Gulf War never happens

What if for some reason, after the invasion of Kuwait, the US and the West decide to do nothing - except oral condemnations - about the annexation of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein?

And by nothing I mean even strong/crippling sanctions against Iraq don't happen, for whatever strange reason.

What would be the state of the Middle East? How powerful would Saddam Hussein and Iraq be?
 
Saddam might get nuclear technology by 1995 and become an international pariah but one in a position to do a lot of damage on his way out. Or he might then invade Kuwait and continue into Arabistan, Qatar, the UAE, and the Saudi coast of the Persian Gulf in a few years laden with 2nd gen WMDs. Rooting him out would *not* be fun.
 
If the USA does not do anything about Saddam, US influence in the Arab Middle East will collapse. Militarily, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States cannot resist Iraq absent outside help - in many instances without US/European personnel maintenance of advanced systems will deteriorate rapidly. While Saddam may not immediately cross the border to Saudi Arabia, there will be incidents, threats etc. Would the Saudis and others there trust things if the US said "yes we did nothing about Kuwait, but we'll protect you..."
 
If the USA does not do anything about Saddam, US influence in the Arab Middle East will collapse. Militarily, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States cannot resist Iraq absent outside help - in many instances without US/European personnel maintenance of advanced systems will deteriorate rapidly. While Saddam may not immediately cross the border to Saudi Arabia, there will be incidents, threats etc. Would the Saudis and others there trust things if the US said "yes we did nothing about Kuwait, but we'll protect you..."

Kuwait is his literal neighbor. The rest require crossing into Saudi Arabia or across the Persian Gulf.
 
What if for some reason, after the invasion of Kuwait, the US and the West decide to do nothing - except oral condemnations - about the annexation of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein?

And by nothing I mean even strong/crippling sanctions against Iraq don't happen, for whatever strange reason.

What would be the state of the Middle East? How powerful would Saddam Hussein and Iraq be?

A lot of very bad things in many parts of the world. Because what has happened is the successful invasion and conquest of a sovereign state, a UN member etc. This is something the "world community" has declared Wrong, Not Allowed, since WW II.

The conquest of South Vietnam doesn't count, as neither country was a UN member, much of the world did not regard South Vietnam as a legitimate state, and the conquest was cloaked by internal rebellion in South Vietnam.

Tibet was not recognized as sovereign. Soviet control of Afghanistan and eastern Europe was limited to establishment of puppet governments when Soviet troops were already on the ground.

In the run-up to World War II... the USSR muscled into the Baltic states, with a pretense of "mutual defense" and then staged plebiscites. Hitler got away with muscling Czecho-Slovakia - and that was considered a shameful submission by the other Great Powers, leading them to fight a bit later. Mussolini had earlier got away with conquering Abyssinia, which was also considered a shame, and an implicit "green light" for Hitler.

Post-World-War-II, there was an international consensus, expressed in the UN Charter and enforced by the US and its allies that conquest in war was prohibited. That enforcement was never openly challenged before 1991, when Saddam thought he could explicitly break the rule.

Now he's done so, without real consequences. And as with Mussolini in 1935, the can of worms is opened.
 
A lot of very bad things in many parts of the world. Because what has happened is the successful invasion and conquest of a sovereign state, a UN member etc. This is something the "world community" has declared Wrong, Not Allowed, since WW II.

The conquest of South Vietnam doesn't count, as neither country was a UN member, much of the world did not regard South Vietnam as a legitimate state, and the conquest was cloaked by internal rebellion in South Vietnam.

Tibet was not recognized as sovereign. Soviet control of Afghanistan and eastern Europe was limited to establishment of puppet governments when Soviet troops were already on the ground.

In the run-up to World War II... the USSR muscled into the Baltic states, with a pretense of "mutual defense" and then staged plebiscites. Hitler got away with muscling Czecho-Slovakia - and that was considered a shameful submission by the other Great Powers, leading them to fight a bit later. Mussolini had earlier got away with conquering Abyssinia, which was also considered a shame, and an implicit "green light" for Hitler.

Post-World-War-II, there was an international consensus, expressed in the UN Charter and enforced by the US and its allies that conquest in war was prohibited. That enforcement was never openly challenged before 1991, when Saddam thought he could explicitly break the rule.

Now he's done so, without real consequences. And as with Mussolini in 1935, the can of worms is opened.
Not to mention in the case of South Vietnam, the North was kinda punctilious of at least maintaining the legal fiction that they simply intervened in one side of a Southern civil war, and the new government simply chose to surrender sovereignty.

To be fair, Saddam tried to set up a puppet regime and appealing to the Kuwaiti opposition. The problem is the opposition wanted no part in Saddam's shenanigans, mostly.
 
If the West does not help liberate Kuwait, does the Mujahideen / Al Qaeda make an attempt?
IMO no. The reason Bin Laden offered to help defend Saudi Arabia was because a) he had personal ties, being a Saudi citizen at the time, and b) Saudi Arabia is home to the Two Holy Sites of Islam. Kuwait has none of those distinctions.
 
If the USA does not do anything about Saddam, US influence in the Arab Middle East will collapse. Militarily, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States cannot resist Iraq absent outside help - in many instances without US/European personnel maintenance of advanced systems will deteriorate rapidly. While Saddam may not immediately cross the border to Saudi Arabia, there will be incidents, threats etc. Would the Saudis and others there trust things if the US said "yes we did nothing about Kuwait, but we'll protect you..."

Or Iraq becomes the junior partner through which US influence in the region flows. Baathism is an ideology that can be tolerated domestically; fits a lot better into the American mindset as a secular ethno-linguistic state, is far better on a self-sufficiency level to check Iranian influence without encouraging religious radicals themselves (to which the US is generally hostile), and can easily fill the roll of oil can in place of the Saudis; particularly if combined with some "regime change" on the Gulf Monarchies which would be an easy sell to the voters for Washington to support the infant Repulics (authoritarian republics, sure...)
 
The only way I can see it is happening is if Saddam sees the writing on the wall, and pulls out of Kuwait as soon as possible. If not, America, and the rest of the West WILL act, forming the coalition, and kicking off the war in 91 like OTL, and kicking the Iraqi Army into next week.
 
Have Saddam maintain the puppet state for longer until becomes something like PRC and ROC

A puppet state is a lot more tolerable then outright conquest of UN member
 
Have Saddam maintain the puppet state for longer until becomes something like PRC and ROC

A puppet state is a lot more tolerable then outright conquest of UN member

I can't think of an example where UN membership has provided much deterrence from invasion. Nearly every country is a UN member, Iraq and Afghanistan have had membership since the 1940s, and that didn't stop the US or USSR from rolling on in. Iraq also has been on the Security Council a few times, but not since the 1970s.
 
I can't think of an example where UN membership has provided much deterrence from invasion. Nearly every country is a UN member, Iraq and Afghanistan have had membership since the 1940s, and that didn't stop the US or USSR from rolling on in. Iraq also has been on the Security Council a few times, but not since the 1970s.
But those weren’t annexations by regional powers, that being said even a puppet state is unlikely to prevent the United States from invading given its strategic interests in the area .
 
Saddam might get nuclear technology by 1995 and become an international pariah but one in a position to do a lot of damage on his way out. Or he might then invade Kuwait and continue into Arabistan, Qatar, the UAE, and the Saudi coast of the Persian Gulf in a few years laden with 2nd gen WMDs. Rooting him out would *not* be fun.

Nuclear technology? I assume that would mean the Iranians would rush to a bomb of their own and the Israelis would be sweating - now both Iraq and Iran have or wanting to have nukes.

Do you think the US would have the power to stop him and prevent him from making Iraq a nuclear state?

Considering he'd have great control over gas prices and would probably use that as blackmail against the world?
 
Last edited:
Nuclear technology? I assume that would mean the Iranians would rush to a bomb of their own and the Israelis would be sweating - now both Iraq and Iran have or wanting to have nukes.

Do you think the US would have the power to stop him and prevent him from making Iraq a nuclear state?

Considering he'd have great control over gas prices and would probably use that as blackmail against the world?

Assuming the post-Osirak program (PC-3?) doubles its original projections that would mean a working device about 1994 and micronization for SRBM delivery system about 1997/1998. Projected development was 4-6 devices annually I think, so if they have patience and decide to move in about 2000...
 
Top