Saddam's invasion of KSA

nastle

Banned
Given that there are large populations of Shia Muslims in the east, and it's a region in which the Iranian regime had an interest, what would Iran's response have been to this?
interesting question but at that time iran wouldnt have cared for the arab shias ( afterall iraqi shias stoutly defended basra and didnt desert en masse as ayatollah hoped) they would likely just watch the 2 big sunni powers collide

Would it have been feasible for the Iraqis to reach Medina and Mecca? If the Americans had tried to remove the Iraqis from these areas there could have been a strong propaganda value for Saddam with the 'Zionist forces' attacking Islam's two holiest cities
Would the saudis fight for Mecca and Medina that is another question

However I dont think saddam had the capability to make a blitzkrieg like dash thru the nejed desert and take the twin cities AND hold them as well.Doing so would severely outstrech his supply lines and cause a lot of command and control problems.
 

loughery111

Banned
maybe because it's really debatable just where the allied forces would build up... Turkey? Syria? Yemen?

There's no question; we WOULD build up, unless you think the United States and the West can allow one man to control the oil reserves of Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and ultimately Qatar and the UAE? It'd likely have to be the northern route out of Turkey and the southwestern from Jordan, simultaneously, while arming the Kurds to the teeth to keep the Iraqi Army tied up in knots. With Saudi Arabia in Iraqi hands, it's not a matter of "will we intervene," but rather "how will we intervene and with how much force?"
 

nastle

Banned
There's no question; we WOULD build up, unless you think the United States and the West can allow one man to control the oil reserves of Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and ultimately Qatar and the UAE? It'd likely have to be the northern route out of Turkey and the southwestern from Jordan, simultaneously, while arming the Kurds to the teeth to keep the Iraqi Army tied up in knots. With Saudi Arabia in Iraqi hands, it's not a matter of "will we intervene," but rather "how will we intervene and with how much force?"
Agreed
I think the biggest buildup would be in the port cities of bahrain, Qatar , UAE and Uman.Not just to push to saddam back to atleast prevent these from falling in his hands as well.I highly doubt saddam could hold more territory than that.Even holding ALL of KSA would be impossible for saddam he just does not have enough military muscle also remember that his army bankrupt and likely does not have enough resources for prolonged operations even against gulf militaries let alone western allies.

One big winner would be Iran, they might be tempted to offer the western allies help in defeating saddam in exchange for lifting of sanctions.
 
interesting question but at that time iran wouldnt have cared for the arab shias ( afterall iraqi shias stoutly defended basra and didnt desert en masse as ayatollah hoped) they would likely just watch the 2 big sunni powers collide

I think they would, they had been agitating the Shia population in the Eastern Provinces since the Revolution and sending preachers there, and when the Iraqis had invaded Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iran had improved their relations in the face of a common enemy. I think the big question is whether the Iranians would be willing to risk a second round with Iraq only two years after finishing the first, especially as it would look like they were supporting the Great Satan.

It'd likely have to be the northern route out of Turkey and the southwestern from Jordan, simultaneously

Jordan at the time was so heavily reliant on Iraq economically that it did not even support action against them in OTL's Gulf War, so it might not be possible for them without invading Jordan. Syria, which Saddam had called for to withdraw from Lebanon, was part of OTL's coalition, so could be a possible staging post for the invasion, especially if the target is Baghdad, with forces in Qatar or the United Arab Emirates to prevent further advances and displace Iraqi forces in Saudi Arabia.
 

elkarlo

Banned
The 101st Airborne and 82nd Airborne get badly beat up, suffering thousands of casualties while slowing the Iraqi advance. By the time the 24th Mech shows up, and a couple of aircraft carriers have arrived to bomb the crap out of the Iraqis, the advance into Saudi Arabia is halted. A Marine expeditionary force then lands behind Iraqi lines (maybe near Khafji, oddly enough) to cut the enemy off from his supplies. Throw in another division or two, including some British and French units, and the Iraqi Army dies a very painful death in northern Saudi Arabia.

Bottom line, many more American troops die than IOTL, but the defeat of the Iraqi Army is much more final. And Saddam Hussein's days in power will be finished.

What about the additional damage to oil fields, and the cost of oil?
 
you guys might want to look at a map and Iraq's performance in the Iran Iraq war before assuming they'll be able to conquer all of KSA.

24lm25c.jpg
[/IMG]
 
you guys might want to look at a map and Iraq's performance in the Iran Iraq war before assuming they'll be able to conquer all of KSA.

Not all of the KSA. As the OP stated:

If saddam's army had not stopped in Kuwait but gone on to invade the eastern provinces of KSA what would have been the outcome

The entirety of the Eastern Province has a population comparable to that of Kuwait, and the Iraqis will probably stop short of conquering all of the Eastern Province, which also contains the Rub' al Khali. Instead they would aim for the oil supplying areas and dig in.
 

loughery111

Banned
Jordan at the time was so heavily reliant on Iraq economically that it did not even support action against them in OTL's Gulf War, so it might not be possible for them without invading Jordan. Syria, which Saddam had called for to withdraw from Lebanon, was part of OTL's coalition, so could be a possible staging post for the invasion, especially if the target is Baghdad, with forces in Qatar or the United Arab Emirates to prevent further advances and displace Iraqi forces in Saudi Arabia.

Hm, right you are. I was projecting modern attitudes and geopolitics onto the Gulf War era, assuming that Jordan was still the least dysfunctional and generally firmest American ally among the Arab states. So the western route out of Syria looks more plausible, I suppose... but that requires crossing the damned Empty Quarter. Sure, we can do it, but it's going to be a pain in the ass. On the flip side, the Iraqis cannot do it at all, so that'll be useful.
 
So the western route out of Syria looks more plausible, I suppose... but that requires crossing the damned Empty Quarter. Sure, we can do it, but it's going to be a pain in the ass. On the flip side, the Iraqis cannot do it at all, so that'll be useful.

Couldn't they advance along the Euphrates? It is after all, the one of the major routes into Iraq from Syria, and heads straight for Baghdad. The main problem I see with that plan is that there's a bit of a bottleneck around Ramadi/between Lakes Habbaniyah and Tharthar, and advance would have to go right through the Sunni Triangle. Presumably the Gulf wouldn't be inaccessible and they could land at the Shatt al-Arab as in 2003?
 

loughery111

Banned
Couldn't they advance along the Euphrates? It is after all, the one of the major routes into Iraq from Syria, and heads straight for Baghdad. The main problem I see with that plan is that there's a bit of a bottleneck around Ramadi/between Lakes Habbaniyah and Tharthar, and advance would have to go right through the Sunni Triangle. Presumably the Gulf wouldn't be inaccessible and they could land at the Shatt al-Arab as in 2003?

We could advance down the Euphrates... but I wouldn't want to do so; it plays to every advantage the Iraqi Army can muster, or at least negates most of those the US forces will bring into play.

Crossing the Empty Quarter would be logistically difficult, especially with the propensity of sandstorms in mid-summer; the Shamal is rather more frequent then, and it's doubtful that the US could build up forces for this offensive sooner than summer of 1991, without the easy staging offered by the Gulf States and with more attention being paid to protecting the UAE and Qatar.

However, that option is downright attractive compared to the potential costs of fighting our way down the Euphrates, straight through the most urbanized and Sunni-dominated areas of Iraq. We saw in 2004-7 that urban combat is not something to which we can easily apply our strengths in technology, artillery, air support, and logistics.

Hopefully the US realizes ITTL that it's better to skirt the area, kicking the Iraqi Army's ass whenever it dares show itself in the desert, cutting it off from its conquests and the garrisons holding them, and only THEN moving in concentrated force to take Baghdad and behead the dragon. And, let's face it, we WOULD be removing the Baathist government from power ITTL; it's proven itself far too great a threat to even consider allowing it to continue governing a country.

As for amphibious landings at the Shatt al-Arab... I honestly don't know if they'd be worth it. It seems to me that that kind of operation should only be carried out in conjunction with a major land advance nearby, so we wouldn't want to deploy forces there until the northern/western prong of our advance is nearly in a position to support them. At that point the logistical effort required might not be justified, IMO, unless we need to be assured of taking the local oil infrastructure intact. In any case, even if attempted, it will not be a beachhead for a major ground advance, but a surgical strike to capture and defend the local infrastructure until relieved.
 
Not all of the KSA. As the OP stated:



The entirety of the Eastern Province has a population comparable to that of Kuwait, and the Iraqis will probably stop short of conquering all of the Eastern Province, which also contains the Rub' al Khali. Instead they would aim for the oil supplying areas and dig in.

so why is everyone talking about Turkey and Syria and the Gulf States and advance up the Empty Quarter ?

obvious place to build up troops - THE REST OF KSA. ie Riyadh and Jeddah

and then cut the iraqis to peices along that long front line that they now have from Kuwait to Dharan
 

Eurofed

Banned
For those that may be interested, I started a thread about "WI no independent Kuwait", here, listing several PoDs by which Kuwait may be an internationally-recognized part of Iraq in 1990. This would fit quite nicely with the present thread's PoD, and explain why Iraq-Kuwait is directly invading Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province in the first place.
 
so why is everyone talking about Turkey and Syria and the Gulf States and advance up the Empty Quarter ?

Because if Iraq had invaded Saudi Arabia the mission wouldn't have been merely ejecting Iraqi forces from occupied regions, but also to remove Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist regime, as they had proven unstable leaders in an economically important region.
 
Because if Iraq had invaded Saudi Arabia the mission wouldn't have been merely ejecting Iraqi forces from occupied regions, but also to remove Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist regime, as they had proven unstable leaders in an economically important region.

not seeking to get in an argument here but that's putting the cart before the horse.

the mission is to defend the rest of KSA and eject the Iraqis from the KSA and Kuwait, THEN you can talk about invading Iraq.

besides as I'm trying to point out , the Iraqis defensive position in Eastern Province is untenable. a nice left hook aimed at Kuwait leaves the bulk of the Iraqi army cut off .

at that point there'd be noone left to defend Iraq proper.
 
Syria and yemen is out of question, no real logistics support here

obvious bases would be qatar, bahrain and UAE as a springboard to launch attacks on iraq

I doubt that saddam would venture far from the eastern coastal provinces, since he lacks good logistic support.

KSA has a significant airforce
60 F-15C/D and 20 tornado ADV vs iraqi 20 mig-29 , 80 Mirage F1, 25 mig-25
would they slow down the iraqis ?


There is a strong point to that, since KSA has a very deep strategic depth. If even the Iraqi armored column will reach Jubail, the RSAF will surely pose the main opposing force to slow them down.

However, if Saddam's Air Force was able to strike the Saudi 3Cs and RSAF at the onset of the invasion, then maybe the Saudi government will have no choice but to allow the Iraqis all the way down to Dammam, then go on the countrstrike.
 
What about the additional damage to oil fields, and the cost of oil?

The main oil field would be Ghawar, which is southwest of Al-Khobar towards Al-Hassa. Before the Iraqi column will reach this, I am sure the Saudis would have formed a defensive line in Jubail, and then in Dammam.

The first critical area that the Iraqis will get to would be Ras Tanura, where the oil terminal is. However, since KSA's oil infrastructure is quite developed, I think oil would have been pumped towards the Red Sea instead of Ras Tanura.

The price of oil would be psychological only.
 
not seeking to get in an argument here but that's putting the cart before the horse.

the mission is to defend the rest of KSA and eject the Iraqis from the KSA and Kuwait, THEN you can talk about invading Iraq.

besides as I'm trying to point out , the Iraqis defensive position in Eastern Province is untenable. a nice left hook aimed at Kuwait leaves the bulk of the Iraqi army cut off .

at that point there'd be noone left to defend Iraq proper.


I tend to think that if a coalition of several hundred thousand troops starts to roll up on Baghdad, you get a pretty strong motivation to pull as many troops out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to halt the allied advance inside of Iraq. Thus hitting two birds with one stone.
 
Top