WI: Iraq gasses Tehran, major Iranian cities

I don't know too terribly much about the Iran-Iraq War, but while reading a bit about it I realized that Iraq, despite possessing a sizable CW arsenal and the means to deliver it, largely refrained from using it against major Iranian cities (they had no problem using gas against Kurds, Iranian troops, and smaller Iranian villages, as well as using conventional weapons against Iranian cities, however).

What if Saddam had decided to utilize chemical weapons (especially nerve agents like Sarin) in a strike against Tehran and other major Iranian cities? I figure that the effects will be different if they do it earlier in the war as opposed to later, but still.

What effects would this have on the war? What would the international response to such a massive chemical bombardment against civilian targets, even if it was directed against the hated Iranian theocracy?
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Well, that would be one way to get the U.S. and Iran on the same side of the table.

As to what would happen - Mad dogs have a tendency to get put down.
 
I recall at this time Iraq was on the offensive and had support of America, the USSR, and a lot of other powers.

I'd think the US would look the other way.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Well, that would be one way to get the U.S. and Iran on the same side of the table.

As to what would happen - Mad dogs have a tendency to get put down.
Are you sure that the U.S. wouldn't simply remain neutral and try pressuring Saddam to halt his atrocities?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Are you sure that the U.S. wouldn't simply remain neutral and try pressuring Saddam to halt his atrocities?
Too big of a Red Line.

Mass WMD strikes on civilians are going to be huge attention getters. There is also the reality that the Spice must flow (and %^$#& Saddam ain't gonna be setting the price).
 
Too big of a Red Line.

Mass WMD strikes on civilians are going to be huge attention getters. There is also the reality that the Spice must flow (and %^$#& Saddam ain't gonna be setting the price).
The US looked the other way during the Al-Anfal campaign and the Reagan administration was more than willing to engage in realpolitik. So apart of me believes they'd give official condemnation and privately tell the Iraqis "go ahead and win, this is just for public consumption."
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The US looked the other way during the Al-Anfal campaign and the Reagan administration was more than willing to engage in realpolitik. So apart of me believes they'd give official condemnation and privately tell the Iraqis "go ahead and win, this is just for public consumption."
Kill half a million civilians in a single go and see what happens once the little babies are all lined up in rows.
 
Honestly, it's enough you'd quite possibly get ISRAEL and IRAN (and Hezbollah proxy) to put aside their differences to put Iraq down. Because what's used on Tehran can be used on Tel Aviv.
 
The US ultimately wanted a stalement between the two so neither of them could have total control over the area. Saddam bombing Iran would really PO the Americans.
 
When is a big question. The West became more inured to the war as time went on so earlier would have a bigger response then later.

OTL.

Saddam sent a warning to Khomeini in mid-1988, threatening to launch a full-scale invasion and attack Iranian cities with weapons of mass destruction. Shortly afterwards, Iraqi aircraft bombed the Iranian town of Oshnavieh with poison gas, immediately killing and wounding over 2,000 civilians.

The fear of an all out chemical attack against Iran's largely unprotected civilian population weighed heavily on the Iranian leadership, and they realized that the international community had no intention of restraining Iraq.

The lives of the civilian population of Iran were becoming very disrupted, with a third of the urban population evacuating major cities in fear of the seemingly imminent chemical war. Meanwhile, Iraqi conventional bombs and missiles continuously hit towns and cities, as well as destroyed vital civilian and military infrastructure, and the death toll increased. Iran did reply with missile and air attacks as well, but not enough to deter the Iraqis from attacking.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War

Towards the end of the Iran/Iraq War things got nastier even by the standards of that ugly war. Saddam gassed Oshnavieh and threatened to drown all of Iran's cities in gas.

Saddam could have gotten away with gassing a few more cities, but a full scale nerve gas attack on Iran's capital would have probably been too much for the West to ignore.
 
I think Iran will break and seek terms before the US starts supporting them or turns on Iraq.

The Iranians were already close to breaking and the Iraqis by 88 were winning the war.
 
...
Towards the end of the Iran/Iraq War things got nastier even by the standards of that ugly war. Saddam gassed Oshnavieh and threatened to drown all of Iran's cities in gas.

Saddam could have gotten away with gassing a few more cities, but a full scale nerve gas attack on Iran's capital would have probably been too much for the West to ignore.

Bad precedent. Its not just Isreal or distant US that will freak over this one. Every state with anything of value to Iraq thats in range will be wondering if they are next. Imagine the temptation to dust Kuwait, or taking a leaf from the 'Crash of 79' use the chemical weapons vs the Saudi defenses of the oil fields.
 
The Iraqis did use gas tactically. Using deliberately on large civilian populations would be something NOBODY would tolerate. While using gas would probably break the Iranians, and I'm not sure if the Iraqis could deliver gas in quantity to the cities (doubt they had warheads for SCUDs), this is one of those things both sides of the Cold War would not tolerate.
 
The Iraqis did use gas tactically. Using deliberately on large civilian populations would be something NOBODY would tolerate. While using gas would probably break the Iranians, and I'm not sure if the Iraqis could deliver gas in quantity to the cities (doubt they had warheads for SCUDs), this is one of those things both sides of the Cold War would not tolerate.

Saddam did use gas on civilian targets in Iran. Saddam had an air force until the Gulf War.

Saddam sent a warning to Khomeini in mid-1988, threatening to launch a full-scale invasion and attack Iranian cities with weapons of mass destruction. Shortly afterwards, Iraqi aircraft bombed the Iranian town of Oshnavieh with poison gas, immediately killing and wounding over 2,000 civilians.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War
 

Ak-84

Banned
Attacking a border town, which is also a base for enemy operations is one thing. Attacking a major urban center far from the fighting and where gasing is of dubious military value is quite another.
Furthermore, even the "OMG he gased his own people", Halabja attacks came in the context of a major Iranian assault on the town.

Can we please put 2003 era analysis to bed. Saddam was an asshole. He was not stupid.
 
Top