WI: Iraqi victory in Iraq-Iran War

It did, the Soveit-made SAMs racked up a large number of kills against the Israeli-airforce and the IDF was beating itself bloody the Egyptain defences.


Only in the initial stage, like the first day or two basically, when the Israelis conducted their first counterattack. After that attack failed, the Israeli's took stock, realised their errors, & altered their tactics accordingly. Yet even if the Egyptains hadn't conducted their ill-advised attack towards the passes, the Egyptains fate would have been repeated anyway due to the fact that the Israeli tactics, in dealing with the Egyptain tactics, had been dramatically revised whilst the Egyptains clung basically to their defensive orientated positions.


Then the Egyptains got overconfadent and went on the offensive too soon, quickly moveing beyond their SAM shield after that the Israeli-airforce bombed them relentlessly.


This is basically wrong on two counts actually. First was the Egyptains didn't get overconfident. In fact the Egyptain GOC, General Shazly, didn't want to advance beyond the SAM umbrella. The Egyptians were forced to do so because the Syrian offensive had, not only failed in trying to take the Golan Heights, but the Isrealis had conducted a counter-offensive against the Syrians & they were in extremely deep trouble.

Secondly, as I said, by this stage of the game the Isrealis had changed tactics, meaning that the Egyptain SAM unbrella no longer had the impact that it had a few days earlier. And this was most relevant when Sharon lead the initial stage of the counterattack which separated the Egyptain 2nd & 3rd Armies before the crossing of the Suez Canal. Then, after the crossing, the main targets of the Isreali army were all those SAM sites...
 
Last edited:
It wouldn't have been so possible.


Note I did say here's some irony for you... ;)


Blitzkrieg works, IIRC, if the target is small enough to be broken quickly as an organised force (Poland, 1939) or incompentant and outmatched enough to be unable to recover in time (France 1940, Iraq 2003). Iran was just too big and dispersed enough to make a blitzkrieg, even with the US army of 2003, impossible. The Iraqis couldn't have hoped to pull one off without some fairly major changes in their struture.


Although I would agree that if it was limited to just Iraq's armed forces, I don't think Iraq had any chance whatsoever in defeating Iran. As I stated earlier in this thread:


So how, precisely, do the defensive minded Iraqi's manage to fight their way over hundreds of kilometres of good defensive terrain in Iran, between the border & the Iranian capital, in order to take Tehran & demand that the Iranians surrender?


And even if the Iraqis did conduct a full on offensive, to use the phase Blitzkrieg (whether it be the exact tactics involved or not), I still can't see how they could win given your reasons above & more. But I've got to disagree when it comes to your claim that the US military couldn't defeat the Iranian military in 1983. I would dare argue that the outcome would be similar to Iraq's fate in 1991. Winning the peace, however, would be a completely different story as we all know thanks to the current situation in Iraq...



That said, what if Saddam actually had a competant and trusted relative? They didn't bother with any real plans (bad info, cough, cough, from exiles) because they thought they knew what they were doing. Have them seriously think about the problem and they might well suceed in taking a large bite out of Iran.


Well Chris Oakley is currently working on a article for CTT on a similar kind of scenario ;)
 
Last edited:
:D:D:D:D


Actually, here's some irony for you, what if Saddam was successful & took over much of Iran in a Blitzkrieg type offensive akin to Kuwait in 1990. Would the world react in the same fashion, come to the aid of the Islamic Republic of Iran, & defeat Iraq just like in 1991?

Whoa! That's a mind bender!:eek:

THe reasons for that would be huge. The idea of Saddam with that much territory, oil and population would be a concern for a lot of people.

But,

Initially we are talking about President Jimmy Carter.

The Iranians were still holding the hostages. Carter would not be able to come to their rescue. His generals would inform him the military was in a shambles, although probably not in those words.:D

Even if the Iranians quickly released the hostages, I don't think Carter could cooperate with them, due to political reasons.

Reagan would probably be tempted by the idea of returning Iran to the status of American ally and anti-Soviet bulwark.

Christ! That reminds me, the Soviets had just recently invaded Afganistan!

Allow a soviet ally to have land connection to the soviet union, that much oil and acsess to a warm water port, in the freakin persian gulf!

or have a war with a soviet ally that close to soviet troops in a shooting war that you are involved in "covertly"!

THis could be the flashpoint for a ugly US/Soviet clash, perhaps even the bigh one.:eek:
 
Whoa! That's a mind bender!:eek:

THe reasons for that would be huge. The idea of Saddam with that much territory, oil and population would be a concern for a lot of people.

But,

Initially we are talking about President Jimmy Carter.

The Iranians were still holding the hostages. Carter would not be able to come to their rescue. His generals would inform him the military was in a shambles, although probably not in those words.:D

Even if the Iranians quickly released the hostages, I don't think Carter could cooperate with them, due to political reasons.

Reagan would probably be tempted by the idea of returning Iran to the status of American ally and anti-Soviet bulwark.

Christ! That reminds me, the Soviets had just recently invaded Afganistan!

Allow a soviet ally to have land connection to the soviet union, that much oil and acsess to a warm water port, in the freakin persian gulf!

or have a war with a soviet ally that close to soviet troops in a shooting war that you are involved in "covertly"!

THis could be the flashpoint for a ugly US/Soviet clash, perhaps even the bigh one.:eek:


Actually, if we go with the OTL dates of the Iran-Iraq War, we're talking late 1980 onwards, so Carter would only be President for a couple of months. Consequentially we'd have Ronnie Raygun as President unless, of course, Carter does go to war & the American People rally around their President, during a time of war, & re-elect Carter in 1980. If so, how does a second Carter Presidential term change things?

Oh, & I wouldn't worry too much about the Soviets in Afganistan. After all the OTL experience was far from impressive... ;)
 
Top