What if US tells Saddam to back off in 1990 and he leaves Kuwait alone?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait#Iraqi.E2.80.93American_relations
On 25 July 1990, April Glaspie, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, asked the Iraqi high command to explain the military preparations in progress, including the massing of Iraqi troops near the border.
The American ambassador declared to her Iraqi interlocutor that Washington, “inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion” on the disagreement between Kuwait and Iraq, stating "we have no opinion on the Arab–Arab conflicts".
She also let Saddam Hussein know that the United States did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq". These statements may have caused Saddam to believe he had received a diplomatic green light from the United States to invade Kuwait.[29][30]
According to Richard E. Rubenstein, Glaspie was later asked by British journalists why she had said that, her response was "we didn't think he would go that far" meaning invade and annex the whole country. Although no follow-up question was asked, one might assume that what the U.S. government thought in July 1990 was that Saddam Hussein was only interested in pressuring Kuwait into debt forgiveness and to lower oil production.[31]

What if instead of a less forceful response the US told Saddam that invasion of Kuwait means war? I'm assuming Saddam backs down, but what then? How can he pay off his debts and what could it mean for the Middle East not to have the 1st Iraq war?
 
Hmmm. Hussein's regime still struggles financially, but its nowhere near as catastrophic. Iraq remains a viable power in the region. The United States doesn't go into Saudi Arabia big time. Osama Bin Laden doesn't get tall twisted up in a knot over that. No Al Quaeda.

Sunni Fundamentalism still rears up its head.

Hussein is still ambitious. So I imagine he tries to rally the Arab world around him by focusing on Israel.
 

Deleted member 1487

Might he restart the nuclear program in the 1990s-2000s if he gets his finances sorted?
 
There's bound to be a war, especially with USSR gone, like in the other topic Iraq could avoid being the target if there's some kind of "deal" with US against Iran. On the other hand the israelis will be hysteric, perhaps they try to provoke one by bombing Iraq's nuclear facilities sometime in the nineties, the iraqis will retaliate with missiles and even air attacks of their own and US has to intervene, not that they would mind eliminating Iraq as a regional power (i always thought that sending a WOMAN as ambassador to Saddam, in the middle of the Middle East, was either unbelievably foolish, or shrewd - i bet on the latter).

Regardless of the economic situation Saddam is bound to use every penny to get weapons and for the nuke program, the military will be significantly upgraded by mid/late nineties (they were planning to get Mirage-2000, Su-27, MiG-31, S-300, Mi-28 etc.) But with USSR gone he will be very exposed and could not be able to buy russian gear past the mid-nineties, unless like i said some kind of US deal gives him FMS deals, in exchange for no nukes.
 
The answer is complicated by the reality that Saddam Hussein was a major jerk ass.

But if he's decisively warned away from Kuwait, I don't see a lot of other viable options for him. He won't go after Saudi Arabia or Turkey - too big and important to take on. He won't go after Jordan or Syria ... low value targets. He really doesn't have anyone to take up arms against.

Mostly, I see him posturing, stoking up the anti-israelism.

He might actually invest in improving his country - although 'actually' should be replaced with 'accidentally' given his fairly crude grasp of governance.
 
the idea of him going after Jordan instead is interesting. he wouldn't be directly threatening oil supplies, but might build up his pan arab secular cred by overthrowing a monarchy, not to mention making "direct contact" with the West Bank and the Palestinian struggle. This would freak out both Syria and Saudi Arabia (as well as Israel and possibly Iran too). Would the US and the West go in to liberate Jordan? Maybe. Possibly even probably. But they might hesitate more compared to defending liberating Kuwait due to the relative lack of oil. Perhaps there's an ATL to be made?
 
Top