ATL Iraq, two great turning points

I recently finished the book "Understanding Iraq, from the Mongols to the Americans", and have a few questions for the more versed in this area of expertise.

While Iraq occupied Kuwait for the short while it did, Saddam Hussein was willing to go to the negotiation table on two conditions:

The entire middle east would basically 'get together' and hammer out the problems they had with eachother(Shiia vs Sunni, Kurds vs Turks, Iranians and Iraqis, Israel vs Palestine, etc), and give control of Kuwait to Iraq because it really WAS supposed to be a part of it. It turned out that Bush Sr. was too eager to go to war to want to go to the peace table, so the first desert storm happened.

BUT, what would have happened if the US was willing to go to the negotiating table with Iraq and the rest of the middle east and solve the issues they had among one another once and for all?


The second POD is when Nasir offered Iraq a deal(I'm not sure how this worked but I'm going to try to explain what the book said) to shed the arbitrary and artifical borders that the Middle East had because of Colonialism in the early 20th after the Ottoman Empire fell, and join together in a 'Pan-Arab' movement.

Had Saddam accepted and given power to Nasir(which is what the book said would have happened, in a way), what would have happened? Would we see a Pan-Arab state, or even maybe some sort of European Union analogue? What was their plan exactly?
 
Top