Iraq-Syria Union 1979

Iraq and its hitherto rival Ba‘thist Syria had decided a year earlier to forego their differences and work toward unity. The date for this momentous decision was fast approaching, and in the case of its actualiza-tion, Husayn was bound to continue his “deputy” status, this time to the Syrian president, Hafiz al-Asad, who was older and more experienced, and whose stature in the Arab world could not be matched by Husayn. It is thus hardly coincidental that one week after Bakr’s retirement, the new President would “discover” a plot against him that would implicate the Syrians, thus allowing him to terminate the process prior to its feared consummation. Bakr, it seems had anticipated Husayn’s move, and shortly before his resignation had pleaded with Asad to speed up the process for the union, as he warned of a political current in the Iraqi leadership which was “anxious to kill the union in the bud before it [bore] fruit.”11In fact,the “discovered” conspiracy allowed Husayn not just to neutralize the Asad threat, but in a macabre rendering of “killing two birds with one stone”he would also eliminate remaining potential rivals at the dawn
of his absolutist and totalitarian rule.


Dawisha, Adeed (2009). Iraq: A Political History from Independence to Occupation. p. 214.

What if Hussain agrees to this plan with the understanding his succession to the presidency upon Hafez Al-Assad's death or resignation is unchallenged? What would be the regional and global consequences?
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Will it work any better than U.A.R ? and if so why ?

A libya syria union is more likely ? Given the like mindedness of their dictators
 
Would Iraq-Syria go to war with Iran as Iraq did in 1980 OTL? Iraq-Syria would be a much tougher enemy for Iran to face than Iraq alone was, and Iraq would have a way to export its oil independent of Kuwait (who IIRC was taking a nice-sized cut of the proceeds).

Iran wouldn't get the benefit of Syrian arms here. Iran also wouldn't be able to as easily spread its influence into Lebanon, which would likely mean no Hebzbollah TTL.



But I would assume Assad is running the show, and I'm not sure he'd be all that interested in picking a war with Iran right after merging with Iraq.

If there's no Iran-Iraq War, the Iranian Revolution probably plays out a wee bit differently without Hussein's impacting the politics of the whole thing.
 
Last edited:
But I would assume Assad is running the show, and I'm not sure he'd be all that interested in picking a war with Iran right after merging with Iraq.

Syria like @Khanzeer said had good relations with Iran OTL, before, during, and after the war. I think there possibly would be a power struggle over Iran relations between Assad and Hussain with Assad probably coming out on top. A full out war seems very unlikely.
 
No Iran-Iraq War is a pretty big change for the region.

The Lebanese Civil War will probably be the focus of the state's attention. (What would it even be called? Syraq?)

How does Iran's revolution play out without the war?
 
No Iran-Iraq War is a pretty big change for the region.

The Lebanese Civil War will probably be the focus of the state's attention.

Assad would oppose the Iraqi attack on Iran since he'd prefer a unified state focus on Israel. If, instead of attacking Iran, Iraqi soldiers began massing in Syria in 1980-81, raising the spector of a much bigger Mideast war than occurred in 1982, would Israel still invade Lebanon, and thus provoke it?
 
No Iran-Iraq War is a pretty big change for the region.

The Lebanese Civil War will probably be the focus of the state's attention. (What would it even be called? Syraq?)

How does Iran's revolution play out without the war?
It could be called Mashriq.

Mashreq.PNG
 
How would the ethnic and religious demographics look like in this country? Do the Alawites and shia Irakis form a majority? How big are the kurds in the %? Would something like the syrian civil war still happen? Some kind of sunni arab syrian separatism demanding sunni rule over a a territory kinda equivalent of sykes picot syria?
MPK1-426_Sykes_Picot_Agreement_Map_signed_8_May_1916.jpg

I mean syria plus the sunni parts of north irak.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
How would the ethnic and religious demographics look like in this country? Do the Alawites and shia Irakis form a majority? How big are the kurds in the %? Would something like the syrian civil war still happen? Some kind of sunni arab syrian separatism demanding sunni rule over a a territory kinda equivalent of sykes picot syria?
MPK1-426_Sykes_Picot_Agreement_Map_signed_8_May_1916.jpg

I mean syria plus the sunni parts of north irak.
Only a personality like Salahuddin can achieve this union
 
I discussed the possibility of a Syria-Iraq union in an old soc.history.what-if post (basically, Syria didn't want it except perhaps as a loose federation, being afraid that otherwise she would be treated by the more numerous Iraqis as a mere province, as she had been by the Egyptians in Nasser's UAR):

***

"In 1963, there were talks on a Syria-Iraq union, the Ba'ath party being in control of both countries. Whatever chance there was for unity was lost on November 18, 1963 when the Iraqi Ba'athists were overthrown by General Arif. When in 1968 the Ba'athists regained power in Iraq, there not only was no unity, but relations between the two countries sharply deteriorated. One reason is that the Iraqi Ba'athists' leadership (Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr and his relative Saddam Hussein) had been selected by the old 'National Command' of the Ba'ath (led by Michel Aflaq, who had founded the party), and the National Command had lost power in Damascus in 1966. So the question is, had the National Command stayed in power in Syria, would there have been a union after 1968? I doubt it, at least whether there would have been a lasting union. By 1968 it was apparent that Bakr and Saddam Hussein, even if originally designated by Aflaq et al, were more Iraqi nationalist than Arab nationalist. The Syrians for their part remembered the way Egypt had dominated the UAR and had in effect treated Syria as a mere province. This made them reluctant to get into any more unions with more powerful nations.

"In any event, after 1963 the Syrian military was largely dominated by religious minorities (especially Alawites like Assad) who had reason to be suspicious that any Syria-Iraq union would be dominated by Sunnis.

"After years of bitter recriminations between the two Ba'athist regimes, there was again talk of unity in 1978-79. This was the result of Camp David, which had put the Syrian regime in a dangerous position--it could no longer count on Egyptian help against Israel. A 'Charter of Joint National Action' was arrived at, and a joint defense pact was supposed to 'provide the groundwork for complete military union.' But nothing ever came of this--Syria wanted military support from Iraq, including the financing of arms purchases, but not any merger of the two armies. Syria also balked at unifying the two Ba'ath parties. Furthermore, the Iraqis wanted a unitary state; the Syrians nothing more than a loose federation. Finally, the Iranian revolution gave the Syrians an alternative to an alliance with Iraq. Soon Iraqi-Syrian relations returned to a state of open conflict.

"One final point on the 'unity' moves of 1978-9: both superpowers opposed them (as did most Arab regimes). The US viewed a union of two 'radical' Arab states as a threat to Israel and to Western interests in the Middle East. More interesting is that the USSR while not opposed to better relations among its Arab allies, opposed any close union. Evgenii Primakov, then director of the Institute for Middle East Studies at the Soviet Academy of Sciences warned at the congress of the (pro-Assad) Syrian Communist Party in early 1979 that any such union would entail increasing openings to the West. What he did not say, but doubtless had in mind, was that a union of the two countries would have enhanced their bargaining power vis-a-vis the USSR.

"For a detailed discussion of the Iraq-Syrian conflict, see a book on which I have heavily relied here: Eberhard Kienle, *Ba'th v. Ba'th: The conflict between Syria and Iraq 1968-1989 (1990)."

https://soc.history.what-if.narkive.com/jOD2zzfI/iraq-and-syria-unite-in-1979#post4
 
Top