Imperial Iran vs Saddam's Iraq

The challenge: how could the Shah's Iran at some point during the 19760s have ended up at war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and would Imperial Iran inevitably have won given the lavish US and Western military support for the Shah's regime (F4 Phantoms, F5 Tigers, F14 Tomcats, Chieftain MBTs, hovercraft, etc) ? WI say sporadic clashes over their shared border, the Shatt al-Arab, or Iranian support for the Kurds escalated into a full-scale war along the lines of OTL's 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War ? How would the Iranian army fare, esp at the same time as they had an elite bde in action in Oman 1970-73 fighting the Communist Dhofari rebels alongside the British SAS, Sultan of Oman's Land Forces (SOLF) and Jordanian special forces ?
 
I would expect Iran to beat Iraq like a Persian rug (pun intended).

Even with most of their top military guys dead, fled, or in jail, the Iranians were able to expel the Iraqi army from Iran within 2 years and then spent the remaining 6-odd years with the Iranian army besieging Basra and other Shi'ite cities.

With a more functional, more pragmatic government, I would expect a quick spanking of the Iraqis.
 
I would expect Iran to beat Iraq like a Persian rug (pun intended).

Even with most of their top military guys dead, fled, or in jail, the Iranians were able to expel the Iraqi army from Iran within 2 years and then spent the remaining 6-odd years with the Iranian army besieging Basra and other Shi'ite cities.

With a more functional, more pragmatic government, I would expect a quick spanking of the Iraqis.

I dunno about the first part. Some experts believe that Saddam gave withdrawl orders once things started stalemating in order to have the war fought on Iraqi territory. Then he could point to the invaders to remind folks why they needed to keep him around.

Not that Shahist Iran wouldn't utterly destory an Iraq Army. During the Shah's time it was the best and most professional force in the region.
 
I disagree to a point, fighting on the defensive gives a certain advantage. You also have the problem of maintaining a very advanced infrustructure. The Pilots and Tank commanders might have been well trained, but I don't think the support troops could have maintained the equipment for long periods of time. I see more human wave tactics, with lots of Arty, and simple mortar type weapons being used to terrify the enemies troops and population.

Could either side really ensure that these weapon systems would be functional for a long period of time? It seems to me that this is what made the difference for Israel in its conflicts.
 
Could either side really ensure that these weapon systems would be functional for a long period of time? It seems to me that this is what made the difference for Israel in its conflicts.
What it be a long war? The Imperial Iranians advanced into the Basra area and stop. Hussein's Iraq is now cut off from the sea so everything has to be trucked in. In addition it has lost control of major oil fields and revenue is seriously reduced. There is less reason for fellow Arab countries to support his regime as the enemy is a fellow despot like themsleves and not Khomeni's isdeological rabble.
 
The challenge: how could the Shah's Iran at some point during the 19760s have ended up at war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and would Imperial Iran inevitably have won given the lavish US and Western military support for the Shah's regime (F4 Phantoms, F5 Tigers, F14 Tomcats, Chieftain MBTs, hovercraft, etc) ?

ASB intervention. Saddam knew he couldn't win against Iran, which is why he signed Algiers treaty giving Iran more of Shatt. He only took on Iran after revolution, purges and US-Iranian relations reaching level of Siberian temperature in december.
 
I disagree to a point, fighting on the defensive gives a certain advantage. You also have the problem of maintaining a very advanced infrustructure. The Pilots and Tank commanders might have been well trained, but I don't think the support troops could have maintained the equipment for long periods of time. I see more human wave tactics, with lots of Arty, and simple mortar type weapons being used to terrify the enemies troops and population.

Iran maintained large forces on the battlefield for 8 years. And that was after purges and influx of religious "experts". why wouldn't better led military be able to do same?

Could either side really ensure that these weapon systems would be functional for a long period of time?

They did it in OTL. Why not now? ANd don't forget Iran wouldn't be cut off from US suplies.

It seems to me that this is what made the difference for Israel in its conflicts.

Israelis try to fight short and sharp wars because they can't afford long and intense wars (not enough people so if you put people in uniform your economy takes a dive). 1948-49 war wasn't as technological as later ones. War of attrition and Lebanese wars weren't as intense as 1967 or 1973. Later ones were short.
 
Why would Saddam and the Shah go to war in the first place? Weren't they both American allies?

Saddam, an American ally in the '70s? Hell no!

Even if he was, it wouldn't be impossible. It didn't stop Britain and Argentina. The Cold War also saw disputes between Greece and Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, Argentina and Chile, all US-friendly, and some of these came pretty close to turning into wars. The one between Spain and Morocco did, even though it's almost forgotten, and the 2 were also US-friendly.

One of Saddam's biggest buddies before, during, and after the war with Iran was US-friendly Jordan, and one of his biggest rivals was Soviet-friendly Syria (precisely because they were both Ba'athist states). That didn't stop him from leaning towards the Soviet Union in the '70s. Even after the West started sponsoring him the Soviets stayed a friend (and Israel stayed an enemy). The Cold War allegiances weren't all black-and-white.
 
Last edited:
Given a POD the Imperial Iranian army would have mauled Iraq's soviet outfitted army and airforce.
During the Iran-Iraq war the remnants of the Iranian army held the central part of the front and did a very good job against the Iraqis.

Saddam only became a friend of the Western Powers when he did badly in the war with Iran and this of fear of Khomeiny's revolution spreading.
 
Iraq and Iran skirmished along their borders throughout the 1970's, with 10 major engagements between October 1972 and May 1974. There was certainly no love lost between the nations, but neither Iran nor Iraq wanted a fight. Iraq would have had a snowball's chance in hell, but had enough military capacity to make the Iranian victory very unpleasant. A good analogue would be the India/Pakistan rivalry.
 
Top