WI: No Iraq-Iran War

Deleted member 67076

This is incredibly good for Iraq, probably not so good for Iran.

Iraq during the 70s had the highest economic growth rate in the Middle East; a large budget surplus, a relatively educated and dynamic technocratic elite, and a (moderately) successful policy of economic diversification through import substitution had led to rapid growth whose momentum would continue on throughout the 80s without the interruption of war and debt. The emphasis was on extracting oil which paid for most of the government's budgets but also on mechanizing agriculture and starting a domestic industry. Now, much of this was done through state owned industries that suffered from heavy favoritism and corruption, and the massive rush to build all this created a large amount of distortion in the economy that would bite Iraq later on, but for the foreseeable future things look good. In many ways, it was based off the Soviet model, albeit with a small yet dynamic private sector.

Immigration to Iraq is also going to continue- the large modernization programs and heavy demand for labor meant that foreign workers were brought in; mostly from Egypt, but also from Asia and in some cases Europe- such as Yugoslavia. Growth will almost certainly slowdown in the mid to late 1980s. The oil glut will come, the inefficiencies of clientelism and corruption will pile up, state owned industries will start to bloat, and the "low hanging fruit" of development (construction of roads and basic industries to meet the domestic market) will be done. This will eventually force the Baathists under Saddam to economically reform or face stagnation and repression. Its impossible to know further than that; this depends on a full scale analysis of the Iraqi economy and world markets at the time, and if Iraq can or can't get Soviet aid.

Iran on the other hand, without the "rally around the flag" effect of the Iraqi invasion will be faced with greater pressure on the regime. There were so many competing factions even within the OTL Iranian republic that its difficult, if not impossible to see what will happen next, other than being pretty sure that Khomeini's rule will struggle. Economically though, it'll be better than the 80s and with a similar focus- improving the safety net, educational standards, import substitution, etc. Of course whoever takes the throne might have a better rapprochement with the West in which case, Iran is a good place to form an export oriented investment led economy like 1990s Mexico.
 
Saddam would've been wise to avoid war with Iran, but he still might've gone after theoretically weaker prey, like Kuwait and KSA, especially if economic problems mentioned in the post above become acute.
 
It takes longer for the new Islamic government in Tehran to find it's feet and unify the people behind them. Saddam hoped that the Iranian people would be too splintered and disorganized to offer any opposition to his invasion. In reality, his invasion created a cause for the Iranian people to rally around and effectively legitimized the Ayatollah's regime in the eyes of many Iranians.
 
Saddam would've been wise to avoid war with Iran, but he still might've gone after theoretically weaker prey, like Kuwait and KSA

'Weaker prey'.

Saudi Arabia is twice the size of Iraq. Any invasion of Saudi Arabia would be doomed to fail simply because of the nation's size and landscape, which is mostly just desert with a few cities and oil fields here and there. Also, attacking the country where the two most holiest places in Islam exist is bound to rifle a few feathers in the jihadist community, so we could see people following Al-Qaeda take part in the conflict against Iraq.

Aside from that, what could be the casus belli for a invasion of Saudi Arabia? For Iran, it was the fear of the Islamic Revolution spreading to Iraq's Shia majority.
 
'Weaker prey'.

Saudi Arabia is twice the size of Iraq. Any invasion of Saudi Arabia would be doomed to fail simply because of the nation's size and landscape, which is mostly just desert with a few cities and oil fields here and there. Also, attacking the country where the two most holiest places in Islam exist is bound to rifle a few feathers in the jihadist community, so we could see people following Al-Qaeda take part in the conflict against Iraq.

Aside from that, what could be the casus belli for a invasion of Saudi Arabia? For Iran, it was the fear of the Islamic Revolution spreading to Iraq's Shia majority.
Admittedly, the geography and infrastructure make Saudi Arabia a difficult place to invade unless you're intimately familiar with travel routes and safe oases, and the number of tribes still living in the region make for ready-made guerillas.

Problem is, the Saudi regime is stable against internal dissent, not against a large army rolling in from the north. The Saudi Arabian army is one of the weaker Arab forces in terms of morale and discipline, which is why it needed help fighting against the Houthis, a small guerrilla movement in a desert area with few international allies. The Iraqis would roll right over it. Also, while the invasion of the Arabian peninsula could set off every jihadist in the world, it can also be argued that the Saudi regime is corrupt and decadent, so while they are the Custodians of the Holy Cities, they're not Islamic ideals themselves.

Plus, Iraq doesn't need to take all of Saudi Arabia; just the west coastline where 80% of Saudi Arabia's oil is. And did I mention there are quite a few Arab Shi'ites there? Saddam may have treated them like dirt, but the Saudis treat them as worse than dirt, so they'd have to actually sit down and decide which is worse.

Of course, the biggest counterpoint is that nobody would take this massive upheaval to the oil supply lying down, so I suspect some sort of angry response from the West, as well as anger and disgust in Arab circles as Iraq invades another Arab country for no reason.
 
Plus, Iraq doesn't need to take all of Saudi Arabia; just the west coastline where 80% of Saudi Arabia's oil is.

To us, that is logical, but I doubt Saddam Hussein would rest for anything less than the destruction of the Western-aligned Saudi monarchy. The Iraqi government believed in the conspiracy theory that Wahhabism was a false ideology created by the British to create division within Islam.

The following report was compiled in 2002 by a Iraqi military officer, but I wouldn't be surprised if the government held these beliefs in the 1980s. The Birth of Al-Wahabi Movement and It's Historic Roots
 
To us, that is logical, but I doubt Saddam Hussein would rest for anything less than the destruction of the Western-aligned Saudi monarchy. The Iraqi government believed in the conspiracy theory that Wahhabism was a false ideology created by the British to create division within Islam.

The following report was compiled in 2002 by a Iraqi military officer, but I wouldn't be surprised if the government held these beliefs in the 1980s. The Birth of Al-Wahabi Movement and It's Historic Roots
That... is sad but true. He was prone to overreaching himself.

Though one can argue that without the massive oil revenue, the Saudi government is going to collapse pretty quickly, since the whole system is dependent on the welfare and housing provided to the people and the upkeep for the thriftiness of the Royal Family.
 
Though one can argue that without the massive oil revenue, the Saudi government is going to collapse pretty quickly, since the whole system is dependent on the welfare and housing provided to the people and the upkeep for the thriftiness of the Royal Family.

I agree. If I was Saddam Hussein, I would go for the oil fields and then wait for the house of cards to collapse in Riyadh before moving on to the rest of the country. But then again, if I was Saddam Hussein, I wouldn't invade the country that has the US on speed-dial.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
'Weaker prey'.

Saudi Arabia is twice the size of Iraq. Any invasion of Saudi Arabia would be doomed to fail simply because of the nation's size and landscape, which is mostly just desert with a few cities and oil fields here and there. Also, attacking the country where the two most holiest places in Islam exist is bound to rifle a few feathers in the jihadist community, so we could see people following Al-Qaeda take part in the conflict against Iraq.

Aside from that, what could be the casus belli for a invasion of Saudi Arabia? For Iran, it was the fear of the Islamic Revolution spreading to Iraq's Shia majority.
best way to neutralize saudi arabia militarily would be to manufacture a crisis in Yemen and/or their eastern provinces /Bahrain or U.A.E
Here the saudis will be bound to spend money /men and resources as their biggest fear is an populist uprising against their regime

and would keep the Saudi state involved in a COIN campaign that would hit them at their weakest point i.e manpower /P.R image/training

theoratically they can hire paksitanis sudanese egyptians etc but it is not that easy politically for any of these nations to send huge number of men to fight fellow muslims for house of Saud , does not sell well at home

trying to take on KSA in conventional war is useless as
1-can buy endless amounts of weapons
2-hire foregin experts to man them
3-lots of space to trade /terrain is awful
4- muslim sentiments across the world
 
probably not so good for Iran.

The war did stop the purge in the military, but in all other respects it empowered the most extreme factions at the expense of the more moderate ones, it further isolated Iran diplomatically, it locked them into a long gruelling war that wasted enormous amounts of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives.

I don't see how Iran profits from this. By the time Saddam invaded, I think Khomeini's faction had secured power pretty decisively, so sure, without a war there's more factions, but I don't think any of the factions were in a position to cause instability. They were in a position to provide alternative perspectives though.

fasquardon
 
The Iraqis would roll right over it. Also, while the invasion of the Arabian peninsula could set off every jihadist in the world, it can also be argued that the Saudi regime is corrupt and decadent, so while they are the Custodians of the Holy Cities, they're not Islamic ideals themselves.

Generally the arab masses (and governments) weren't very enthusiastic about the Saudi regime. Many arabs saw the saudis as archaic stooges of the West, and many also felt they were just a bunch of hedonists, who didn't do as tenth as much as they should to underwrite the struggle against Israel.

Plus, Iraq doesn't need to take all of Saudi Arabia; just the west coastline where 80% of Saudi Arabia's oil is.

Actually the east coastline. :) But while that area would've been a pretty easy target and all that was needed from an economic point of view, the Iraqis would be well-advised to try to deny Western powers access to Saudi bases and ports, thereby precluding an operation desert shield. It would've been tough, of course, to take enough of KSA for that. The east coast, Riyahd and Jeddah might do it, if that was possible.

Of course, the biggest counterpoint is that nobody would take this massive upheaval to the oil supply lying down, so I suspect some sort of angry response from the West, as well as anger and disgust in Arab circles as Iraq invades another Arab country for no reason.

I don't think many arab states would've been very upset. As for the US and its allies, it would've helped a lot if the Iraqis made their move no later than about 1985, so they'd still have a superpower backup to (theoretically) limit US options. Still, they should try to prevent a US buildup for a counterattack, as occurred in the OTL.
 
...
Plus, Iraq doesn't need to take all of Saudi Arabia; just the west coastline where 80% of Saudi Arabia's oil is. ...

Of course, the biggest counterpoint is that nobody would take this massive upheaval to the oil supply lying down, so I suspect some sort of angry response from the West, as well as anger and disgust in Arab circles as Iraq invades another Arab country for no reason.

For one take on this scenario read Erdmans novel '''The Crash of 79'. Change Iran to Iraq, & strip out the nuclear weapons and you have the basic story line.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Assuming no revolution, USSR is in pretty serious trouble
The way Shah was arming his airforce by 1978 there were more BVR equipped fighters on ussr southern border than all of central command in Europe
 
'Weaker prey'.

Saudi Arabia is twice the size of Iraq. Any invasion of Saudi Arabia would be doomed to fail simply because of the nation's size and landscape, which is mostly just desert with a few cities and oil fields here and there. Also, attacking the country where the two most holiest places in Islam exist is bound to rifle a few feathers in the jihadist community, so we could see people following Al-Qaeda take part in the conflict against Iraq.

That really doesn't matter much given the horrible inability of the Saudis to actually defend their territory. The Saudi's armed forces have generally proven to be one of the few opponents more incompetent then the Iraqis, even during the '91 Gulf War. Essentially, take all the flaws endemic among the Iraqis (lack of initiative or professionalism below the level of High Command, lack of training, lack of maintenance standards, lack of familiarity with equipment, just to name a very few) and add in a spoiled rich boy mentality among the officers and you pretty much have the Saudi army.

Really, the big problem for Iraq would be inevitable American intervention. The US could get the ready brigade of the 82nd airborne and a wing of F-15s in country pretty fast, before the Iraqis can take the ports (although the oil fields would likely fall, since the 82nd would be tied to defending the ports), with the rest of the division and the Marines on the way, along with multiple carriers. An invasion of Saudi Arabia would have been a hair raising time for the 82nd but, knowing what we now know about the (lack of) skills of the Iraqis, Saddam would not have won, despite having an initially seemingly overwhelming numerical advantage.
 
Last edited:
Actually the east coastline. :) But while that area would've been a pretty easy target and all that was needed from an economic point of view, the Iraqis would be well-advised to try to deny Western powers access to Saudi bases and ports, thereby precluding an operation desert shield. It would've been tough, of course, to take enough of KSA for that. The east coast, Riyahd and Jeddah might do it, if that was possible.
::smacks self::

Yeah I can be dumb that way sometimes :p
 
It takes longer for the new Islamic government in Tehran to find it's feet and unify the people behind them. Saddam hoped that the Iranian people would be too splintered and disorganized to offer any opposition to his invasion. In reality, his invasion created a cause for the Iranian people to rally around and effectively legitimized the Ayatollah's regime in the eyes of many Iranians.

Assuming the government lasts long enough. If the Ayatollah’s regime screws up, I can picture them being out of power by like the 2000s I thinks
 
The wrong hiccup in 1983 could trigger nuclear war in this case but more likely the Iraqis might have nuclear capability in the early/mid 1990s *then* go on the offensive
 
Top