Iraq has total victory in the Iran-Iraq War

Lets say Saddam marched his troops all the way to Tehran some how(other Arab nations join the fight or extra support from the west), how would have this changed history?
 
Probably a major civil war in Persia...maybe a secular-type republic trying to take hold in Tehran, while Islamist forces taking control of the countryside to the east. Western Iran being occupied by Iraq, nominally part of a puppet Iranian government. The parts Iraq wanted in the first place for their petroleum and other resources would be annex by Iraq, probably lessening the need to try to grab at Kuwait.

Now, there'd be an extremely wary Saudi Arabia, nearby, which would have just seen the only secular Arab republic whoop the shit out of a theocratic Islamic dictatorship. The Saudis would get very worried, especially with other "Arab Republics" nearby which had secularist, Arab-nationalist movements in power: Baa'thist Syria and Arab-Socialist Egypt, who in this scenario were probably aiding Iraq in their war. We might see war begin around ideological lines between an Iraq-Syria-Egypt coalition and Saudi Arabia in the early 1990s, with the US wondering which side to take.
 
So instead of the Gulf war we have chaos in Iran and an Arab war brewing between the kingdoms and the republics.
 
How would the soviets react to a war at their southern border?
Possibly aid the Arab republican states, on ideological reasons. At least during the Iranian stage of the conflict By the time war would start brewing between the Arab republics and the Saudis, say 1991-1992, the USSR would likely be broken up or in the process of breaking up. They'd have their own fish to fry.
 

Jasen777

Donor
Lets say Saddam marched his troops all the way to Tehran some how(other Arab nations join the fight or extra support from the west), how would have this changed history?

Would that be like Napoleon's victory when his army got to Moscow?
 
I don't think Iraq would need to march to Tehran and drive out the mullahs to win. If they secure all the territory they were doing for, they could just dig in and let the Iranians break their teeth on them.

(if they advance all the way to the Zagros passes, they could keep the Iranians contained on the other side)

However, what's the danger of overstretch? Saddam thought the Arabs of Khuezestan (sp?) would rally to his banner and found that they mostly didn't. Might Saddam have bitten off more than he could chew? Suppressing guerrillas with tanks and helicopters isn't that hard if you're ruthless enough (it worked in 1991), but if Saddam gets into trouble elsewhere, they might successfully throw him off.

Hmm...if the Khuzestani Arabs successfully revolt, could they hive off Basra and the rest of Shi'ite Iraq, or are they too distinct?
 
Would that be like Napoleon's victory when his army got to Moscow?
Big difference.
For one, Iran as a whole doesn't ice over during the winter. Secondly, Iraq would likely be supported by the West, due to its status as the only secular Arab state in the middle-east, and would have access to even more Western, especially American, equipment and cross-training.
 

Jasen777

Donor
What I was getting at is that taking the enemy's capital doesn't necessarily mean anything. Iraq is very unlikely to get to the point where they could have held Iran with any sort of real control.

And if it looked like it was going to, Western support would likely dry up to stop Saddam from getting too powerful and maintaining a strategic balance.
 

Rockingham

Banned
Now, there'd be an extremely wary Saudi Arabia, nearby, which would have just seen the only secular Arab republic whoop the shit out of a theocratic Islamic dictatorship. The Saudis would get very worried, especially with other "Arab Republics" nearby which had secularist, Arab-nationalist movements in power: Baa'thist Syria and Arab-Socialist Egypt, who in this scenario were probably aiding Iraq in their war. We might see war begin around ideological lines between an Iraq-Syria-Egypt coalition and Saudi Arabia in the early 1990s, with the US wondering which side to take.
Only? What about Tuinisia and (maybe) Egypt?

Possibly aid the Arab republican states, on ideological reasons. At least during the Iranian stage of the conflict By the time war would start brewing between the Arab republics and the Saudis, say 1991-1992, the USSR would likely be broken up or in the process of breaking up. They'd have their own fish to fry.
Might they get ideas about Iranian Azebaijin as well?
 
I could see Saddam choosing now to make his stupid move and try to annex all of Iran, which could obviously end very badly. Now if Saddam's smart, he'll take all of occupied Iran and make a secularized country (let's call it Persia). Well the Ayatollah gets pissed, and the war goes on for another year or so, until the Iranian Army officialy mutinies, ending any hope of reclaiming Tehran. The final treaty gives Iraq (and her allies...maybe Syria, Egypt...Jordan?) control over the new nation of Persia (just a guess Democratic Republic of Persia?). The end result is Iraq leading a more EU-ish Arab League, perhaps buying off Kuwait's annexation in 1991-1992, and ending with a US invasion in 2003 (if there is one) being a lot more painful (not including the various insurgencies). On a more grim note, I have a feeling that the Kurds are going to feel far more pressured by not just Iraq, but Iraq's new lapdog Persia. It's just...knida sickening when you think about it...

So that's my take, if anyone could comment or has their own ideas, that would be great.
 
Top