Mushroom over Tehran, 1988

[robertp6165]

Let's assume the following (arguments about how unlikely it all is are beside the point...this is the POD). For whatever reason, the 1981Israeli strike against the Osirak reactor in Iraq either is not made, or that it fails. Following the July 1982 invasion of Iraq by Iran, Saddam Hussein makes the decision to pursue a nuclear weapons program for use against the Iranians. By early 1987, Osirak has produced enough plutonium for two bombs. It takes Iraqi scientists until early 1988 to actually produce a working bomb. Saddam uses this on Tehran in May 1988.

What are the results? Will Iran quit fighting and end the war on Iraq's terms? Will the United States be so eager to get into a war with Iraq in 1991, assuming that Saddam still proceeds with the invasion of Kuwait? Any other thoughts?

 

[ThomasG]

Let's assume the following (arguments about how unlikely it all is are beside the point...this is the POD). For whatever reason, the 1981Israeli strike against the Osirak reactor in Iraq either is not made, or that it fails. Following the July 1982 invasion of Iraq by Iran, Saddam Hussein makes the decision to pursue a nuclear weapons program for use against the Iranians. By early 1987, Osirak has produced enough plutonium for two bombs. It takes Iraqi scientists until early 1988 to actually produce a working bomb. Saddam uses this on Tehran in May 1988.

I take it Iran doesn't launch the Airstrike before the Israelis that destroyed the research labs for Osirak as in OTL.

The strike on Osirak was a semi-joint mission between Iran and Israel.

The Iranians struck first with Two F-4s that completely destroyed the Research Labs.

The Iranians then gave intel to the Israelis for their own strike.

Eliminate the Iranian strike on the research labs, then Saddam will have the bomb by 1985.

 

[robertp6165]

I take it Iran doesn't launch the Airstrike before the Israelis that destroyed the research labs for Osirak as in OTL.

The strike on Osirak was a semi-joint mission between Iran and Israel.

The Iranians struck first with Two F-4s that completely destroyed the Research Labs.

The Iranians then gave intel to the Israelis for their own strike.

Eliminate the Iranian strike on the research labs, then Saddam will have the bomb by 1985.

Lets assume the research labs are damaged, but not completely destroyed. This could be the reason why the bomb is delayed until 1988. We can also assume the Iranians don't cooperate with the Israelis.

 

[DuQuense]

After the bomb on Tehran, Iran continues fighting even harder,
so Sadamm tries to use it on the largest concentration of Iranian Troops

most of the Mid east blames the bombs on the US

 

[Hierophant]

Why? The US wasnt the ones who gave Saddam the technology.

It was France.

 

[LowLevelFunctionary]

Let's assume the following (arguments about how unlikely it all is are beside the point...this is the POD). For whatever reason, the 1981Israeli strike against the Osirak reactor in Iraq either is not made, or that it fails. Following the July 1982 invasion of Iraq by Iran, Saddam Hussein makes the decision to pursue a nuclear weapons program for use against the Iranians.

So there are two PODs? The war starts in 82, instead of 80 and is a clear sign of Iranian aggression?

I could certainly see Iraq getting a lot of sympathy. Many would see its nuclear retaliation as justified. After all, in this POD, Iran has waged a clear aggressive war against a smaller country, with the intention of changing its government and spreading Islamic fundamentalism across the Middle East.

Also, success against Iran would mean that an invasion of Kuwait would not need to take place so soon after the war. I'm fairly inclined to believe that Saddam would use the increased oil revenue to continue expanding the capabilities of his armed forces, as well as stockpile more nuclear weapons before attempting any direct annexation attempts. The opposite is also possible of course - it’s just that Iraq would not be in such a desperate financial situation and as such there would be no imminent need for an invasion of Kuwait - filtering away any Iraqi confrontation with the United States in 1991.

 

[Slacker]

There was also all the muddled diplomatic communications between Iraq and the US over the annexation in the first place-apparently the Iraqis went to the Americans for the wink'n'nudge over taking over Kuwait, and some idiot in the State Department going along with it.

Or am I mistaken? Iraq, after the last few years of shenanigans, is a bit fuzzy.

 

[panzerjay]

world freaks out
iraq becomes outlaw nation
iraq appeals to soviets
soviets supervise deconstruction of iraq nuclear program
soviets build bear bomber bases in iraq
whats next...who knows?

 

[LordKalvan]

How would be Iraq delivering the bomb to Tehran? I don't think they have any capacity of such a long strike.

Since in 1988 I was in tehran, I would not be certainly amused by this development.

 

[snerfuplz]

The Iraqis would most definetly be in hot water. i dont think most Arab nations would be happy with a nuclear Iraq so they'll invade. Isreal would defiently declare war or aid Iran and if Iraq launches any attack on Isreal they would nuke Iraq. USA also would be fearful of a Nuclear Iraq and support Iran. i don't think the USSR would want to get involved with Iraq.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

world freaks out
iraq becomes outlaw nation
iraq appeals to soviets
soviets supervise deconstruction of iraq nuclear program
soviets build bear bomber bases in iraq
whats next...who knows?

By 1988 the Soviets are not in much of a position to help the Iraqis, they have no shortage of internal problems to deal with.

 

[SunilTanna]

So there are two PODs? The war starts in 82, instead of 80 and is a clear sign of Iranian aggression?

I think he means the 1982 counter-invasion.

1982 was the year the Iranians drove the Iraqis out of Iran, and chased the into parts of Iraq.

 

[panzerjay]

How would be Iraq delivering the bomb to Tehran? I don't think they have any capacity of such a long strike.

Since in 1988 I was in tehran, I would not be certainly amused by this development.

they re just send in an fleet of bombers all but one with conventional arms north then south to tehran and cross their fingers

 

[NapoleonXIV]

There was also all the muddled diplomatic communications between Iraq and the US over the annexation in the first place-apparently the Iraqis went to the Americans for the wink'n'nudge over taking over Kuwait, and some idiot in the State Department going along with it.

Or am I mistaken? Iraq, after the last few years of shenanigans, is a bit fuzzy.

My understanding was always that Saddam had a go ahead from the US on taking one disputed oilfield, but he ate the whole thing.

In this scenario Israel nukes Iraq. The other arab nations, including Iran, declare undying jihad #42 against Israel, while secretly thanking them

 

[panzerjay]

By 1988 the Soviets are not in much of a position to help the Iraqis, they have no shortage of internal problems to deal with.

true. but a nuclear attack so close to their border at that time would have to spur the soviets to action . irregardless of the health of the state. who knows.....this may forestall the end of the soviet empire.

 

[LordKalvan]

they re just send in an fleet of bombers all but one with conventional arms north then south to tehran and cross their fingers

First, they need a fleet of bombers. Which is quite unlikely, since by 1982 almost the totality of their fighter-bombers (Iraq never had real bombers) had been shot down. Once we have overcome this smallish difficulty, IMHO the fighter bombers would not get beyond Ahwaz (as they never did OTL).
Rockets would not have enough payload, and in any case could not reach Tehran (a few rockets hit Esfahan in 1985 (?), but with small conventional warheads). The so-called "bombing of Tehran" consisted into one (1) fighter that came almost every night, flying at very high altitude, and dropping one (1) small rocket on the city, usually without even aiming it.
I should know because I was in Tehran during the war. It had nuisance value, but unless you were really unlucky damages were minimal (the first bloody time they came the rocket landed less than a kilometer from my house; it was the closest one during four years).

 

[panzerjay]

First, they need a fleet of bombers. Which is quite unlikely, since by 1982 almost the totality of their fighter-bombers (Iraq never had real bombers) had been shot down. Once we have overcome this smallish difficulty, IMHO the fighter bombers would not get beyond Ahwaz (as they never did OTL).
Rockets would not have enough payload, and in any case could not reach Tehran (a few rockets hit Esfahan in 1985 (?), but with small conventional warheads). The so-called "bombing of Tehran" consisted into one (1) fighter that came almost every night, flying at very high altitude, and dropping one (1) small rocket on the city, usually without even aiming it.
I should know because I was in Tehran during the war. It had nuisance value, but unless you were really unlucky damages were minimal (the first bloody time they came the rocket landed less than a kilometer from my house; it was the closest one during four years).

so they would need a jet with a strong enough rack to "flip" a gravity bomb or send a pilot on a one way trip.

anyhow, would ve iraq had to like test a weapon before deploying one? or would they just chance it? an unexploded nuke in down town tehran.....

 

[Chengar Qordath]

true. but a nuclear attack so close to their border at that time would have to spur the soviets to action . irregardless of the health of the state. who knows.....this may forestall the end of the soviet empire.

I don't doubt the Soviets are going to have some kind of reaction to one of their neighbors being nuked, I'm just a touch skeptical about how much in the way of power projection they could do into Iraq when their empire in Eastern Europe is collapsing and the USSR itself is only a few years away from breakup. I don't think the USSR building bases in Iraq is going to solve the forces that brought everything crashing down in OTL.

 

[robertp6165]

So there are two PODs? The war starts in 82, instead of 80 and is a clear sign of Iranian aggression?

No, the war still starts in 1980 with an Iraqi invasion of Iran as per OTL. However, in OTL, the Iranians did not finally get the upper hand and push the Iraqis out of Iran, until 1982. That is what I was referring to. In OTL, since Osirak was bombed in 1981, Saddam did not have a really possible "nuclear option" to use against Iran. Now, in this ATL, he does, and seeing that the war is going against him, he orders it to be pursued.

 

[robertp6165]

How would be Iraq delivering the bomb to Tehran? I don't think they have any capacity of such a long strike.

Since in 1988 I was in tehran, I would not be certainly amused by this development.

They were developing a missile to carry it. The POD assumes they develop this in tandem with the bomb.