If Saddam fell in 1991 would Bush Junior have gone into Iran instead?
- Thread starter What if
- Start date
Interesting question, my feeling is no. It would be too much of an undertaking and far worse then Iraq.
I think it would really depend on what level of Muslim intellectual support, if any, Bush could get together for the idea. People like Fouad Ajami really helped Bush sell the invasion of Iraq, I don't think they would be as outspoken for an invasion of Iran.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fouad_Ajami
I think it would really depend on what level of Muslim intellectual support, if any, Bush could get together for the idea. People like Fouad Ajami really helped Bush sell the invasion of Iraq, I don't think they would be as outspoken for an invasion of Iran.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fouad_Ajami
Paul V McNutt
Banned
I think if Sadaam was overthrown in 1991, the new government would want to end sanctions. So it would not be view as a threat. I think the invasion of Iran would be too daunting for Bush to sell successfully. He did not invade North Korea, even if was in the Axis of Evil.
Well I don't know much about the people that rebelled against Saddam in 1991 after the gulf war loss so I can't comment there to much.
Iran is three times larger in population. They had enough problems with Iraq OTL. Since the United States hasn't dealt with Iran directly since 1980, I doubt that regime change would be a priority.
The Arab states might go for it, but then again they might fear the return of an alliance between Iran and the United States after the IRI is overthrown.
The Arab states might go for it, but then again they might fear the return of an alliance between Iran and the United States after the IRI is overthrown.
They would never use them except under existential threat, which Iran couldn't possibly present in 1991.
Israel had a legitimate worry that Iran could give WMDs to terrorists, but unlike what some believe America doesn't simply go to war to protect Israeli security when its threatened.
America from the top of the WH on down didn't believe or at very least had real trouble believing that Iran plays games with Sunni transnational terrorists because they are Shia and Sunni jihadists hate Shia. The IRGC actually long has, but they keep it on the down low and make up for it by house arresting al-Qaeda members and other Sunni jihadists every so often.
It would take the mullahs acting alot dumber then their usual chess player selves to cause their facilities to get bombed much less invaded.
BooNZ
Banned
As a casual observer, for a time it looked like the Bush administration was very keen to go into Iran AFTER going into Iraq. The rationale for going into Iraq is not much better than Iran.
In relation to the original POD, I doubt the Bush administration would have wasted a crisis...
In relation to the original POD, I doubt the Bush administration would have wasted a crisis...
I was referring to the fact that the usa said Iraq had wmds could have done the same in Iran and we talking about if bush senior going into Iran in 91 or 92 or junior going in
Depending on how stable the new Iraqi government was, the U.S. might have gone back to treating Iraq as the counterweight to Iran in that region, and resumed arming the Iraqis without sending American troops there.
This is what I'm thinking: they sure seemed to want to do it for a while. I think Bush & Chums would've very seriously looked into it, and even if they'd decided "nah" they'd have kept implying they would to scare Iran into complying with whatever they wanted complied with. It's also possible they'd go "YEAH LET'S TAKE OUT IRAN!!" and ramp up the rhetoric and troop movements, then realise too late "oh crap we'll lose too many guys and oil prices will get messed up, this is a terrible idea" and try really hard to back out without losing face.
You don't think 12 years after such significant POD wouldn't produce enough butterflies so that situation in US and MidEast is vastly different?
So, Saddam falls in 1991. Who or what replaces him? What are US next moves? What are Iranian? Saudi? What is happening to boy bands popular in OTL 1990s? What is bin Laden doing? Is slasher genre reviwed due to Scream franchise? How does Iraq develop in meantime?
So, Saddam falls in 1991. Who or what replaces him? What are US next moves? What are Iranian? Saudi? What is happening to boy bands popular in OTL 1990s? What is bin Laden doing? Is slasher genre reviwed due to Scream franchise? How does Iraq develop in meantime?
BooNZ
Banned
People appear to have forgotten the US was extraordinarily pro-Iraq war, BEFORE everyone in the US became extraordinarily anti-Iraq war. Were the votes for this survey compiled in Florida?
Does this not remove the need for long term US presence in Saudi, and probably butterfly Al Quaeda?
I Think it would led to a earlier cold war between the Gulf states and Iran over Influence of Iraq.
In Syria there regime hasn't actually changed the civil war is still on going and the West has done very little for the rebels and in Libya a lack of willings to help get agreements between the rebels led to whats happing there now. Plus Gaddafi was connected to the lockerbie bombing so I think the NATO intervening there was reasonable.
On Al-Quaeda I would say no as (in terms of pre-9/11) as Bin Ladin was shaped by events in this period(in terms of the US's ability to influence the region) to attack the US. I think it would make them less strong (post 9/11) without the Iraqi insurgency in 2003 thus less terrorism and less radicalized individuals. And on the presence Saudi Arabia depending on how relations with Iran go I would say maybe less but it depends on how relations with Iran would shape.
Last edited: