US seizes Gulf oil in 1973

aktarian · Jan 7, 2004

I'm surprised nobody snaped this one up...

OK, you probablly heard of this. Let's assume oil embargo lasts longer and prices skyrocket. US and UK decide to invade. Since we don't know what US plans were let's stick to British knowledge of them. I'd say 82. division would be used as IIRC 101. wasn't airborne anymore by then. One brigade lands at Saudi oilfields, one in Kuwait and one kept in reserve. Brits get to capture Abu Dhabi. Chances are initial operation is sucesfull and oilfields are secured.

What happens next? Let's say that US doesn't use Israel as staging point to avoid political problems. This leaves Iran as most likelly staging point (and support from Oman). OK, oilfields are secured and flow of oil is back to pre-embargo levels, but it will take some time before things normalise. If US & UK are smart they'll stay away from Mecca and Medina. Some of the Arab leaders might be killed as well (SAS, as US didn't have much in terms of SF then). When dust settles somewhat US-UK finds some members of royal families who are willing to sign treaty legitimising intervention (somewhat akin to Afghan gov't "legitimised" Soviet intervention).

That leaves two wild cards, Iraq and Soviet Union. SU wants to do something about this move and they want Iraq to do the dirty work. The problem is suplying them. While I doubt that US will interfere with Soviet shipping in the Gulf they would certanlly notice that soemthing is happeneing. IMO US wouldn't want to get directlly involved with Iraq so they could turn to IRan to provide pressure. Increase sales, provide intel....

But let's consider some other things. MidEast peace process. IMO there is no way Egypt will amke peace now, with US occupying Saudi Arabia. Post Yom Kippur war would resemble something like War of attrition, with not-peace-not-war and SU more than willing to supply weapons. Also with belligerent Egypt there is no intervention in Lebanon, altough Litani-like operation could happen to clear PLO from border area. If Israelis stay, that's one more thing to make muslims pissed off at.

Iran. How will this afect Iranian opposition? They certanlly woun't like it. Iraq might even turn Homeini loose to act as Lenin and forment revolution. Shah could fall sooner. But with US troops in region in larger force they might intervene to prevent him from falling, trigerring bloody civil war. Also, what would be Iranain reward for this? Bahrein (to which Imperial Iran had claims)? Border dispute with Oman resolved in Iranian favour? Tensions with Iraq will certanlly rise but IMO Iraq woun't do much. Iran is still strong and US is in region.

Occupied states. Rebellious, but who will provide help? Most wealthy nations are occupied or toeing the line with west. Low level resitance (at last on level with today's Iraq, probally higher). Iraq could play role of Pakistan during Afghan war, but problem is getting supplies to Iraq without US noticing.

The big question here is Iran. If Iranain support for intervention speeds up revolution (likelly but not certain) they could act as main supporter for resistance. Maybe Homeini and Iraqi leadership make a deal. Iraq will let Homeini go, Homeini will start revolution and they will fight western occupation together. Let's say Hoemini triggers revolution. Does US intervene on side of Shah? If they do, they could strenghten Homeini's hand. He could claim US is again intervening in Iran and wants to keep Muslims under their thumbs. Revolution is bloody but eventually sucessfull. Homeini calls US Great Satan, calls for Jihad to drive them out of Arabia. They also made alliance with Iraq (resolving Shatt al-Arab dispute in Iraqi favour. SU, glad they finally have land route to Iraq are more than willing to step in. With Soivet support Arabia could turn into Afghansitan for US with roles reversed. but how will piling up of casualties so soon after Vietnam afect US population? Would they call for withdrawal or willt hey see this as securing vital US comodities? When did US abolish draft? This could be important.

Thoughts? Comments?

David Howery · Jan 8, 2004

I'd think the fact that the US/UK infidels are defiling the sacred land of Mecca and Medina would galvanize nearly worldwide Moslem resistance to the invasions. Israel is likely to come in for even more terrorist attacks, as the palestinians would claim that the whole thing was done to support Israel. Cries of neo-colonialism would be heard around the world.
It's worth pointing out that a longer oil embargo would hurt the Arabs worse than us. In OTL, it spurred the development of energy efficient cars and buildings. A longer embargo would only carry this on further....

aktarian · Jan 8, 2004

David Howery said:
It's worth pointing out that a longer oil embargo would hurt the Arabs worse than us. In OTL, it spurred the development of energy efficient cars and buildings. A longer embargo would only carry this on further....

But with US and UK controling largest oil deposits would this development go on?

NapoleonXIV · Jan 8, 2004

"That leaves two wild cards, Iraq and Soviet Union. SU wants to do something about this move and they want Iraq to do the dirty work."

They would do more than that. The first would be to lead the worldwide outcry coming from the UN. The US as a Sec Council member can block UN sanctions being put on US (I think) but the Soviet Union and other nations can still embargo us on their own if they want. I would suspect that any strategic material coming mainly from any socialist or socialist leaning country would soon be in short supply and remain that way for years to come.

The second would be the deafening sound of saber rattling for nuclear war. The Soviets aren't going to let the US/UK Navies move into the area unwatched. They're going to move everything they have down there and make it clear that no interference with the commerce/military of their friends in the area (Iraq/Syria to begin) will be tolerated. A thousand potential flashpoints for Armageddon will spring up overnight.

And you're forgetting that the Soviets wouldn't be quick to exploit the rabid Anti-Americanism this would cause. I don't think that your scenarios with Khomeini/US/Shah machinations would happen at all. The Soviets would have almost an occupying army into Iran very quickly, at the Shah's request and most other nations in the area in the same way within months. Fear would drive the Arabs firmly into the Soviet camp. Along with every other small nation in the world.

Basically, the US would end up with Saudi Oil whose price would probably rise precipitately due to the rampant terrorism and sabotage of the Oil fields and pipelines, and give the rest of the world to the SU on a silver platter.

aktarian · Jan 8, 2004

NapoleonXIV said:
"That leaves two wild cards, Iraq and Soviet Union. SU wants to do something about this move and they want Iraq to do the dirty work."

They would do more than that. The first would be to lead the worldwide outcry coming from the UN. The US as a Sec Council member can block UN sanctions being put on US (I think) but the Soviet Union and other nations can still embargo us on their own if they want. I would suspect that any strategic material coming mainly from any socialist or socialist leaning country would soon be in short supply and remain that way for years to come.

But what did US import from SU or allied countries? Iw as under impression trade flowed the opposite direction (Soviet grain purchases come t mind).

NapoleonXIV said:
And you're forgetting that the Soviets wouldn't be quick to exploit the rabid Anti-Americanism this would cause. I don't think that your scenarios with Khomeini/US/Shah machinations would happen at all. The Soviets would have almost an occupying army into Iran very quickly, at the Shah's request and most other nations in the area in the same way within months. Fear would drive the Arabs firmly into the Soviet camp. Along with every other small nation in the world.

Why would Shah invite arch rival of Iranian good friend into their country? It's like having Israel invite Iranian troops to defend them from agressive US.

Grimm Reaper · Jan 18, 2004

Actually it would be easy to pay off Iran, perhaps with southern Iraq or Afghanistan. I think there was a book about this, called The Year of the Golden Monkey or some such. In it, the more 'Western' leaders are killed, including Sadat and the King of Saudi Arabia, and the temporarily united Arabs states take certain drastic measures aimed at isolating Israel and blocking Western intervention. Of course, they missed one obvious option and pay a shattering price. The book ends with the leader of the Arab League killed while an Italian force invades Libya with French aid, the US and UK land on the Arabian Penninsula while the Soviets, in a carefully planned move, grab Iraq and Syria.

The West paid off the Soviets and made them partners!

wkwillis · Jan 26, 2004

Net Present Value

It would take the west about 2 years to get the oil fields flowing again, and the Soviets would have been selling oil to the west for those 2 years at twenty times the prewar price and forty times the profit margin, for the eqivalent of 80 years of ordinary profits, but all this year instead of over a longer period of time. Meanwhile the west has to pay a huge defence budget price to garrison the Arab states.
Russia joining in an invasion? Only if they could have suckered us into it. They did make the offer in 1948 and we turned them down and ordered them out of northern Iran under pain of nuclear war.

Mike Collins · Jan 26, 2004

Im shocked the UK government was concerned about the US attacking the Mid East in 1973. The Army was on its rear from trying to come to grips with failure in Vietnam and reorganizing into an all volunteer force. The only unit it could have deployed was the 82nd Airborne....and even it had personnel problems. The only backup would be the Marines. If anything went wrong in such an attack, it would have been a disaster.

Yankoslavian · Jan 26, 2004

Won't the Soviets just conquer Iran outright as a response to our invasion of Arabia?

Derek · Jan 26, 2004

They might try but

Yankoslavian said:
Won't the Soviets just conquer Iran outright as a response to our invasion of Arabia?

Iran would be a much tougher nut to crack.

aktarian · Jan 27, 2004

Derek said:
Iran would be a much tougher nut to crack.

Not to mention important US ally.

wkwillis · Jan 28, 2004

Iran doesn't have any oil

All the oil in Iran is in an Arab country conquered and colonized by the Iranians. It's sort of like Kuwait used to be part of Iraq until the British took it away from them, and if the Soviets invaded Iran (again), the US would get the part with the oil and the Soviets would get the part with the Iranians.

MerryPrankster · Jan 28, 2004

WK,

There's a province in western Iran called "Arabistan" I believe, that has most of Iran's oil supplies. Is that what you're referring to?

wkwillis · Jan 28, 2004

Yes

Matt Quinn said:
WK,

There's a province in western Iran called "Arabistan" I believe, that has most of Iran's oil supplies. Is that what you're referring to?

There is oil in the rest of Iran, too. Lots of gas, even. But most of it's in that province, and most of the rest is in areas with lots of Arabs, including all the islands in the gulf that Iran claims. Which is why Iran wants nuclear weapons before the Libyans and Algerians get them.
You wonder why they spend so much time complaining about Israel.

Anthony Appleyard · Jan 29, 2004

If resistance continues from the rest of Saudi Arabia, it may lead to:-
- US/UK "grasps the nettle" and sends an army into Mecca / Medina.
- There is no supernatural intervention to protect the Muslim holy places. The fuss dies down after a while. India may have to send its army into Pakistan.
- US/UK occupies all oilfields in Arabia. That puts a stop to the lopsided state of the world economy caused by money flowing all one way. One main cause of ways is one-sided trade.
- If Arabia can be rid of nomadic grazing, its natural vegetation may start to recover and it may start to get rainier.

wkwillis · Jan 29, 2004

Shiite Arabian Republic

Never forget that the Shiites live where the oil is, near the Gulf, and the Sunni live away from the oil, surrounding and outnumbering the Shiites. If the US had liberated the Shiites in 1973 they would have been very, very, gratefull, as long as our troops were still there to protect them from the Sunnis, and not incidentally, to protect their fragile democratic government from a military coup. The religious people hadn't had thirty years of government subsidy to bulk them up at that time and weren't much of a threat.

MerryPrankster · Jan 29, 2004

WK,

When did the al-Sauds start lavishing $$ on the Wahabis? I thought they'd been doing that ever since the $$ started coming in. Or are we talking about the Shi'ite Arabs in Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia? If so, are the gov't subsidies you're referring to coming from the mullahs in Tehran?

Hmmm...the US wouldn't need to openly announce, "We want the oil." Nixon could fixate on the horrible abuses of the Shi'a by the Saudis and the pro-Soviet Iraqis and announce that the US was going to "liberate" them and give them their state. It'd probably be fairly obvious that this isn't the real reason for the invasion, but I'm sure it could win over some humanitarian types into supporting the "oil war."

A pro-US Shi'ite state would gladly sell oil at cost (or a little bit above) out of sheer gratitude, or out of desire to keep US protection from the Sunni regimes in Riyadh and Baghdad if nothing else.

Hmmm...anyone want to do a TL? I'm not a big expert in exact details of military tech (Luka seems to be, judging from the "Iran Never Crosses into Iraq TL"), but I can certainly provide some ideas.

aktarian · Jan 29, 2004

Matt Quinn said:
Hmmm...anyone want to do a TL? I'm not a big expert in exact details of military tech (Luka seems to be, judging from the "Iran Never Crosses into Iraq TL"), but I can certainly provide some ideas.

I could and was thinking about it (either that or 1998 Iran-Afghan war). If anybody wants to throw ideas in the open feel free to do so. I would need to do some research on background and exact force ratios in that priod. anybody knows any good sites feel free to post them.

MerryPrankster · Jan 29, 2004

A 1998 Iran-Taliban War is a pretty cool idea.

www.fas.org has descriptions of US and Soviet "strategic forces" and smaller-scale missiles. I think they've got stuff on Israel and pre-sanctions Iraq too. That should come in handy.