the old IqAF (i hope those posts are not deleted though). Collating everything i recall now both from these sources and older discussions like from acig.org, apart from the F-18 (MiG-25 kill), there is also the Tornado (MiG-29 kill), an F-15E (claimed by SA-2, but there were MiG-29s and/or MiG-25s around, can't recall which now) an F-14A (claimed by SA-2 but again some sources point that no SA-2s were in range of the area, while MiG-25s and /or MiG-29s were around airborne at the time), as well as claims against multiple F/EF-111s (shot down/damaged), a B-52 and an F-15C, the last ambushed on January 30.

Interestingly, majority of these claims are credited to MiG-25s, which shows how much of a pain they were due to their high speed, climb and acceleration characteristics.

PS: Edited to clarify some details
 
Last edited:
an F-15E (claimed by SA-2, but there were MiG-29s and/or MiG-25s around, can't recall which now)


According to the version I've seen, a MIG-29 chased away EF-111s so a SAM could get the F-15E. But that reminds me of Israeli claims of Mirages downed by AAA. In a few instances in '73 Israeli admitted losses matched Syrian air to air claims.


an F-14A (claimed by SA-2 but again some sources point that no SA-2s were in range of the area, while MiG-25s and /or MiG-29s were around airborne at the time),

Interesting.


as well as claims against multiple F/EF-111s (shot down/damaged),

One EF-111 was said to have crashed while avoiding a missile fired by a Mirage. In the "only success" of a MIG-23, one hit two F-111 bombers causing "severe damage" to at least one yet both are said to have made it bak to base.
 
Top