WI: Iraq Occupies Saudi Arabia During Gulf War

Vaporized

Banned
What if Iraq invades Saudi Arabia before coalition forces are able to arrive and prevent their arrival? They hold onto most of the country.
 
We had a thread on this a few months ago.
Saudi Arabia is huge, and most of it was and remains fairly horrible terrain for massed armies. Distances and logistics alone would make the Iraqis' life difficult.
The coalition should be able to eject the thinly spread Iraqi forces, though that could require time simply because of, again, distances, albeit the staggering air and naval coalition dominance could ease things a bit.
A lot of diplomatic tiptoeing would be needed about the Muslim holy sites.
Ultimately, the Iraqis lose even worse, albeit it may be that that the victory takes more time and Coalition casualities.
 
If the Iraq Army had quickly proceeded into Saudi Arabia before the coalition was formed and reinforcements began arriving in Saudi Arabia, by contemporary accounts the sheer size and armored columns of the Iraqis probably would have swamped the much smaller Saudi forces. Saudi Arabia’s a big country but doesn’t have many cities, seaports, or military bases so the range of targets for an invader trying to cut off resupply and reinforcement is pretty small. Iraqi columns the size of the entire Saudi ground forces could have been sent simultaneously to a handful of key targets. As a highly centralized government, taking the capital city of Riyadh alone and the key bases if done fast enough might have broke the country’s command and control decisively (just as Kuwait’s Royal Family fled the country quickly.) Seizing the holy cities might not matter much to the other Muslim countries since the Iraqi Army was both Sunni and Shia so very unlikely to desecrate or damage places they held holy as well. Changes of power or control in Central Asia happen endlessly and neighboring states reacting by invading is very unpredictable and not that common.

If Iraq had seized both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, it’s share of the world’s oil supply in 1990 (and oil at the lowest cost of production anywhere in the world, an estimated $6/barrel back then) would have allowed much greater threat of “we’ll blow up our oilfields and pipelines” if you attack us, as Iraq did in fact do during the coalition’s invasion of Iraq. That would have knocked around 30–40% of the world’s oil supply out of supply for easily a year, driving oil prices into that $80–150/barrel range with great impacts so many countries would have applied frantic pressure to stop the emerging coalition to attack there. Under President Clinton or Obama rather than G.H.W. Bush, the U.S. would have been far less likely to put together an effective and timely coalition, instead dithering and trying to do it all with diplomacy until it was fait accompli.
 
If the Iraq Army had quickly proceeded into Saudi Arabia before the coalition was formed and reinforcements began arriving in Saudi Arabia, by contemporary accounts the sheer size and armored columns of the Iraqis probably would have swamped the much smaller Saudi forces. Saudi Arabia’s a big country but doesn’t have many cities, seaports, or military bases so the range of targets for an invader trying to cut off resupply and reinforcement is pretty small. Iraqi columns the size of the entire Saudi ground forces could have been sent simultaneously to a handful of key targets. As a highly centralized government, taking the capital city of Riyadh alone and the key bases if done fast enough might have broke the country’s command and control decisively (just as Kuwait’s Royal Family fled the country quickly.) Seizing the holy cities might not matter much to the other Muslim countries since the Iraqi Army was both Sunni and Shia so very unlikely to desecrate or damage places they held holy as well. Changes of power or control in Central Asia happen endlessly and neighboring states reacting by invading is very unpredictable and not that common.

If Iraq had seized both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, it’s share of the world’s oil supply in 1990 (and oil at the lowest cost of production anywhere in the world, an estimated $6/barrel back then) would have allowed much greater threat of “we’ll blow up our oilfields and pipelines” if you attack us, as Iraq did in fact do during the coalition’s invasion of Iraq. That would have knocked around 30–40% of the world’s oil supply out of supply for easily a year, driving oil prices into that $80–150/barrel range with great impacts so many countries would have applied frantic pressure to stop the emerging coalition to attack there. Under President Clinton or Obama rather than G.H.W. Bush, the U.S. would have been far less likely to put together an effective and timely coalition, instead dithering and trying to do it all with diplomacy until it was fait accompli.
I agree on the military part of the analysis (very limited Saudi ability to stand up to the Iraqis on their own, possible collapse of the entire state apparatus) but I seriously doubt that the blackmail on oil would deter the Coalition. The international community would absolutely loath letting Saddam get away with taking over two sovereign countries more or less on a whim and taking control of such a large share of the world's oil reserves in the process. Iran would literally freak out, and so, ironically, would Israel (talk of strange bedfellows).
 
I agree on the military part of the analysis (very limited Saudi ability to stand up to the Iraqis on their own, possible collapse of the entire state apparatus) but I seriously doubt that the blackmail on oil would deter the Coalition. The international community would absolutely loath letting Saddam get away with taking over two sovereign countries more or less on a whim and taking control of such a large share of the world's oil reserves in the process. Iran would literally freak out, and so, ironically, would Israel (talk of strange bedfellows).

they would probably be forced to bite their tongue. A price surge like that would make the 70s oil crisis look like a paradise.

Plus you have the Soviets on their final death knell, and a surge in prices like that "might" save the communist dream.
 
In all honesty I'm not to sure that the US wouldn't break out the tactical nukes(after telling the Soviets we would be doing so) in order to stop Saddam gaining control of that much of the worlds oil supply...which considering how two carrier battlegroups were on station within a few days is entirely viable to pull off
 
What if Iraq invades Saudi Arabia before coalition forces are able to arrive and prevent their arrival? They hold onto most of the country.

The Western powers on whose reliance on the Middle Eastern Oil is quite important would put the Rapid into rapid response and would send everything they could as soon as they could.
 

Gedador

Banned
Would it be possible for Saddam to bluff the coalition in to backing off as Saudi Arabia is a dessert so all Saddam has to do is control the water supply and that's it he could very well threaten the coalition by saying that if they invade will destroy all the oil fields and the water supply and they might just let him keep it as of those fields are gone it takes years to replace it.
 
The Iraqi’s get blunted by Coalition rapid deployment forces with backing from multiple US CVNs and then proceed to get utterly creamed when the Coalition armored forces move in
 
The first part of Saudi Arabia Iraq will encounter is the majority Shiite Eastern Province, directly across the Gulf from Iran. The civilians are gonna be... a hassle for the occupiers.
 
My guess is that Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, and the UAE will swing in on the KSA side, along with the USN and whatever additional forces the US and its allies (mostly the UK RAF via Akrotiri) can lever into the region. Expect Incirlik, Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford to have a bunch of new guests in very short order.

I don't believe that the 1991 Iraqi military was capable of air denial against a single USN CVBG, let alone 2. OTL Iraqi air defences were significant but were fixed emplacements to provide for the defence of high-value targets like airfields; the air defence troops accompanying an armored column into Saudi would be significantly less capable. Similarly, the little success seen by the Iraqi air forces was contingent on ground-controlled intercept over Iraq, and would be even more severely disadvantaged over Saudi.

I honestly cannot see how the Iraqi forces could remain supplied with fuel most of all. Riyadh is over 600km from Kuwait City as the crow flies. A T-72 can't drive that far without running out of gas, and the need to keep them supplied will have tankers filled with diesel running from Iraq in nice convoys for E-2 Hawkeyes to spot and A-6s to drop cluster bombs on. It may take some weeks to finally mop up the Iraqi RG and army forces, but it will take very few days to immobilize them through lack of fuel.
 
Might be an interesting scenario: can Saddam take vital points before his logistical bolt is entirely shot or before the USN tears his ground forces apart? On the ground it’ll mostly be light troops from the west, with limited heavy assets, but well... light troops with AKs stopped Iraqi armored columns multiple times in the last decade, and the 82nd and USMC is better equipped then Iranian militia.
 

Garrison

Donor
In all honesty I'm not to sure that the US wouldn't break out the tactical nukes(after telling the Soviets we would be doing so) in order to stop Saddam gaining control of that much of the worlds oil supply...which considering how two carrier battlegroups were on station within a few days is entirely viable to pull off

Just, no, There is no way the USA is going nuclear without large scale Iraqi use of chemical or biological weapons. it would be a horrifying precedent that would wreck the Coalition and generate massive hostility in the Arabic world, just imagine if fallout from the bombs reached Mecca and Medina, desecrating the holiest sites in Islam. Now I'm sure the US military would promise no such thing would happen but their track record in terms of unintended consequences does not inspire confidence.
 
Just, no, There is no way the USA is going nuclear without large scale Iraqi use of chemical or biological weapons. it would be a horrifying precedent that would wreck the Coalition and generate massive hostility in the Arabic world, just imagine if fallout from the bombs reached Mecca and Medina, desecrating the holiest sites in Islam. Now I'm sure the US military would promise no such thing would happen but their track record in terms of unintended consequences does not inspire confidence.
Ah but the threat thereof would probably result in the Iraqis not pushing further south
 
The Iraqi assault on Kuwait was extensively planned and prepped for, but no such planning was undertaken for invading Saudi Arabia. To do more than conduct shallow border raids, the Iraqis would have needed to pause and prepare even more detailed plans than those they used for Kuwait. This would have taken them several days at least. Weeks, realistically, if they had to make plans from scratch to push down to the main port at Dhahran.

Within a week of the invasion of Kuwait, the US had two carriers in the Gulf, and a wing of F-15s and F-16s, and the ready brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division in Saudi Arabia. At the time people joked about the airborne soldiers being speed bumps in the desert, but given what we know now about the Iraqis lack of skill then had they actually attacked, the airborne, coupled with airstrikes, would probably have seriously delayed the Iraqis, who were never swift at fighting through resistance even at the best of times. By the end of August, the US had the rest of the 82nd and 101st Airborne, as well as I Marine Expeditionary Force in country. If Saddam had chosen to order the four Republican Guard divisions which invaded Kuwait to carry on into Saudi, these three American divisions, backed by ever increasing numbers of USAF, USN and Marine aircraft, would have been more than sufficient to defeat them.

An Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia would have been a hair raising event for the 82nd, but they'd probably have come out of it looking as legendary as the Spartans at Thermopylae. Minus them all dying of course.
 
Last edited:

Garrison

Donor
Ah but the threat thereof would probably result in the Iraqis not pushing further south

You really don't seem to understand what a major step this would be by the USA, even the threat of using such weapons on the territory of an ally unless the Iraqi's have already used chemical or biological weapons is not going to happen. Nuclear weapons haven't been used since 1945 largely because there's always been someone with the sense to veto such harebrained ideas.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
There is little chance that the Iraqis would be able to take the entire country. Its armored and mechanized formations can drive, at most, 250 miles before requiring a complete refueling (a not unreasonable argument can be made for a a max advance of 175 miles before a need to refuel.. The U.S. can have B-52s out of the UK (assuming NATO offers overflight) and/or Diego Garcia in six hours. Strike aircraft from U.S. carriers in the Med in (assuming overflight from major non-NATO allies Egypt and Israel) in three hours (Both the Ike and Sara were in the Med at the time). Other strike aircraft are even closer, assuming Turkey (no friend of Saddam's regime) allows use of Incirlik for aircraft based in Italy and Germany to refuel)

The entire world learned what B-52s strikes and USAF/USN TacAir could do to the Iraqi Army during Desert Storm.
 
As Obsessednuker notes, the light formations would come out looking like heroes and absolutely make as much hay of it as they could, particularly the USMC. Justifies their existence and their budgets for the next fifty years.
 
Even after the war OTL (so when the Americans knew firsthand the limitations of the Iraqi ground forces), there was disagreement about how effective they would have been in holding back an Iraqi advance into Saudi Arabia (see Sword and Shield: The US Navy in the Gulf War, pgs 73-74). The question in practice would have been something like "how far north would the Iraqis have to halt", whether it would be at the edges of Dharan itself when they'd be running out of supplies and plans or the area around Manifah where the Marines planned to stand and fight.

The absolute best case scenario for the Iraqis is reaching a culmination point near Dharan while still being battered, which does nothing to prevent the Americans from just unloading their heavier divisions further down the peninsula.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
As Obsessednuker notes, the light formations would come out looking like heroes and absolutely make as much hay of it as they could, particularly the USMC. Justifies their existence and their budgets for the next fifty years.
“The raising of that flag on Suribachi means a Marine Corps for the next 500 years.”
- James Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy
23 February 1945

Corps is good without a 50 year bump. It still had, at the time, 457 years in its account
 
Top