alternatehistory.com

In a whole lot of discussions regarding the US invasion of Iraq, it's often mentioned how the balance of power in the region was screwed up when they took out Saddam, thus leaving Iran in a great position. Similarly, in discussions about Bush I not supporting the '91 uprisings against Saddam, it's postulated that they feared Iran could get too strong in the absence of the Iraqi dictator.

There was however a moment when the Iranians could very well have made a move, namely actively invading in support of the Anti-Saddam uprisings that occured right after Desert Storm. Sure, they were beat up from years of fighting him, but then, he was beat up much, much more.

The uprising:


A key factor in Saddam's succes OTL over the rebels was his use of helicopters and armor. With Iran entering the fray though, that advantage is gone, as Saddam had lost most of his jets and was barred from using any he still had due to coalition-imposed no-fly-zones. Therefor, the Iranians should enjoy total air supremacy.

So, Iran strikes a deal with the Kurds as per OTL and sends in troops both in the south and the north, digging in before the Iraqi Army takes over those areas.

How screwed is Saddam? Does he try and launch a chemical weapons attack? Might we see the Iranian capturing Baghdad?
Top