Middle to Long term effects of a nuclear war in the Middle East

Okay, so the premise of the scenario is:
  • The Warsaw Pact, through some kind of economic reforms or something like that, hangs on, and the Cold War keeps going (I know it's kind of ASB but that's not the point).
  • China, while friendlier to the West than the USSR, is not to keen to collaborate with them. Still, China is not powerful or influential enough to form a 3rd Bloc.
  • Venezuela gets coup'd by some Chavez substitute (or Chavez himself if that's plausible) in 1993, and gets a leftist government supported by the USSR. This increases East-West tension.
  • Hussein still kind of lose the Iran-Iraq war. To recover lost prestige he tries invading Kuwait in 1990, thinking that the USSR will support him. This doesn't happen and he gets a beating. The USSR kind of abandons Irak and instead approaches Syria (which has allways been a more close ally than Saddam). Saddam, out of pride rejects more dealings with the USSR. China kind of replaces the Soviets, but having neither their political influence nor money they remain in good terms rather than being close allies.
  • To counter Saudi influence in the Gulf now that Irak and them are on bad terms, the USSR supports Iran. Iran and Syria are already on good terms so this doesn't hurt their relations with the Syrians. Iran is also an enemy of Israel and the West, and looks to deestabilize the "heretic" Saudis. Keep in mind though that both sides view this relationship as one born out of necessity more than anything.
  • To try solving the Afghan mess the USSR resorts to army raids and bombing raids in the Pakistani Tribal Areas 1995. This SEVERELY strains their relations with the West, but a major conflict with either NATO or Pakistan is avoided. The Mujahedeen are weakened, and India approaches the Soviet Bloc due to their shared enemy Pakistan. Afghanistan is not a good place to live, but at least is somewhat pacified (if only in the cities and major roads).
  • The Iranians get the Bomb in 2008/2009 (somehow). They have a small arsenal of 70-80 small yield bombs. The Saudis got an arsenal from the Pakistanis little later (I know it's not very plausible but...).
So, with this scenario, we get to 2014. Saddam is still in power in Irak, but he sank the country into international isolation and the economy got really bad due to this (the West gets his oil form the Saudis and the Gulf, the East from Iran and, even if he had a trading partner the war of 1990 left him with a country with almost no infrastructure). He still burns the oil wells of Kuwait and the south during the war, so he really hasn't much to sell. To survive mounting dissidence he turns to more and more repressive policies at home, turning into a Middle Eastern North Korea.
In 2014 he's killed by a Shi'a militant. The country quickly descents into turmoil. The Iranis and the Syrians (backed by the USSR) intervene in behalf of the Shi'a. The Saudis feel that they are getting encircled and intervene. The Kurds declare independence in the north.
So now Irak is a 3 way battlefield between Iran and Syria, the Saudis and other Gulf States and the Kurds. After some months of conventional fighting through Mesopotamia the Iranians break through and invade Saudi Arabia proper. The Saudis panic and the result is a three way nuclear war between the Saudis, the Iranians and the Israelis (who fired at both sides to make sure they had no more nukes left). The Middle East collapse, the only surviving states being Israel (who got "just" Tel Aviv and Haifa nuked), Oman, South Yemen, Egypt and Turkey (due to being neutral).
Now, after that VERY long setup the question is: what are the middle to long effects on world economy and politics?
(Sorry for not being able to sumarize).
 
1) The Soviets are highly unlikely to back the Iranians and the Iranians hated the Soviets almost as much as America. Even if Iran becomes a client state, they are not likely to be any more than a customer of the Soviets' defense industry.

2) The United States, way back under FDR, committed itself to Saudi Arabia's defense. As such there is no need for the Saudi's to panic. Further, with US backing, they dont need to intervene in an Iraqi war. They're better off sitting back and profiting from the now high price of oil and letting the US intervene.

3) I highly doubt either the Iranians or Saudis would have the logistical capability, or frankly the economy, to pull off what you're suggesting. Proxy wars work because they are cheaper and require less manpower.

So, your scenario doesnt really work to well. But, if you are going with pure fiction (you might need some more work here) and just want the consequences:

1) Syria, Iraq, and Iran survive even if parts of them are glowing. There are not enough nukes with enough megatonnage to outright destroy these states, IMO. And remember, some of those nukes will be destroyed on the ground.
2) The price of oil is $300+. Major global recession due to supply shortages. Probably takes a couple of years to work that out.
3) If Israel loses Tel Aviv and Haifa, they probably lose outright. Why is Israel nuking and being nuked in this scenario? You're missing a few points - much better to let your enemies destroy each other than enter the fray.
4) You have a humanitarian nightmare in the gulf states and Jordan.
 
1) The Soviets are highly unlikely to back the Iranians and the Iranians hated the Soviets almost as much as America. Even if Iran becomes a client state, they are not likely to be any more than a customer of the Soviets' defense industry.

Well, here I thought that they collaborate with a Deal with the Devil approach: they don't like each other, but they have common enemies and there's more potential gain in collaborating between them than in confrontation. Obviously a pragmatist in power in Teheran could help things out.
And about backing the Iranians I don't see why this is so unreasonable. To begin with it's not the kind of backing that Eastern European states get, it's more like providing under-the-table military support and vetoing UN resolutions against them. Politics make strange bedfellows afterall.

2) The United States, way back under FDR, committed itself to Saudi Arabia's defense. As such there is no need for the Saudi's to panic. Further, with US backing, they dont need to intervene in an Iraqi war. They're better off sitting back and profiting from the now high price of oil and letting the US intervene.
About that one... Yes, this part of the scenario is not very plausible... I must think of a way the Saudis don't wait for american help. Maybe the americans are in some quagmire far away from there, or are distracted by a political crisis at home or something like that. What's sure here is that, as you said, the Saudis have more probabilities to win if they wait for the USA, and they know that. If somebody comes with a way for them to not be able to help to make this work out please say it.

3) I highly doubt either the Iranians or Saudis would have the logistical capability, or frankly the economy, to pull off what you're suggesting. Proxy wars work because they are cheaper and require less manpower.
Well, about the Saudis I don't know, but the Iranians surely have. They fought against Iraq, which has more or less the same population than Saudi Arabia for 8 years. Here I'm talking about some months of counterinsurfency in Iraq and some more against the Saudi army.
Also, the Saudis may not WANT to intervene, but they may think that they are being FORCED TO. They may support Sunni insurgence against the Iranians in Iraq, but when/if the Iranians supress them (which in the southern Shi'a regions along the coast, the ones that matter to Saudi Arabia, wouldn't even be that relevant, being pretty outnumbered against the Shi'a AFAIK), would they prefer to risk living with the Iranians at their doorsteps or prefer trying to get a buffer zone between them? I didn't think about it as the Saudis entering Iraq guns a-blazing, more like what Turkey does now in Syria: get a buffer zone around the border. From there we could get a skirmish or to that could escalate...


1) Syria, Iraq, and Iran survive even if parts of them are glowing. There are not enough nukes with enough megatonnage to outright destroy these states, IMO. And remember, some of those nukes will be destroyed on the ground.
I can see Iran surviving, but Syria and Iraq I think that at least would get civil war-like conditions. After all, much less was needed some years ago for the place to sink in the toilet. If the major population centers, while mot obliterated are damaged that much, without a central authority or something resembling it...
2) The price of oil is $300+. Major global recession due to supply shortages. Probably takes a couple of years to work that out.
Well, the mentions of Venezuela going pro-soviet and pre-war tensions between East and West were meant to deny oil to the West. I mean, the Venezuelans would not sell it to the Americans, nor would the Soviets. The Middle East has just blown itself to pieces, so I don't think extracting oil from here is viable. Which alternatives would it have to the economy? Also, how would the european states take the MASSIVE migrant wave that is coming their way? Would unrest result from the large number of migrants and the deteriorating economic situation?
3) If Israel loses Tel Aviv and Haifa, they probably lose outright. Why is Israel nuking and being nuked in this scenario? You're missing a few points - much better to let your enemies destroy each other than enter the fray.
Well, I'm sure that the Saudis and the Iranians could think that way; that the winner would be neither of them, but Israel. So why not try at least weakening them for, after the war, things being more levelled? Also they could not even get the chance to attack Israel. I think that the Israelis would, at the first sign the war is escalating so much, attack preemptively (and wipe out Syria while they're at it, just to secure one of their borders). Israel surely would know that nukes are coming their way, even if they didn't actively participate in the war. And surely would, given the chance, destroy potential nuclear armed rogue states before they are born, ensuring that they collapse and don't get away with just some (glowing) brushes and scars (although I think that Iran would still survive as a more or less coherent entity).
 
> Saddam becoming a pariah
> Russian victory in Afghanistan
> Soviet - Iranian rapprochement
> Chávez takes Venezuela in ‘92
> Iran and KSA get nukes
> Three-way nuclear war in the Mideast

Get out of my head this is too close to my scenario

I don’t think your overall scenario is too implausible, all things considered.

I’m going to mostly agree with Dunning Krueger with one exception: I doubt Syria, Iran, or the KSA would survive as coherent political entities after the war. They’d probably collapse trying to deal with casualties, fallout, seperatists, etc. In the aftermath.

OTL 2010s US is getting pretty near energy independent. With the added pressures of this timeline (commie Venezuela and a strongly Soviet-influenced ME) they might have felt pressured to achieve that early. Don’t know about Western Europe and East Asia, though.

You’d probably see a right-wing surge after this, thanks to the migrant crisis, accusations of Soviet aggression, etc.

I keep getting interrupted by catfish
 
Last edited:
> Saddam becoming a pariah
> Russian victory in Afghanistan
> Soviet - Iranian rapprochement
> Chávez takes Venezuela in ‘92
> Iran and KSA get nukes
> Three-way nuclear war in the Mideast

Get out of my head this is too close to my scenario

I don’t think your overall scenario is too implausible, all things considered.

I’m going to mostly agree with Dunning Krueger with one exception: I doubt Syria, Iran, or the KSA would survive as coherent political entities after the war. They’d probably collapse trying to deal with casualties, fallout, seperatists, etc. In the aftermath


I keep getting interrupted by catfish
I thought that Syria would descend into a free for all civil war. Iran would be the only country (apart from Israel) that survives in a more or less coherent manner, but would in the short to middle term become rather dependent on the soviets just to keep existing (at least this is what I think)

Also, if tou ever write down your scenario I would be pleased to read it!
 

Kaze

Banned
The bad news first - lots of death not only in the Middle East but the rest of the world.
Now for the good news...
People won't fight over a nuclear fallout zone - finally after generations of millennia, peace in the Middle East.
 
Top