Iran-Iraq War Ends in 1982

CaliGuy

Banned
What if Iran would have accepted Saddam Hussein's ceasefire offer in 1982 and ended the war right then and there?
 
Why would the Islamic Republic have not wanted to push on into Iraq, overthrow the dictatorship that had invaded them, and try to spread the revolution? Doable, perhaps, but you would need different personalities in charge.
 
What if Iran would have accepted Saddam Hussein's ceasefire offer in 1982 and ended the war right then and there?

Its possible the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait doesn't happen due to Iraq not being as broke form the war and Saddam might not get chemical weapons.
 
You would need a more solid POD to provide a reason why they would do that but if it happened it would probably (not quite certainly) butterfly the Gulf War. A big part of the reason Saddam invaded Kuwait was because the devastation the war he started did to Iraq put him in desperate straits. If that damage is far less extreme he would have more options.

If there's no Iraq War the butterflies are tremendous. Qaddafi probably wouldn't give up his WMD programs without the fright OIF gave him IOTL so he might get invaded. No oil shock means probably a growth slowdown instead of a recession in 1991 which means HW doesn't have to break his word on tax increases. Also he doesn't have to deal with the political headache of Saddam still being in power and massacring the Shiites and Kurds we pledged support for. That means his possible reelection, although a party winning four consecutive terms is really, really hard.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Why would the Islamic Republic have not wanted to push on into Iraq, overthrow the dictatorship that had invaded them, and try to spread the revolution? Doable, perhaps, but you would need different personalities in charge.
For one, fear of the U.S.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Its possible the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait doesn't happen due to Iraq not being as broke form the war

Yes ... possible, but not guaranteed.

and Saddam might not get chemical weapons.

Didn't Saddam also want WMDs for regime security (as in, to protect Iraq from a hypothetical U.S. and/or Israeli attack), though?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
You would need a more solid POD to provide a reason why they would do that but if it happened it would probably (not quite certainly) butterfly the Gulf War. A big part of the reason Saddam invaded Kuwait was because the devastation the war he started did to Iraq put him in desperate straits. If that damage is far less extreme he would have more options.

Agreed.

Also, for the record, the reason that Iran won't invade Iraq in 1982 in this TL is Iran's fear of the U.S.

If there's no Iraq War the butterflies are tremendous. Qaddafi probably wouldn't give up his WMD programs without the fright OIF gave him IOTL so he might get invaded.

Actually, I'm not so sure about this; after all, Gaddafi already began warming to the West back in 1999 as a result of his country's economic isolation.

No oil shock means probably a growth slowdown instead of a recession in 1991 which means HW doesn't have to break his word on tax increases. Also he doesn't have to deal with the political headache of Saddam still being in power and massacring the Shiites and Kurds we pledged support for. That means his possible reelection, although a party winning four consecutive terms is really, really hard.

Agreed. However, the Soviet Union would still collapse in this TL--thus hurting Bush Sr.'s chances in 1992--no?
 
Dude how many threads are you planning to post in one week?

24 threads since Sunday.

That's a record.

He asks interesting questions and participates after the initial posts; that's the main criteria. As long as it's not completely oppressive (like you log on and everything on the front page is a Caliguy thread) and you don't go full Paul V McNutt and start posting tons of incomprehensible ramblings and not replying to anyone else who participates you're good.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
He asks interesting questions and participates after the initial posts; that's the main criteria. As long as it's not completely oppressive (like you log on and everything on the front page is a Caliguy thread) and you don't go full Paul V McNutt and start posting tons of incomprehensible ramblings and not replying to anyone else who participates you're good.
Thanks! :)

Indeed, I certainly try to participate in all of my threads! :) Frankly, I can just sometimes get very energetic (while also being pretty un-energetic at various other times)! :)
 
Agreed.

Also, for the record, the reason that Iran won't invade Iraq in 1982 in this TL is Iran's fear of the U.S.

Why does Iran fear the U.S. more? Does Reagan send a really threatening note or something (not being facetious there's a chance that could work)? The better POD, actually, might be the USSR instead. If they get real worried about the Ayatollah and start backing the Tudeh hard (maybe there are clashes between the Revolutionary Guard and party members in the northeast of the country) and station troops on the border and talking about "counterrevolutionary religious radicals" that might frighten them more.


Actually, I'm not so sure about this; after all, Gaddafi already began warming to the West back in 1999 as a result of his country's economic isolation.

Yeah, but then so were North Korea and Syria. Syria sent troops to fight in the coalition during the Gulf War and had friendlier relations with the U.S. than during the Cold War while North Korea signed all kinds of agreements related to their nuclear program that they ended up breaking. Gaddafi's ex-foreign minister said that the turning point came when Bush threatened him really vociferously in 2001, and the seizure in 2003 of a ship with a ton of centrifuges and tech really hurt their nuke program and persuaded them further.


Agreed. However, the Soviet Union would still collapse in this TL--thus hurting Bush Sr.'s chances in 1992--no?

Would it? I suppose it's to his advantage if national security is a big issue during the election, but on the other hand he could also be the guy who won the Cold War once and for all.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Why does Iran fear the U.S. more? Does Reagan send a really threatening note or something (not being facetious there's a chance that could work). The better POD, actually, might be the USSR instead. If they get real worried about the Ayatollah and start backing the Tudeh hard (maybe there are clashes between the Revolutionary Guard and party members in the northeast of the country) and station troops on the border and talking about "counterrevolutionary religious radicals" that might frighten them more.

Frankly, either having Reagan send them a threatening note or your suggestion here might work for this. :)

Yeah, but then so were North Korea and Syria. Syria sent troops to fight in the coalition during the Gulf War and had friendlier relations with the U.S. than during the Cold War while North Korea signed all kinds of agreements related to their nuclear program that they ended up breaking. Gaddafi's ex-foreign minister said that the turning point came when Bush threatened him really vociferously in 2001, and the seizure in 2003 of a ship with a ton of centrifuges and tech really hurt their nuke program and persuaded them further.

Fair enough, I suppose; however, to be fair, Libya didn't have any "hostile" countries on its borders like both North Korea and Syria had.

Would it? I suppose it's to his advantage if national security is a big issue during the election, but on the other hand he could also be the guy who won the Cold War once and for all.

Frankly, I get the impression that the collapse of the Soviet Union used many Americans to think along these lines: "We no longer need to have a President with a lot of foreign policy skills since such skills are no longer necessary now that the Soviet Union has already collapsed!"
 
Yes ... possible, but not guaranteed.

It depends on how much Iraqi debt is and how low oil prices drop.

Didn't Saddam also want WMDs for regime security (as in, to protect Iraq from a hypothetical U.S. and/or Israeli attack), though?

True however he needed the US to supply him and without Iran pressing further after 82 the US wold have no reason to arm him.
 
Frankly, either having Reagan send them a threatening note or your suggestion here might work for this. :)



Fair enough, I suppose; however, to be fair, Libya didn't have any "hostile" countries on its borders like both North Korea and Syria had.



Frankly, I get the impression that the collapse of the Soviet Union used many Americans to think along these lines: "We no longer need to have a President with a lot of foreign policy skills since such skills are no longer necessary now that the Soviet Union has already collapsed!"

You sure about this part?


Yeah, I see that. It would depend a lot on how it was spun. He would need someone like Lee Atwater to play it correctly, but expecting any of this to butterfly Atwater's brain cancer is probably unrealistic.
 
Top