How to best Balkanize Iraq

Jim Smitty

Jim Smitty

I'm not all that sure where to put this, but I'm putting it here for now and mods can move as needed.

But what I'm looking for is how to best break up Iraq following a total defeat by a US backed Iran so the place stays stable in the post war years which after a very bloody world war no one really wants the headaches (Think Calbear AANW like world war, but global). Iran has been given a free hand for the most part but their backers in Washington has made clear they don't want post war headaches. Annexation by the Iranians is being allowed but they understand one key, no war crimes.

The only thing I have figured out at the moment for sure is Basra Governorate being annexed by Iran. I was looking at a possible Kurdistan in the northern part, but not really sure how to best go about that. But as to the rest of Iraq I don't have a clue.
 

Escape Zeppelin

Three parts, one Kurdish, one Sunni, one Shiite seems to be the most logical and easiest split. This is the division that has been proposed for years.

CMA963.gif


Shia regions would take Baghdad to Basra. I'm not sure Iran would annex it as a Shia Iraq would still be a close Iranian ally and would serve as a buffer state between them and the Arabs. No need for any messy annexation when they'll be tied to Tehran by religion.

Mosul would likely go to Kurdistan and possibly serve as their capitol. A Kurdistan would also face the same challenges as today where neither Iran or Turkey want their own Kurds getting ideas about breaking off territory. But I suppose that largely depends on what happens to Turkey in your timeline. A Kurdistan grateful to Iran for help would do a lot to expand Iran's influence while reducing the Turks'.
 
Tsargrad_or_Bust

Tsargrad_or_Bust

Well the OP says that Iran is doing the partitioning, so presumably Baghdad goes to the Shiites. The OP says no war crimes, so presumably it stays mixed.

I also don't think Iran (imperial or theocratic) has had much interest in annexing any of Iraq since the death of Nader Shah.
 
Dan1988

Dan1988

If the POD is far back enough, you can use the Ottoman-era vilayet boundaries. The old vilayets were centred around Basra, Baghdad, and Mosul, respectively, with a little bit from the Aleppo vilayet (IIRC).
 

jmc247

packmanwiscy said:
We've split cities before. Jerusalem is a good example

On second thought...
Click to expand...

Jerusalem has nothing on Baghdad.

Iraqis have a reputation as warmongers in the region by fellow Arabs, but here is the thing, Sunni Arabs aren't fighting and haven't been fighting because they don't want to be part of Iraq.

The last thing they would ever want is just to own dirt with no oil and I am talking about the not religiously insane Sunnis most of who aren't fighting and haven't been for a long time.
 
Jim Smitty

Jim Smitty

Dan1988 said:
If the POD is far back enough, you can use the Ottoman-era vilayet boundaries. The old vilayets were centred around Basra, Baghdad, and Mosul, respectively, with a little bit from the Aleppo vilayet (IIRC).
Click to expand...

The POD isn't that far back. The Ottomans are already in the history books when the POD happens.
 

riggerrob

Correct me if I'm wrong .... but my impression was that most of the oil in Iraq was near Basra (Shite territory) or Mosul (Kurdish territory). Does that leave any oil for Iraqi Sunnis in the middle?
 
Last edited:
Jim Smitty

Jim Smitty

jmc247 said:
Jerusalem has nothing on Baghdad.

Iraqis have a reputation as warmongers in the region by fellow Arabs, but here is the thing, Sunni Arabs aren't fighting and haven't been fighting because they don't want to be part of Iraq.

The last thing they would ever want is just to own dirt with no oil and I am talking about the not religiously insane Sunnis most of who aren't fighting and haven't been for a long time.
Click to expand...

The thing of it is the US who by the end of this war is the unquestioned hyperpower of the world. But like the rest of the world there is a collected case of PSTD. Everyone is buying for the second slot or had taken a very and I mean very hard hit if they were a power before hand and lost. No one wants fight a war again for a very long time. Iraq was on the losing side. And with no one having the muscle to put Iraq back together they decide to balkanize it.
 
Tsargrad_or_Bust

Tsargrad_or_Bust

If the victors lack the manpower or will to hold Iraq together then there's going to be quite a bit of violence surrounding the new borders, like in the Indian partition. Both the Kurds and the Shiites have conflicting claims with the Sunni majority regions (see the map) so areas around Mosul and Baghdad are probably going to see widespread expulsions to reinforce claims. Mosul area is a big question, since it is majority Sunni(with a substantial Kurdish minority), but depending on the time frame the U.S. might be unable/unwilling to stand up for the Sunnis (if the defeated Iraq was the Baathist regime, for example). On an unrelated note an independent Kurdistan is going to make Turkey livid (Iran as well, to a lesser extent), particularly if they were among the victors.
 

eliphas8

I still think this is a terrible idea, and that now matter how you tried to do it splitting up middle eastern countries on communitarian lines will only sharpen hatred and lead to violence against everyone on the wrong side of a border.
 

riggerrob

As if they current straight borders are making anyone happy now!
Hah!
Hah!

Most straight borders were drawn by long-dead, white men who had never walked the ground, much less have a clue what colour hate the different tribes wore.
Those straight borders are the root of current wars, because they force dissimilar tribes into one country.
Straight borders are part of a European divide-and-conquer strategy where they drew borders through traditional tribal lands, chopping them up, then force half the tribe under the rule of another tribe. They never got along very well with the other tribe (e.g. pastoralists versus plowmen), but the second tribe was backed by a European army.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
As far as I got it your POD is well after WW II.

Keep in mind that from this time on ANY kind of independant Kurdistan will be fought viciosly by Turkey. May it be declared war, not declared as today or any other method.
 

eliphas8

riggerrob said:
As if they current straight borders are making anyone happy now!
Hah!
Hah!

Most straight borders were drawn by long-dead, white men who had never walked the ground, much less have a clue what colour hate the different tribes wore.
Those straight borders are the root of current wars, because they force dissimilar tribes into one country.
Straight borders are part of a European divide-and-conquer strategy where they drew borders through traditional tribal lands, chopping them up, then force half the tribe under the rule of another tribe. They never got along very well with the other tribe (e.g. pastoralists versus plowmen), but the second tribe was backed by a European army.
Click to expand...

That's a ridiculously simplistic viewpoint which ignores that you can't turn back the clock on those ethnic hatreds. And divide and conquer politics were deeper than borders. Redrawing the map to reflect ethnic boundaries will create a good number of powerless worthless countries with no natural resources. It will put hundreds of thousands on the wrong side of the border, and most damningly it would probably actually spark mass ethnic cleansing in every nation you mention. No one is happy with the current set up, but better ideas have been produced by the actual people in the region than this weird insistence on imposing ethnic nation states. The PKK proposes a confederated Middle East focusing on empowering localities to manage things themselves. As far as ideas go thats ome I like because it wouldn't be a total attempt to impose the already inherently racist idea of ethnic nation states. Because by God that didn't work well in the Balkans. Or in Europe.
 

b0ned0me

eliphas8 said:
That's a ridiculously simplistic viewpoint which ignores that you can't turn back the clock on those ethnic hatreds. And divide and conquer politics were deeper than borders. Redrawing the map to reflect ethnic boundaries will create a good number of powerless worthless countries with no natural resources.
Click to expand...
It also misses the point that borders express boundaries, but conflicts define boundaries. You can see the process occuring today, within unitary countries and no border in sight. Two or three or four groups are living on, travelling across or using the same piece of land. Populations grow, resources get short and suddenly the two ethnically and religiously distinct farming groups each decide that "their" land is being stolen by the other, and its killing time. Something applauded by the 3 survivors of the nomadic pastoralist who used to graze across the region before the farming communities hounded them out.

White man left, no borders. Half a century after independence, fresh borders being carved out with machetes and AKs, just like they were carved out in Europe with pikes and muskets.
 

edvardas

Roll Jordan roll
Iraq and Jordan were dynastically connected. In the middle fifties Jordan had an alliance with Iraq Suppose Jordan reasserts itself and claims the Sunni area of Iraq
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top