No Iran-Iraq War; its effects on Iraq?

CaliGuy

Banned
What would the effects of no Iran-Iraq War be on Iraq?

Specifically, I am thinking of a scenario where the Iran-Iraq War never occurs due to the fact that--with as late of a PoD as realistic possible--the 1979 Iranian Revolution is completely butterflied away.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?
 
The Middle East as a whole without a radical Iran. As for Iraq, they would be in a much stronger position. Because of there being no war, Saddam won't look to invade Kuwait, thus butterflying the Gulf War. Therefore, American opinion of Iraq is more calm, though the government may still see Saddam as a ruthless leader, but not on the levels of Gaddafi. It's likely that Saddam will continue reign over Iraq successfully, for the time being. With a Shah-led Iran, Arabic dictators, like Saddam, would likely be more inclined to help the Soviets destroy the Taliban insurgents. What happens in Iraq is speculative, since there will be no Gulf War or invasion in 2003. So whatever Iraq does afterward is up for imagination...., until the Arab Spring. No matter what specific decision is changed, there will be uprisings in Arabic countries and opposition will rise in demand for change. Saddam will not avoid this. Rebel groups, especially the Kurds, would likely rise to overthrow Saddam and take over Iraq. However, there is one significant change from OTL: ISIS. ISIS gained much support Iraq thanks to the fall of Saddam after the American invasion. Saddam would not have allowed ISIS to prosper in his country and would seek brutal ways to suppress, not even using chemical weapons. This doesn't mean that ISIS won't exist, but it'll likely be on a far smaller scale and less significant in the Middle Eastern chaos. Iraq will likely receive the backing of Russia, much like Putin supported Syria. America would fund the rebels, as the Western world looked at the Arab dictators with a general distain. What happens afterwards is uncertain.
 

Magical123

Banned
Well the Iraqis aren't at war for nearly ten years straight for one.

Perhaps their economy isn't as wrecked.

Saddam might not have to bring down the hammer on the Shia and Kurdish populations.

Perhaps Hussein can continue various public infrastructure and development projects, buying social capital and support from large amounts of the population.

Relations within the Iranians will still be tense and you might have occasional clashes over water and border demarcations-IIRC there was clashes in the 70s, there won't be a war without the Iranian revolution-unless Hussein decides to take the oil and free the Khuzestan Arabs regardless meaning America supports Iran and his head ends up on a pike.

Saddam will still try various schemes and diplomatic maneuvers to become "king of the Arab world" this might bring him into tension with the gulf states and Egypt.
 
Well the Iraqis aren't at war for nearly ten years straight for one.

Perhaps their economy isn't as wrecked.

Saddam might not have to bring down the hammer on the Shia and Kurdish populations.

Perhaps Hussein can continue various public infrastructure and development projects, buying social capital and support from large amounts of the population.

Relations within the Iranians will still be tense and you might have occasional clashes over water and border demarcations-IIRC there was clashes in the 70s, there won't be a war without the Iranian revolution-unless Hussein decides to take the oil and free the Khuzestan Arabs regardless meaning America supports Iran and his head ends up on a pike.

Saddam will still try various schemes and diplomatic maneuvers to become "king of the Arab world" this might bring him into tension with the gulf states and Egypt.
I think it was Gaddafi who proclaimed himself "king of Arab countries".
 
Could he possibly invade Syria during 1982 Muslim brotherhood uprisings and unite the two countries ?
Strong possibility of alliance with Iraq and Syria in the 2000s, as soon as it's settled that the two will never be able to unite. But the Baathist influence is dominant in both.
 
Strong possibility of alliance with Iraq and Syria in the 2000s, as soon as it's settled that the two will never be able to unite. But the Baathist influence is dominant in both.
if he is invading and successful wouldn't he be able to install his own puppet and annex the Syria in a treaty
 
if he is invading and successful wouldn't he be able to install his own puppet and annex the Syria in a treaty
Well then, he'll have a lot more work on his hands, having to suppress Syrian nationalists. But this act would only worsen the international image of Saddam and just convince America and he's too dangerous to lead Iraq.
 
Well then, he'll have a lot more work on his hands, having to suppress Syrian nationalists. But this act would only worsen the international image of Saddam and just convince America and he's too dangerous to lead Iraq.

Given he is attacking a soviet backed regime is the us even going to care , They might even support him. before the gulf war he wasn't seen in a bad light and What do you mean by Syrian nationalists ?
 

Magical123

Banned
Given he is attacking a soviet backed regime is the us even going to care , They might even support him. before the gulf war he wasn't seen in a bad light and What do you mean by Syrian nationalists ?
He means those who thinks Syria whatever it's ideaological or religious configuration remain an independent state.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Well the Iraqis aren't at war for nearly ten years straight for one.

Perhaps their economy isn't as wrecked.

Saddam might not have to bring down the hammer on the Shia and Kurdish populations.

Perhaps Hussein can continue various public infrastructure and development projects, buying social capital and support from large amounts of the population.

Relations within the Iranians will still be tense and you might have occasional clashes over water and border demarcations-IIRC there was clashes in the 70s, there won't be a war without the Iranian revolution-unless Hussein decides to take the oil and free the Khuzestan Arabs regardless meaning America supports Iran and his head ends up on a pike.

Saddam will still try various schemes and diplomatic maneuvers to become "king of the Arab world" this might bring him into tension with the gulf states and Egypt.
Frankly, most--if not all--of this sounds very realistic. :)

Also, out of curiosity--does Iraq become a massive immigration magnet in this TL like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states became in our TL (due to their massive oil reserves and resulting good economies)?
 
The idea of Iraq invading a Soviet-backed, Ba'athist client state with a very developed WMD program is something I'm skeptical of.
 

Magical123

Banned
Frankly, most--if not all--of this sounds very realistic. :)

Also, out of curiosity--does Iraq become a massive immigration magnet in this TL like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states became in our TL (due to their massive oil reserves and resulting good economies)?
I imagine its possible like the Gulf States once the infrastructure is developed the Iraqis will get live off of comfortable government jobs and pensions with foreigners-most likely from South Asia or Indonesia will do the manual labor.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I imagine its possible like the Gulf States once the infrastructure is developed the Iraqis will get live off of comfortable government jobs and pensions with foreigners-most likely from South Asia or Indonesia will do the manual labor.
OK.

Also, though, how exactly would this have affected the sectarian atmosphere in Iraq? Would there have been even less sectarianism due to greater diversity in Iraq? Or would foreigners have become the new scapegoats in Iraq if things ever began to go bad?
 
Top