Successful Merger of Syria and Iraq in 1979,How would War with Iran go

Had the 1979 unity talks between Syria and Iraq been successful ,With either Saddam or Assad taking power after al-bakr .

How would a Syria-Iraq war with Iran over Khuzestan go

Given Iran would have lost one of its key allies and arms suppliers and Iraq now has access to Syrian ports,troops and pipelines ,Would Iran still be as successful

I Assume some political solution to the Lebanese civil war leaving Lebanon as a buffer state against Israel would be likely
 
Much longer, much larger war, not only along the Iraq/Iran border but also in Lebanon as well. Add in Kurdish uprising and Shia terror attacks, nothing good.
 
"Syraq" might get earlier and stronger support from the USSR as it would undoubtedly be its chief ally in the Middle East, especially if the US is clearly beginning to side with Iran. It even invites the scenario of the USSR intervening with incursions into North Western and North Eastern Iran to support Syraqi assaults in Western and South Western Iran, though this probably depends on the level of, and early success of, Soviet involvement in Afghanistan (and possibly Poland). The regimes in Kuwait and Jordan probably have trouble sleeping at night with a united secular Syria-Iraq to their north. Lebanon would certainly be even more rocked by civil war and "Syraqi" intervention and would be a de facto 2nd front in the Syraqi-Iranian conflict. I'd give the advantage to the Syraqis, though it would depend on whether the Hussein faction, Assad faction, or some other new faction led them and what kind of campaign strategy and flexibility their commanders were given. Would make a really fascinating TL. Especially if it spiraled into a complex multi sided regional conflict with the gulf monarchies and Israel becoming directly entangled in it as well.
 

Anderman

Donor
I guess that there would be now "Syraq" at all because it would conquer Kuwait. Better access to the Persian Gulf, inhabitaded by arabs and it was 19th province of Iraq anyway (or so they think).

Well leadership of Israel will have insomnia too.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Had the 1979 unity talks between Syria and Iraq been successful ,With either Saddam or Assad taking power after al-bakr .

How would a Syria-Iraq war with Iran over Khuzestan go

Given Iran would have lost one of its key allies and arms suppliers and Iraq now has access to Syrian ports,troops and pipelines ,Would Iran still be as successful

I Assume some political solution to the Lebanese civil war leaving Lebanon as a buffer state against Israel would be likely
Given that Iran was able to take the war into Iraq for six years in our TL to the point that the U.S. essentially had to bail out Iraq, I think that Iran would still be very capable of adequately protecting itself in this TL. However, it is possible that Iran's leadership will decide not to extend the war into Iraq in this TL.
 
Would there necessarily be a war at all? Syraq might conceivably be run by the relatively pro-Iranian Assads. In this scenario, would Iran necessarily try to overthrow the new country's government?
 
Would there necessarily be a war at all? Syraq might conceivably be run by the relatively pro-Iranian Assads. In this scenario, would Iran necessarily try to overthrow the new country's government?
Assad allied with Iran as counterbalance to Iraq and an alternate for an alliance with Saddam and Iran got access to Lebanon and Arms from Syria. Iran Would seek to spread the revolution to the neighboring Arab nationalist state lead by a small Muslim sect and post revolutionary Iran is a temping target with the purges and internal chaos
 
The Arabs would still win I assume, perhaps a year earlier or so. The war is still a slog marked by baffling levels of incompetence on the Arab side and moderate levels of incompetence on the Iranian side plus their major supply issues.
 
This would be a great way to achieve break up, just like with Egypt. Syria would probably try to secede if Iraq dragged it into a brutal and drawn out war so soon after merging. When many thousands of young Syrian men and a lot of its budget got thrown into fighting a country with which it would otherwise have no quarrel, the new united state would be hard to justify to the Syrian people. All this is on top of the fact Syria had a different national identity, spoke a different dialect and was physically separated by Iraq by a significant distance of desert - all factors that made the stability of the union fragile to begin with.

And what sort of institutional power would the Syrian regions have in the union? If it was some kind of federation, they might be able to sort of veto the whole conflict before it got started.
 
It probably wouldn't go to war with Iran. That was very much an Iraqi concern, Syria wouldn't be interested. Moreover, they're going to have enough domestic trouble keeping together that starting a stupid foreign war would be ... ill advised.
 
And what sort of institutional power would the Syrian regions have in the union? If it was some kind of federation, they might be able to sort of veto the whole conflict before it got started.
The country would be a Baathist dictatorship lead by either Assad or Saddam , There would be no democracy
the new united state would be hard to justify to the Syrian people
Since the 1950s the Syrian governments have professed Arab nationalism
 
The country would be a Baathist dictatorship lead by either Assad or Saddam , There would be no democracy

Since the 1950s the Syrian governments have professed Arab nationalism
The merger of Syria with Egypt into the United Arab Republic actually occurred and it failed at a time when pan Arabism was very popular. In fact, it was so popular that Syria initiated this very union even though Cairo was to be the capital. In just a couple years the people grew to resent the relationship so much, that a enough of them rebelled and wrecked the project. And that was with Nasser, who was very well-respected throughout the Arab world at the time and the face of pan-Arabism itself, leading the nation!
 
In just a couple years the people grew to resent the relationship so much, that a enough of them rebelled and wrecked the project
Expect it was over lack of power sharing and the replacement of democracy with the a dictatorship and economic issues than a notion of a Separate Syrian people, None of which would apply with a Syrian-Iraq union you would either be expanding it with Assad or have a dictatorship of the majority Sunni population with Saddam .
 
Expect it was over lack of power sharing and the replacement of democracy with the a dictatorship and economic issues than a notion of a Separate Syrian people, None of which would apply with a Syrian-Iraq union you would either be expanding it with Assad or have a dictatorship of the majority Sunni population with Saddam .

I think that what matters most here is whether the Syrians think they're getting a raw deal compared to other people in the country and that they would therefore be better off if they left. Though they would see themselves and Iraqis both as arabs, they would still see themselves as the Syrian Arabs within Iraq-Syria for quite some time. Iraq is dragging Syria into a total war in this scenario with high casualties and high costs in the name of territory that is relatively far away from Syria. Unless this war is really popular, and I don't know why it would be, I'd say that constitutes a problematic issue with power sharing (fulfilling an Iraqi territorial objective) and with economic issues (putting the money into this cause). It greatly increases the probability that a lot of Syrians will want to give up on the project before people even get used to the idea of this brand new Union.
 
Last edited:
Syrians think they're getting a raw deal compared to other people in the country and that they would therefore be better off if they left
Their Position would not change and could even improve with access to Iraqi oil
Unless this war is really popular, and I don't know why it would be
You can frame as Saddam did as saving Arabs from Iranian oppression and were no Arab Shia or Sunni revolts during Iran-Iraq war
constitutes a problematic issue with power sharing
Power sharing is not an issue if you never had it in the first place
 
Top