Plausibility Check: An Iraqi Annexation of Syrian Territory During the Arab Spring?

If Saddam Hussein would have still been in power in Iraq during the Arab Spring (such as if Al Gore would have won the U.S. Presidency in 2000), then exactly how likely would Saddam Hussein have been to try annexing some Syrian territory during the Arab Spring?

Any thoughts on this?
 
First, the logistics are terrible thanks to the Gulf War, sanctions, and airstrikes. As a show of force, Iraq tried to move some divisions to the Syrian border in the pre-Iraq War 2000s and simply couldn't even without any direct opposition. Collapsing sanctions and rearmament would mitigate this, but it would also mean a lot more butterflies.

Second, the Iraqi armed forces would have to wage an offensive expeditionary campaign on yet another Saddam adventure-I don't think the enthusiasm would be that great.

Third, a more direct option is to simply stop/hinder Iranian resupply. The Iraqi Air Force still exists and can block off much of its airspace (Although it would be hideously ironic if the Iranian transports could safely make it through the Kurdistan no-fly-zone enforced by the USAF.)

So I'm not seeing it-all there is is desert, a few nondescript cities, and oil fields that, assuming they aren't already destroyed, are still tiny compared to Iraq's own.
 
First, the logistics are terrible thanks to the Gulf War, sanctions, and airstrikes. As a show of force, Iraq tried to move some divisions to the Syrian border in the pre-Iraq War 2000s and simply couldn't even without any direct opposition.

OK.

Collapsing sanctions and rearmament would mitigate this, but it would also mean a lot more butterflies.

What about having the success of the 9/11 attacks be butterflied away, though? After all, I know that the Iraqi sanctions regime was already collapsing before 9/11.

Second, the Iraqi armed forces would have to wage an offensive expeditionary campaign on yet another Saddam adventure-I don't think the enthusiasm would be that great.

Couldn't some Iraqi Sunni Arabs be enthusiastic about placing more Sunni Arabs into Iraq in order to strengthen their and Saddam's power base within Iraq, though?

Third, a more direct option is to simply stop/hinder Iranian resupply. The Iraqi Air Force still exists and can block off much of its airspace (Although it would be hideously ironic if the Iranian transports could safely make it through the Kurdistan no-fly-zone enforced by the USAF.)

OK.

So I'm not seeing it-all there is is desert, a few nondescript cities, and oil fields that, assuming they aren't already destroyed, are still tiny compared to Iraq's own.

There is also the possible demographic benefits of annexing some or all of the Sunni Arab-majority parts of Iraq for Iraq's own Sunni Arab population as well as for Saddam Hussein himself. After all, as far as I know, Saddam Hussein's power base in Iraq consisted of Sunni Arabs.
 
Indeed, it is no coincidence that the current borders of the "ISIS Caliphate" in our TL look the way that they do. After all, the "ISIS Caliphate" controls most of the Sunni Arab-majority parts of both Syria and Iraq. Plus, like the leadership of the 'ISIS Caliphate," Saddam Hussein himself was certainly a Sunni Arab whose power base likewise consisted of Sunni Arabs.
 
What about having the success of the 9/11 attacks be butterflied away, though? After all, I know that the Iraqi sanctions regime was already collapsing before 9/11.

It was, but it's kind of a catch-22. Sanctions collapsing and rearming is likely to provoke, if not an outright Iraq War, the kind of air/missile campaign that Clinton had no problem ordering, especially if Saddam does something "interesting" again. Then it's back to square one.

Couldn't some Iraqi Sunni Arabs be enthusiastic about placing more Sunni Arabs into Iraq in order to strengthen their and Saddam's power base within Iraq, though?

Saddam wasn't really a sectarian leader except when it suited him. For most of his career he was a secular leader (and Iraq was heavily secularized for much of its history) and only turned to Sunni Islamism near the end as a form of political pandering.

This isn't to say he'd do absolutely nothing, but I can't see him openly annexing territory-definitely supplying Sunni insurgents in Syria, maybe deploying some badly-disguised troops or militias in support, blocking Iran to his best ability-but not an outright grab.
 
It was, but it's kind of a catch-22. Sanctions collapsing and rearming is likely to provoke, if not an outright Iraq War, the kind of air/missile campaign that Clinton had no problem ordering, especially if Saddam does something "interesting" again. Then it's back to square one.

If this missile campaign isn't followed by the imposition of new large-scale sanctions on Iraq, though, then I don't think that Saddam Hussein actually has much to worry about. Also, as far as I know, many countries actually wanted to resume doing business with Iraq before 9/11 in spite of their belief that Saddam Hussein allegedly had WMDs and was building nuclear weapons. Indeed, money sometimes speaks extremely loudly. ;)

Saddam wasn't really a sectarian leader except when it suited him. For most of his career he was a secular leader (and Iraq was heavily secularized for much of its history) and only turned to Sunni Islamism near the end as a form of political pandering.

Yes, but wouldn't Saddam Hussein have continued this pandering if he would have remained in power in Iraq?

This isn't to say he'd do absolutely nothing, but I can't see him openly annexing territory-definitely supplying Sunni insurgents in Syria, maybe deploying some badly-disguised troops or militias in support, blocking Iran to his best ability-but not an outright grab.

What about having Saddam Hussein trying to strike a "voluntary" deal with some of the Sunni Arab rebels in Syria for an Iraqi annexation of certain Sunni Arab-majority parts of Syria, though?
 
Also, in regards to an outright invasion of Iraq, it is worth noting that even with 9/11, it appears to have been primarily Bush (possible due to his daddy issues) and the neocons who were pushing for a U.S. invasion of Iraq (and then got most Americans to go along with them and to agree with them due to their extreme fear-mongering) in our TL. Thus, if Bush or a similar neocon-influenced Republican U.S. President is not in power in the U.S., and especially if the 9/11 attacks are butterflied away, then I certainly don't see the U.S. ever invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein unless Saddam Hussein does something extremely over the line, such as invading and trying to annex oil-rich Kuwait again.
 
Also, wasn't Saddam Hussein's post-1991 Faith Campaign at least partly responsible for the current large-scale sectarian tensions in Iraq today?
 
Top