Gulf war 1990 without NATO and USA

In reality . No USA . No war like we know..

So your options Saudis go to war..
Iran also renews conflict .

Others could join in But the fact is they were all pretty equal on the tech front.

So much more protracted conflict.

Hell Iran Iraq went on for 10 years .

Gulf War 1 was over before it started
 

Khanzeer

Banned
They did have quite a bit of western equipment by 1990 but doctrine planning training and quality of personnel was far from inspiring and it was not very much based on Soviets either my source is" arabs at war " by Kenneth Pollack
 

Khanzeer

Banned
In reality . No USA . No war like we know..

So your options Saudis go to war..
Iran also renews conflict .

Others could join in But the fact is they were all pretty equal on the tech front.

So much more protracted conflict.

Hell Iran Iraq went on for 10 years .

Gulf War 1 was over before it started
Yes most likely that's how I see it

1 Iraqs Achilles heels would be its Iogistics they would not make any deep in roads into Saudi Arabia primarily because of that

2 in air Saudi's and Egyptian May shot down more Iraqi airplanes because of their superior western equipment but they cannot keep up the protracted rate of sorties like the coalition did and would not achieve total air superiority by any means.Iraq air defences will claim a lot more aircraft than in OTL

3 most likely static battles along the border with Kuwait with a gradual grinding progress for Arab coalition with frontal battles.The modern equipment still likely to be used by both sides in static battles of attrition.

4 naval blockade of Iraq but with some losses to coalition vessels to Iraqi mines and ASM equipped aircraft.Arab have modern vessels but no naval tradition.amphib assault is out of question.But even old Egyptian foxtrot would be a major threat considering it can totally blockade Iraqis only port if properly used

5 multiple separated fronts along the Iraqi saudi borders with skirmishes sporadically flaring up.With every Arab /muslim contingent starting their own front probably with minimal coordination with each other.

6 what would Yemen and jordon do ? Both have good relations with Saddam
Also Michel aoun militia in Lebanon is allied to Iraq.Just mining of red sea and straits of bab ul mandir will be huge obstacle for Egyptian navy to transfer troops equipment to Saudi Arabia.Even a small second front by Yemenis will be a major headache for Saudis

7 Iraqi scuds will target saudi cities , with coalition trying to carry out strategic bombing in Iraq with mixed results

8 Iraq will lose once its economy collapses if it does not achieve a fatal blow to Saudis in first couple of months

9 wild card is Iran what price will they extract from Saudis for not allowing Iraqi oil exports ? Iran will be the big winner with a fractured Arab world and Sunni vs Sunni fight
Iran may even covertly support iraq to prevent saudi and Egyptians from moving in and occupying the Shia southern cities alternatively they might want that to happen to encourage a shia uprising to justify their own intetvention.

10 with a lot more time to fortify and garrison Kuwait, the Iraqis will not be easily dislodged it might turn into another khorramshar for the attacking Arab coalition with weeks of urban fighting.

11 a coup in Iraq topples Saddam and another general replaces him?

12 CW use unlikely imho
 
Last edited:
They have an organised large military with all the trimmings of a modern military with the 'Indian Army' Legacy of WW2 before partition

Yes they are not a patch on the Israelis or the top tier NATO forces but verse the Iraqis with plenty of Saudi money behind them then they are probably good enough to 'cross a line in the sand and not die'
Israeli experience consists of fighting in postage stamped sized areas in the Sinai and Golan, places with easy logistics.
Pakistani experience consists of battles on a 2000 km plus long frontier with varied terrain and requiring large scale movements of big formations.
So yeah, they’d do a lot better than Israel.

The problem is that it’s basically politically impossible for any Government of Pakistan to send an expeditionary force sufficient to liberate Kuwait. It would be a shitshow
 
Israeli experience consists of fighting in postage stamped sized areas in the Sinai and Golan, places with easy logistics.
Pakistani experience consists of battles on a 2000 km plus long frontier with varied terrain and requiring large scale movements of big formations.
So yeah, they’d do a lot better than Israel.

The problem is that it’s basically politically impossible for any Government of Pakistan to send an expeditionary force sufficient to liberate Kuwait. It would be a shitshow

No but Saudi Arabia could hire 100,000 Pakistani Mercenaries who just happen to look like a Regular Pakistani Army Corps ;)
 
WI Iraq attacks kuwait as in the OTL in Aug 1990

but USA and NATO promises to help gulf states logistically but refuses to deploy their active military forces

so it is upto gulf /arab and muslim states to evict Iraq out of Kuwait

KSA + UAE + Qatar + egypt and likely Syria as well

maybe pakistani military helping KSA

How would such a campaign go ?


Please just focus on the military aspects of it and disregard the political implications ( thanks )

There would be no campaign. SA would be hiding in its barracks terrified that Iraq would keep going. Their rulership might already be on planes out of the region.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Israeli experience consists of fighting in postage stamped sized areas in the Sinai and Golan, places with easy logistics.
Pakistani experience consists of battles on a 2000 km plus long frontier with varied terrain and requiring large scale movements of big formations.
So yeah, they’d do a lot better than Israel.

The problem is that it’s basically politically impossible for any Government of Pakistan to send an expeditionary force sufficient to liberate Kuwait. It would be a shitshow
Which campaign was on a 2000km front ? Please give details
 
No but Saudi Arabia could hire 100,000 Pakistani Mercenaries who just happen to look like a Regular Pakistani Army Corps ;)
Again unlikely. Though in 1990 Pakistan still has the powerful formations on the Western border which opposed the Soviet’s, which were in the process of drawdown in OTK.
ITTL these would be sent most likely.
 
The Iraqi Army in 1990 was a bloated, incompetent mess of an army that had poor use of its armor, artillery, and possibly even air force during the Iran-Iraq war.

And yet, compared to the Saudis and the rest of the Arab states, they might as well been the fucking Wehrmacht. It took the US/Coalition air power and organization to even get the Arab forces to move properly during the war. Other than that, they weren't going to make a lot of progress.

And inviting Israel to the coalition would just be a victory for Iraqi propaganda. The USA and UK bent over double to make sure Israel didn't join in, which would alienate the non-Gulf Arabs.
 
IIRC, Egypt's military was a lot better in 1990 than it was in 1973.

In terms of equipment, yes, it had US tanks and jets etc much more capable than the Soviet kit of '73. Overall, however, there may have been no improvement even a decline. When you compare Egypt's performance in 1991 with that in '73 the former, as discussed by Pollack, looks awful. Prior to the '73 war the Egyptians recruited many college grads; the post '73 army was mostly fellahin.

Note that Iraq's participation in the 73 war was even worse than Egypt's...

Not necessarily when it came to offensive armored moves. Both sucked at that, and you'd need offensive power to liberate Kuwait. Iraqi defenses were very formidable--they took an awful toll in the Iran-Iraq war. Without the coalition's ability to degrade them and their logistical tail with overwhelming air superiority, an arab/muslim coalition would've faced a very daunting task.
Yet another problem would've been morale. Arabs were motivated to fight Israel not another arab state--probably one reason why Egyptian performance in '91 was so lackluster.
 
Last edited:
Let's hope the Egyptian and Pakistanis may put some steel in their spine
Neither power would have any interest in getting involved. Why would they? They were only there in GW due to the US being there and needing to represent a figleaf as an ally.

Without the US, the only war that evolves is any further invasions by Iraq.
 
Neither power would have any interest in getting involved. Why would they? They were only there in GW due to the US being there and needing to represent a figleaf as an ally.

Probably the only reason Egypt and Pakistan would've sent troops would be to milk the KSA as much as possible for that help, lol. Syria, though, was opposed to the Iraqi baathists and would've been somewhat more serious about it.
 

Derek Pullem

Kicked
Donor
I doubt Syria would side with the Saudis without American support and geopolitical concessions in Lebanon. Likewise Iran wouldn't be co-operating with the Saudis. Both would be hovering like vultures waiting for Iraq to collapse.

But that only happens if the Saudis can stay in the war. On balance I'd say they can with US logistical support.

Without the US actively involved Israel may be more of a loose cannon but I'm banking on US support to keep them out still.

Iraq oil exports are going to be hit hard - even Oman's tiny navy is enough to block the straits without Iranian help. if Iraq tries to intervene at sea it will get annihilated by air power. Almost certainly Iraq will be subject to UN sanctions so US fleet may well block Iraq exports at the Gulf anyway.

Most likely outcome - Iraq fractures in economic meltdown followed shortly after by Syrian and Iranian invasions. Iraq probably ceases to be a cohesive state and is split into occupation zones as per Lebanon.
 

DougM

Donor
No US/coalition forces no war.
Iraq keeps Kuwait, Saudi Arabia goes “Cold War” with Iraq and buys more military equipment and keeping a better level of boarder protection.
Otherwise nothing much happens. Except sanctions against Iraq
 
Top