Iran-Iraq War results in the fall of both regimes

[Expat]

Not my area of expertise, so please be kind when eviscerating me.

The idea is Iraq does better in the war and occupies Khuzestan and possibly other border areas. The Iranians hammer away at them but Iraq's better defensive situation pays off. The occupied territories prove rebellious, a spirit that spreads backwards into Iraq. The Iranians continue to keep the bulk of the Iraqi army pinned to the front until the Iranian economy collapses and the regime falls.

Timing would have to be pretty perfect for the rebellions in Iraq to reach a tipping point near the same time as Iran falters. But is it possible?

Happy to hear your thoughts/opinions/refutations/affirmations.

 

[Expat]

One bump then off to obscurity.

 

[lycan]

We don't give support to both sides in that conflict.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

A war where both sides lose?

I like it.

Sounds unlikely but not impossible.

What would the new regimes look like?

Iraq could fragment.

 

[Expat]

Iraq could very easily fragment. The Iraqi Kurds were already rebelling and will now likely be joined by Iranian Kurds. I can see Turkey moving in out of panic.

I was also pondering Syria's reaction and a possible resurgence for the Syrian Ba'athist party in Iraq, but they certainly had their hands full in Lebanon at the time. It might be that Syria would have to make a choice: potentially regain influence in Iraq at the cost of Lebanon. Somehow I see Assad really wanting to take that gamble, but it is a long shot.

There's also the potential for several irredentist claims against Iran, depending on when exactly this happens.

I don't know anything about potential regime change at the time and would love it if someone had an idea of who might take over in both countries.

 

[BigWillyG]

Have it last just a bit longer. Peace IOTL came largely because both sides were nearly bankrupt and exhausted. Having them fight until they are truely bankrupt could lead to more revolutions in both countries. Especially if you see and earlier and bigger war of the cities phase.

 

[LHB]

If the situation gets that tense in the Iran-Iraq War there is a VERY high liklihood that a lot of Iranian civilians are going to get gassed. OTL one of the reasons Iran backed down was because Saddam threatened to gas Tehran. If Iran stays in the fight too long expect WMDs to be used even more freely than they were OTL.

 

[aktarian]

A war where both sides lose?

I like it.

Sounds unlikely but not impossible.

What would the new regimes look like?

Iraq could fragment.

Isn't this what happened OTL anyway? Both sides suffered heavy financial cost and relatively high himan cost. Iran never bounced back to pre-war level (though sanctions helped there as well) while Iraq ended with massive debt which led to occupation of Kuwait and events that followed from that.

But I don't see both sides collapsing. If one side collapses (I'd say Iraq is a bit more likely) then this gives other side enough of a boost to stay afloat and survive.

 

[Expat]

Isn't this what happened OTL anyway? Both sides suffered heavy financial cost and relatively high himan cost. Iran never bounced back to pre-war level (though sanctions helped there as well) while Iraq ended with massive debt which led to occupation of Kuwait and events that followed from that.

But I don't see both sides collapsing. If one side collapses (I'd say Iraq is a bit more likely) then this gives other side enough of a boost to stay afloat and survive.

Yes, certainly that's the more likely scenario. Just wondering if double collapse is *possible.*

I agree that Iraq is more likely to collapse because Iran had greater drive to fight- were more likely to fight on in the face of ruin than Iraq. If you take away their oil revenue (which is in large part found in Khuzestan) you drive them to the brink while at the same time increasing Iraq's revenue just a bit. Iran becomes desperate and keeps attacking until those on the homefront are ready to do something else desperate and revolt.

That (to me) is what you need to get Iran to fall first. The idea of Iraq falling at the same time is almost incidental to this: greater internal revolt. It would have to be large enough to overwhelm the domestic security forces and quick enough (or well-timed enough, if you prefer) that the Iraqi army is still forward deployed and engaged with the last fanatical remnants of the Iranian army at the time. A full revolt in Khuzestan pinning the army down might do the trick.

But it's true, once Iran falters, Iraqis are less likely to rebel (though they still might.)

 

[aktarian]

Yes, certainly that's the more likely scenario. Just wondering if double collapse is *possible.*

I agree that Iraq is more likely to collapse because Iran had greater drive to fight- were more likely to fight on in the face of ruin than Iraq. If you take away their oil revenue (which is in large part found in Khuzestan) you drive them to the brink while at the same time increasing Iraq's revenue just a bit. Iran becomes desperate and keeps attacking until those on the homefront are ready to do something else desperate and revolt.

That (to me) is what you need to get Iran to fall first. The idea of Iraq falling at the same time is almost incidental to this: greater internal revolt. It would have to be large enough to overwhelm the domestic security forces and quick enough (or well-timed enough, if you prefer) that the Iraqi army is still forward deployed and engaged with the last fanatical remnants of the Iranian army at the time. A full revolt in Khuzestan pinning the army down might do the trick.

But it's true, once Iran falters, Iraqis are less likely to rebel (though they still might.)

Well one possibility is that Iraq does better, along the lines of your scenario. However they suffer enourmous casualties which are hidden from everybody. Iran collapses, but Iraq is close to breaking point as well. Then Iraq faces uprising along the lines of post-DS uprisings, only this time aided by Syria and maybe Saudis. Iraq descends into chaos and full fledged civil war but it's so exhausted nobody can realy win.

A big stretch I know but only way I can think of to get both states collapsing.

 

[Expat]

Well one possibility is that Iraq does better, along the lines of your scenario. However they suffer enourmous casualties which are hidden from everybody. Iran collapses, but Iraq is close to breaking point as well. Then Iraq faces uprising along the lines of post-DS uprisings, only this time aided by Syria and maybe Saudis. Iraq descends into chaos and full fledged civil war but it's so exhausted nobody can realy win.

A big stretch I know but only way I can think of to get both states collapsing.

Big stretch is where I was starting from, so it's helpful to hear that that's what it would take.

And as I was thinking before, this could take Syria along with it if they try to juggle an Iraqi intervention with their Lebanese "adventure" as well. Obvious butterflies for Lebanon in this. Does it end there? Or could we see this spread around the Arab world?

 

[LHB]

If Iran and Iraq collapse due to the stresses of war how long would it be before the US intervenes in some fashion? Iraq and Iran descending into civil war would cause some serious disruptions in the world's oil supply.

 

[aktarian]

Big stretch is where I was starting from, so it's helpful to hear that that's what it would take.

And as I was thinking before, this could take Syria along with it if they try to juggle an Iraqi intervention with their Lebanese "adventure" as well. Obvious butterflies for Lebanon in this. Does it end there? Or could we see this spread around the Arab world?

Well, Syria was pro-Iranian and gave a lot of unofficial help. But seeing how this would be right after beating they took in Lebanon it's a question how much more they can give without getting dragged into something they can't handle.

 

[aktarian]

If Iran and Iraq collapse due to the stresses of war how long would it be before the US intervenes in some fashion? Iraq and Iran descending into civil war would cause some serious disruptions in the world's oil supply.

I don't think US will intervene directly, remember this would be early/mid-1980s when US military was still recovering from Vietnam and Reagan's boost was still not there.

So it's likely they find themselves some proxy. Saudis would do, they disliked both Iran and Iraq.

 

[Expat]

We did have a large international coalition descend on the region around this time IOTL. You couldn't sell this as a war of liberation like Kuwait but stabilizing the Gulf is in everybody's economic interests. Perhaps a UN effort?

 

[TRH]

I doubt the Saudis would have had enough manpower to sort out a clusterfuck of the magnitude being described here. American intervention would be unpalatable, but the sheer size of the oil shock would probably leave them no choice; NATO would be along for the ride, by necessity. I wonder what the increase in oil prices would do for the USSR...

 

[Expat]

I doubt the Saudis would have had enough manpower to sort out a clusterfuck of the magnitude being described here. American intervention would be unpalatable, but the sheer size of the oil shock would probably leave them no choice; NATO would be along for the ride, by necessity. I wonder what the increase in oil prices would do for the USSR...

Not enough to stop the collapse, surely. Perhaps an ever-so-slightly cushier landing. Who was buying Iranian oil in the 1980s anyway?

 

[snali]

Iraq collapses in this scenario then the country splinters so why would the troops be fighting instead either surrendering or try to go home? Since saddam was still pro american back then U.S. would try to argue for U.N. intervention or get saudis or turkey to fill the iraq niche