WI no independent Kuwait

[Eurofed]

Let's assume that for various possible PoDs, an independent Kuwait does not exist in the 20th century, and it is an integral part of Iraq to the satisfaction of the international community.

Possible PoDs a) a different version of the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913 gets signed, which leaves Kuwait a part of Ottoman Iraq b) the Baathist coup in Iraq gets delayed by 2-3 years, and the British have no problem with the annexation of Kuwait in 1961 by an Iraq that remains a client of theirs c) for whatever domestic or international reason, the British don't undergo Operation Vantage to award their military protection to newly-independent Kuwait, and its annexation by Iraq swiftly occurs and becomes a postcolonial fait accompli (much like the Indian annexation of Goa in the same period).

How would internationally-recognized Iraqi possession of Kuwait affect post-1960s Middle Eastern events ?

Would a richer Iraq create a successful union with Syria, which was ruled by a similar Baathist regime ?

Assuming the Iran-Iraq War is not butterflied away (I see no good reason why it would, if the Iranian Revolution still occurs), would this cause a Iraqi victory (hereby defined as conquest and lasting annexation of Khuzestan) ?

The 1990 invasion of Kuwait is of course butterflied away, but would Iraq invade eastern Saudi Arabia instead, or there would simply be no 1st Gulf War ?

 

[herricks]

another cool what if might be if it remained a British Territory. then how would the Iraqu invasion shape up if they even did invade? would it be like Falklands x10?

 

[Eurofed]

another cool what if might be if it remained a British Territory. then how would the Iraqu invasion shape up if they even did invade? would it be like Falklands x10?

That's another scenario entirely, however. This one envisages an Iraqi Kuwait. If we want an amped-up 1st Gulf War to occur ITTL, we may fairly easily go with an Iraqi invasion of eastern Saudi Arabia.

 

[Hyperbolus]

An Iraq with something on the order of twice the oil reserves would obviously be far more influential in OPEC and as a rival to Saudi Arabia, to say nothing of its being intensively courted/cultivated by Washington and Moscow. IIRC Syria joined the United Arab Republic with Egypt in part to deter Iraq, so although the UAR proved abortive, I find Syria integrating with Iraq less than likely.

 

[Stateless]

Iraq now has ~20% of the world's proven oil reserves, making it either the country with the most oil reserves or the second most after Saudi Arabia. There's also an extra couple of million inhabitants, most of them Sunni.

The main obstacle to Iraqi-Syrian unity within the United Arab Republic was Nasser, who was unable to properly engage in power-sharing and instead tried to centralise power within the UAR in Egypt. Despite both Iraq and Syria being ruled by the Ba'ath Party OTL, relations between the two were never as good as they might have been, which ultimately contributed to Syria contributing to the coalition in the Gulf War, and both were ruled by strong men who weren't in a hurry to give up their own power.

Relations between Iran and Iraq had always been fractious, so it's not far-fetched to assume that the addition of Kuwait to Iraq would not prevent an alt-Iran-Iraq War ITTL, though access to the Shatt al-Arab will be less important (though not inconsequential) to Iraq-Kuwait. Assuming a similar result to OTL's Iran-Iraq War, this could provide the motive for an alt-Gulf War in which Iraq-Kuwait invade Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province.

 

[Eurofed]

An Iraq with something on the order of twice the oil reserves would obviously be far more influential in OPEC and as a rival to Saudi Arabia, to say nothing of its being intensively courted/cultivated by Washington and Moscow.

Would this allow them to win the Iran-Iraq War ? Ie. if they get more and better weapons from the West and the Soviets, could the initial Iraqi offensive, and the following defensive stance, be full successess, and net Iraq Khuzestan, to be even more of an oil superpower to rival Saudi Arabia ? Could a defeat in the war lead to a collapse of the Khomeinist regime ?

Would a victory (or the OTL white peace, for that matter) lead the Iraqi to invade Saudi Arabia, or perhaps Syria (the West would likely not mind it, in this case), or would they be content with the postwar status quo ?

IIRC Syria joined the United Arab Republic with Egypt in part to deter Iraq, so although the UAR proved abortive, I find Syria integrating with Iraq less than likely.

Only until the Baathist coup in Iraq occurs, then they switch from rivals to friends. Depending on which PoD we pick, it might happen more or less on schedule, or be delayed.

 

[Eurofed]

Relations between Iran and Iraq had always been fractious, so it's not far-fetched to assume that the addition of Kuwait to Iraq would not prevent an alt-Iran-Iraq War ITTL, though access to the Shatt al-Arab will be less important (though not inconsequential) to Iraq-Kuwait. Assuming a similar result to OTL's Iran-Iraq War, this could provide the motive for an alt-Gulf War in which Iraq-Kuwait invade Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province.

Hmm, would it be so difficult for this stronger and wealthier Iraq-Kuwait to win the Iran-Iraq War ? Early 1980s Iran was not that awesome, they managed with human wave attacks and the post-revolution leftovers of the Shah's military buildup, and this Iraq-Kuwait could leverage its greater oil-fueled wealth and importance on the international landscape to buy more and better weapons to kick Iranian butt. An Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia might occur regardless of the outcome of the war with Iran (say, a megalomanic bid to create a near-monopoly of Arabian oil, with Iraq-Kuwait, Khuzestan, and Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province).

I understand that a union with Syria looks like the less probable butterfly of all, from your feedback so far.

 

[Stateless]

Hmm, would it be so difficult for this stronger and wealthier Iraq-Kuwait to win the Iran-Iraq War ? Early 1980s Iran was not that awesome, they managed with human wave attacks and the post-revolution leftovers of the Shah's military buildup, and this Iraq-Kuwait could leverage its greater oil-fueled wealth and importance on the international landscape to buy more and better weapons to kick Iranian butt.

I'm not entirely sure, but I would say it rather depends on how Iran's relations with Syria are ITTL. OTL Iran used its influence in Syria to get Syria to shut off the pipeline which took Iraqi oil to the Mediterranean, and this was when the war really started to swing against Iraq. If anything I would expect Iraq-Kuwait to be even more dependent on oil exports and to have an economy less diversified that OTLs, so this could actually end up putting the squeeze on them even more than it did in OTL.

 

[Eurofed]

I'm not entirely sure, but I would say it rather depends on how Iran's relations with Syria are ITTL. OTL Iran used its influence in Syria to get Syria to shut off the pipeline which took Iraqi oil to the Mediterranean, and this was when the war really started to swing against Iraq. If anything I would expect Iraq-Kuwait to be even more dependent on oil exports and to have an economy less diversified that OTLs, so this could actually end up putting the squeeze on them even more than it did in OTL.

Hum, I am under a strong impression that if Iraq-Kuwait may win at all, it wholly depends on Iraq-Kuwait winning a clear victory in the opening stage of the war. This is when the war would really be won or lost for the Iraqi. To defeat the Iranian Air Force, conquer Khuzestan, seize the Zagros Mountain passes, entrench down, and let Iranian counterattacks bled themselves white on strong Iraqi defenses. With most of its oil revenue lost, Iranian war effort would collapse fairly soon. So the divergence you propose would not really matter. I'm not convinced that Iraq-Kuwait would diversify its economy less than OTL.

 

[Cook]

Kuwait was an independent Emirate under British protection prior to the start of World War One. Expanding the Kingdom of Iraq to include the Emirate would be problematic so say the least. Conceivably Abdullah Al-Sabah’s domain could be expanded to include Mesopotamia once it is liberated from Ottoman hands if the British felt no great obligation to find a home for Hashemite kings that suddenly find themselves unemployed. They could reason that surely one Hashemite puppet is enough, another one and you start to put ‘all our eggs in one…’ Why not opt for a monarch who has already proved that he can manage a kingdom peacefully and is happy with good relations with Britain, especially if he is from Arabian Gulf region and not an import from the Hejaz?

King Abdullah I of Mesopotamia was crowned in his new northern capital of Bagdad on 11 November 1920. His realm expanded to include Mosul five years later, to give Mesopotamia its modern geographical borders.

With the discovery of oil near Kirkuk in 1927 and further finds south of the port of Kuwait in 1938 saw money flooding into the kingdom. By 1950 Mesopotamia was the largest exporter of oil from the Persian Gulf. The demands for oil export and importation of manufactured goods saw the once sleepy port of Kuwait, the traditional home of the Al-Sabah clan explode into a major trading centre and deepwater port.

Mesopotamia became a fully independent Kingdom in 1960 with the departure of the British, although they maintained friendly relations with the kingdom and provided it with its military hardware and training for its army, air force and navy.

Steering a cautious path, the Al-Sabah’s introduced a constitution in 1962 that saw the creation of a parliamentary assembly with limited powers and franchise. The king had watched carefully the political instability in neighbouring Iran and had no intention of copying it. Critically the armed forces remained firmly under the control of the king, with most senior ranks going to men related to the Monarch and his extensive clan. The loyalty of the rank and file of the army was ensured by generous pay and conditions.

 

[Nassirisimo]

another cool what if might be if it remained a British Territory. then how would the Iraqu invasion shape up if they even did invade? would it be like Falklands x10?

Thing is with that, was that none of the British possessions in the Gulf were actually integral British territory. Usually, the Brits just kept a garrison around, and left the local rulers to do their thing (Nearly all of them were only recent arrivals to the Gulf themselves). Perhaps if you gave the British a excuse to kick the ruling family of Kuwait out and rule it more directly...

 

[Eurofed]

Kuwait was an independent Emirate under British protection prior to the start of World War One. Expanding the Kingdom of Iraq to include the Emirate would be problematic so say the least. Conceivably Abdullah Al-Sabah’s domain could be expanded to include Mesopotamia once it is liberated from Ottoman hands if the British felt no great obligation to find a home for Hashemite kings that suddenly find themselves unemployed. They could reason that surely one Hashemite puppet is enough, another one and you start to put ‘all our eggs in one…’ Why not opt for a monarch who has already proved that he can manage a kingdom peacefully and is happy with good relations with Britain, especially if he is from Arabian Gulf region and not an import from the Hejaz?

King Abdullah I of Mesopotamia was crowned in his new northern capital of Bagdad on 11 November 1920. His realm expanded to include Mosul five years later, to give Mesopotamia its modern geographical borders.

With the discovery of oil near Kirkuk in 1927 and further finds south of the port of Kuwait in 1938 saw money flooding into the kingdom. By 1950 Mesopotamia was the largest exporter of oil from the Persian Gulf. The demands for oil export and importation of manufactured goods saw the once sleepy port of Kuwait, the traditional home of the Al-Sabah clan explode into a major trading centre and deepwater port.

Mesopotamia became a fully independent Kingdom in 1960 with the departure of the British, although they maintained friendly relations with the kingdom and provided it with its military hardware and training for its army, air force and navy.

Steering a cautious path, the Al-Sabah’s introduced a constitution in 1962 that saw the creation of a parliamentary assembly with limited powers and franchise. The king had watched carefully the political instability in neighbouring Iran and had no intention of copying it. Critically the armed forces remained firmly under the control of the king, with most senior ranks going to men related to the Monarch and his extensive clan. The loyalty of the rank and file of the army was ensured by generous pay and conditions.

Fascinating PoD and scenario, Cook. The Kingdom of Mesopotamia would become a largely stable hybrid between Jordan and the Gulf Monarchies. The USA would love it, and hopefully grow much less dependent on -and supportive of- the Wahabite and Shah screw-ups. I guess Syria and Nasserite Egypt would be fiercely hostile to it, but post-Nasserite Egypt could coexist fine with it. Assumin the Iranian revolution still occurs, Islamist Iran would hate it deeply, but probably Mesopotamia would not start a war. It cannot be ruled out though, if Mesopotamia feels threatened. If it happens, Mesopotamia would win with flying colors, thanks to strong Western suppor. Of course, there would be no war with Saudi Arabia, and so no Gulf war whatsoever.