Ricardolindo
Banned
What if Saddam had not invaded Iran in 1980? Besides butterflying away the Gulf War, what effects would this have on the Middle East?
Last edited:
if this happens in 1980, then it will be the final kick in the teeth to Carter's administration... yet one more debacle in the ME on his watch.Then again, with no Iran War, perhaps they can invade Kuwait instead, and this time, get away with it.
I don't buy it. The demographics that they'd be dealing with by the time of the Arab Spring would be pretty daunting, and yes, even by 1980, Saddam was clearly practicing ethnoreligious favoritism and discrimination.Iraq better off without the decades long wars and international isolation of the 1990s. Saddam or one of his sons would still be in power in Iraq to this day.
Without the conflicts of 1980s, the international isolation of the 1990s and early 2000s along with the still ongoing civil war. The country will be far more prosperous than otl less of a reason to revolt and different demographics. A close approximation might be that of Gaddafi which would have destroyed the rebels without NATO intervention. However in otl Iraqis did revolt against Saddam after two disastrous war which left Iraqi military gutted and still lost in within a month.The demographics that they'd be dealing with by the time of the Arab Spring would be pretty daunting, and yes, even by 1980, Saddam was clearly practicing ethnoreligious favoritism and discrimination.
If Iraq is not at war with Iran, such a strike might not be a one off, but lead to a sustained exchange of aerial warfare with Israel. And Saddam was hankering for war of some kind; perhaps he would send an expeditionary force to Lebanon, after dealing with Kuwait.
I don't doubt that Israel comes out ahead in any direct confrontation.The Iraqi army could barely handle mobs of disorganized light infantry. The Israeli's would take any punch Saddam threw at them and slice it off at the wrist.
And I FEAR What would happen if Saddam decided to employ chemical weapons.
If anything, the demographics would be worse. Saddam's hording of resources for the Tikrit region and to a lesser extent, the Northern and Western Iraqi Sunni population, that made up the backbone of his bureaucracy and the Republican Guard units had an expansionary impact on the share of the population of Iraqi Sunnis. I'm not just talking about things like actions like Dujail and Halabja, either. If you look at who had food and who didn't, it was obvious that there was a correlation with Saddam's perceived support base in an area. What this means, basically, is that in an Arab Spring Scenario, the Shiites aren't leaderless and are a lot less likely to be malnourished and declining as a share of the population. Now, does he still gas the Kurds? Yeah, probably. But the half cocked Shiite revolt of '91 that sent much of its leadership into exile or to death, is also precluded.Without the conflicts of 1980s, the international isolation of the 1990s and early 2000s along with the still ongoing civil war. The country will be far more prosperous than otl less of a reason to revolt and different demographics. A close approximation might be that of Gaddafi which would have destroyed the rebels without NATO intervention. However in otl Iraqis did revolt against Saddam after two disastrous war which left Iraqi military gutted and still lost in within a month.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011)#First_weeks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq
Then again, with no Iran War, perhaps they can invade Kuwait instead, and this time, get away with it. Doing so in 1990 was flipping off an empowered and confident western consensus, and it was unwise. In 1980, eh, not so sure about that. The British probably get mad, but what are they going to do alone?
What happens to Osirak? There are a lot of debates about how close it was to being up and running, and what it was really being used for. Apparently, captured documents after Saddam's ouster show that the Israelis might have been more spot on than they were thought to have been at the time about what Osirak meant long term.
If Iraq is not at war with Iran, such a strike might not be a one off, but lead to a sustained exchange of aerial warfare with Israel. And Saddam was hankering for war of some kind; perhaps he would send an expeditionary force to Lebanon, after dealing with Kuwait.
The more prosperous a society the lower the birthrateIf anything, the demographics would be worse.
that made up the backbone of his bureaucracy and the Republican Guard units had an expansionary impact on the share of the population of Iraqi Sunnis.
Are you referring to the 1990s malnourishment because that was post 1991 and do you have a source declining share Arab Shia or higher Arab Sunni birthrate for the 1980s or 1970s because that period time would best metric.the Shiites aren't leaderless and are a lot less likely to be malnourished and declining as a share of the population.
Source ?The Libyan Air Force was almost out of fuel, and the situation for his one effective mechanized brigade wasn't much better
He had the city surrounded and without no fly zone or the Nato intervention later his air force could pounded the city. It was just a matter of time.and there was no guarantee at all that even had Gaddafi taken Benghazi, that the rebellion would have been squashed,
Gulf war isn't happening without debts from Iran-Iraq war, disputes over oil production, and April Glaspie statement .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#Background
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie#United_States_Ambassador_to_Iraq
Same thing without April Glaspie comments, Saddam has no reason to believe that US won't intervene and without the Iran-Iraq war, Iran is still a threat.What do you think, now?