SOVIET IRAQ

What if in 1990 rhw soviets launch a coup iraq? Say Gorbachev didnt come to power and a hardline communist did. The coup is successful and new iraqi leadership invade Kuwait with soviet support. How would the us and nato respond?
 
1) The coup would fail because there is no group able to overthrow Saddam at the time. In order to get to the point where that is possible, you need a far earlier POD.

2) The Soviet collapse was inevitable at that point. Gorbachev reformed because the Communist elite knew some kind of reform was essential. The Soviet Union might last a bit longer, but the chance of it collapsing violently instead of peacefully would increase a lot. By 1990, the Soviets were not in any position to project power - IOTL they even had to abandon Afghanistan.

3) Soviet support of an Iraqi invasion would be mainly limited to diplomacy, especially at the UN. Rather than go through the UN and create an international coalition under UN auspices, the US just would have used the existing US alliances in the area to respond. NATO would probably not be invoked, but it would be put on some kind of alert. Turkey might enter the coalition though and launch an attack from the north. Instead of leaving the ruler in power, the Gulf States and Egypt may insist a new regime installed, perhaps the Baathists overthrown by the Communists.
 
Why would the Soviets stage a coup in Iraq in 1990? The Cold War was basically over, and the Soviets were struggling just to stay afloat. They don't have the time or the energy to try and expand their influence.
 
Guys it is called alternate history for a reason! Just say all the problems went away. Yes it is asb but this is just to get the scenario voing. Jeez.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
Guys it is called alternate history for a reason! Just say all the problems went away. Yes it is asb but this is just to get the scenario voing. Jeez.

"just say all the problems went away".
I can assure you that with such notions, any TL on this basis or another will get shot down very fast.
Moreover, I respectfully suggest that you reconsider what you view to be alternate history because it doesn't seem to be what others consider it to be.
 
Guys it is called alternate history for a reason! Just say all the problems went away. Yes it is asb but this is just to get the scenario voing. Jeez.

That's why there's an ASB forum.

To make this minimally credible, let's say that Saddam, rather than being a Ba'athist, is more like Qaddafi - essentially an Arab nationalist socialist - and falls in line in a similar fashion. A couple of things happen. First, the 1979 revolution in Iran never happens because the US would not risk losing two states in the Gulf particularly with a Syria/Iraq axis. Second, the US probably would have expanded its influence in the Gulf with perhaps a formal treaty with Kuwait and/or Saudi Arabia that included at least a small US presence - enough to put US troops in harms way and warrant an automatic intervention. Finally, even if this isnt the case, the Soviets would keep their dogs in line and not allow Soviet Iraq to be so reckless. If if they did anyway - see Vietnam in 1979. They didnt exactly come to Vietnam's rescue despite a formal alliance.
 
So put this on the asb forum?

If you wished for people to discuss the implications and reactions of a Soviet coup rather than arguing over how that can even be achieved, you probably should. Because such a thing can't plausibly be done, not without making a lot of changes that would make the world less recognizable than the situation in our timeline.
 
Top