AHC/WI/POD: Ba'athists and the West like and support Each other

Albert.Nik

Banned
I have been thinking of this. How would the Ba'athists in the Middle East do if they and West were mutually friendly? Their goals were a unified Middle East and North Africa undying all the Arabic speaking states. What if Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athists are befriended by the US and Europe? Would they accomplish their dreams? Unified and Secular ME? More stable World? I know they were quite Fascist but KSA supported by US is also quite. They were probably hated for being friendly to Russia. Also,what would happen to Iran in this timeline? Less Islamic terror? A second Islamic golden age? A more modern version of Islam?
 

GI Jim

Banned
I don't think the US and/or the west as a whole was massively anti Ba'athist on ideological terms. I mean in the 80s Saddam bought a whole host of weapons from the US and others, with France supplying Exocet missiles if I am not mistaken.

If Saddam had a more "measured" foreign policy, I.E. not invading Kuwait I could forsee far friendlier relations with the west in the 90s. Especially if he had paid lip service to "reform" like Gadaffi did in the same era. As for prospects of a wider regional integration under Saddam's Iraq (Or Assad's Syria for that matter) I am somewhat skeptical. By the 90s there were simply too many factors stacked up against any move for arab integration. Sunni vs Shia conflicts being key here, and even a regional Iraqi power under Saddam would probably come into conflict with Iran again at some point.
 
I don’t think the US under almost any circumstance would support a pan-Arab superstate stretching from the Atlantic to Indian Oceans, regardless of its ideological and geopolitical orientation.

That being said, perhaps if you had two rivaling pan-Arab ideologies, one communist (apply some handwavium and delay the 1952 Egyptian Revolution for a popular communist revolution in ‘57 or ‘58) and the other anti-communist/traditionalist/militarist etc. (i.e an Iraqi-Syrian Ba’athist Union) and pitted against each other over who would lead the Arab World, a paranoid US administration could tacitly support the latter to the point where they’d achieve much of their aims in politically unifying at least the “classical” Arab World.

This is however assuming that the Saudi regime also collapses around this time, which isn’t an impossibility considering that there was, apparently, an attempted nationalist officers coup in 1969. But it’s still a bit of a stretch IMO for all of this to unfold as well as I’ve outlined.
 
I have been thinking of this. How would the Ba'athists in the Middle East do if they and West were mutually friendly? Their goals were a unified Middle East and North Africa undying all the Arabic speaking states. What if Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athists are befriended by the US and Europe? Would they accomplish their dreams? Unified and Secular ME? More stable World? I know they were quite Fascist but KSA supported by US is also quite. They were probably hated for being friendly to Russia. Also,what would happen to Iran in this timeline? Less Islamic terror? A second Islamic golden age? A more modern version of Islam?
Before Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, the relation between the west and Irak was not bad. He was considered a 'good' guy as he fought the Iranian mullahs. Many of his planes were French.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
Genocide of Kurds and Marsh Arabs is an another biggest factor for West to hate him. Why did he do that? I have heard he was welcoming to Jews and Assyrian Christians who are different Ethnicities. But why did he hate the Kurds and Marsh Arabs? Did he suspect any loyalty to the enemies? Without western intervention,would he have still tried to kill them?
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
No one’s mentioned the Israel factor. Seems like the most overwhelming obstacle.
Let's say in this OTL,he convinces the West that he will just let Israel(including West Bank,Gaza and Golan) as they are and is confident of developing a sufficiently developed state for the displaced ones in an United Arab State.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
What about have Israel develop in a pro-Soviet direction in its foreign policy?
They mostly wouldn't. It was mainly the West who supported the creation of Israel despite all the high emotion scenes it set off. So Israel wouldnt betray. Just have the Ba'athists spare Israel as a Jewish state and rather consider them as a strategic ally. That is the best possible timeline for them.
 
Sunni vs Shia conflicts being key here, and even a regional Iraqi power under Saddam would probably come into conflict with Iran again at some point.
The reason why Assad and Saddam hated each other is due to Assad being from the military faction and Saddam the citizen one.

Genocide of Kurds and Marsh Arabs is an another biggest factor for West to hate him
It wasn't the West turned a blind eye until after he invaded Kuwait

have heard he was welcoming to Jews
He didn't welcome Jews due to Israel

Assyrian Christians who are different Ethnicities.
He considered Assyrians to Arab Christians and Assyrians were supportive of regime

But why did he hate the Kurds and Marsh Arabs? Did he suspect any loyalty to the enemies? Without western intervention,would he have still tried to kill them?

He didn't hate them ,the reason why he killed a lot of them was because they rebelled. He isn't going to kill all of them, there is no reason.
 
They mostly wouldn't. It was mainly the West who supported the creation of Israel despite all the high emotion scenes it set off. So Israel wouldnt betray. Just have the Ba'athists spare Israel as a Jewish state and rather consider them as a strategic ally. That is the best possible timeline for them.

You completely neglect to consider the domestic factor here, good sir. You need to remember the Baathists may have deep roots in certain sections of society, but it's a narrow band at best. Islamism is a vibrant competing ideology and resonated strongly with the broader population, and the enforced secularism and centeralization of power in a single ruling, usually minority, clan already have them powerful rallying cries. Have the Baathists throw the legitimacy of psn-Arabism and throw their perceved willingness to use their claimed military might, and the resistance from the Mosque could easily reach crippling levels.
 
I take your point, but I don't see how thats relevant to what I said?
Reconcile those two factions, there will be limited integration between the two.

Edit: Never mind I thought you were talking about Syria vs Iraq when you said Sunni vs Shia not Iraq vs Iran
 

GI Jim

Banned
Reconcile those two factions, there will be limited integration between the two.

While I agree about your classification of the reason why Assad and Saddam never got on, I would add the by the 90s Saddam probably didn't much care for ideology anyway. The Saddam of 2003 was not seriously entertaining Pan-Arabism anymore than as a tool to justify his rule.
 
While I agree about your classification of the reason why Assad and Saddam never got on, I would add the by the 90s Saddam probably didn't much care for ideology anyway. The Saddam of 2003 was not seriously entertaining Pan-Arabism anymore than as a tool to justify his rule.
There is the 1970s and 1980s. There were talks of Union between Syria and Iraq in the 1970s but Saddam coming to power ended that.

edit: There is also benefits for Saddam for economic integration like cheaper access to Syrian ports and pipelines regardless of the era
 
Last edited:

samcster94

Banned
They mostly wouldn't. It was mainly the West who supported the creation of Israel despite all the high emotion scenes it set off. So Israel wouldnt betray. Just have the Ba'athists spare Israel as a Jewish state and rather consider them as a strategic ally. That is the best possible timeline for them.
I don't see how that'd work. You'd probably need the ideology to be completely different as Saddam's speeches basically translate to long anti-Semitic, anti-Persian rants with references to God in them.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
They mostly wouldn't. It was mainly the West who supported the creation of Israel despite all the high emotion scenes it set off. So Israel wouldnt betray. Just have the Ba'athists spare Israel as a Jewish state and rather consider them as a strategic ally. That is the best possible timeline for them.
Then they wouldn’t be Baathists. Israel choosing a pro-Soviet orientation wasn’t as improbable as you think. If JFK wasn’t assassinated he would have tried hard to stop the Israeli nuclear weapons program, and would have refused to ally with Israel or provide any support to them until they abandoned the project entirely. If he’s still president in 1967, then he’ll have a much harsher reaction to the Six-Day War and the bombing of the USS Liberty.
 
Have Saddam focus on being anti Iranian. His problem was he made enemies when he didn't need to. Have him be less vociferous about the palestinians and even more antagonistic to the Iranians. Either co-opt the Kurds perhaps by promising them Turkey or hide the genocidal evidence better.Then he would have been the good baathist as opposed to Assad the butcher of Hama
 
I have heard he was welcoming to Jews and Assyrian Christians who are different Ethnicities.

Baathist protection of Christians could have been a surefire propaganda tool for convincing western public-opinion, especially in the USA, to support those regimes.

Sure there are cultural differences between most western Christians and their Assyrian counterparts, but hell, if OTL American evangelicals can be roped into supporting ISRAEL on eschatoloigcal grounds, getting them to like fellow-believers facing slaughter by demonic Muslims shouldn't be a tall order at all.

Stuff like this could even be tied in with the whole War On Christmas trope that right-wingers love so much, eg. The persecution that we're just starting to face here is already a brutal, everyday reality for believers in the middle east. Congressman Blowhorn is a commited friend of the governments that want to stop it."

Of course, this would require western foreign policy to be pro-baathist on strategic grounds in the first place, which I don't really have a solution for.
 
Top