WI: No Iraq-Iran War

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

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.

Hmmm. So the theocratic and repressive elements will have less power, there would likely be a more diverse and pluralistic government which ultimately offers more freedom and prosperity. Yeah, that would be a horrible outcome. ;)
 
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),

But what would be the use of sending in troops if the oilfields were lost? What value does the rest of KSA have? Of course you could say the initial intervention, like desert shield in the OTL, would be a prelude to throwing the Iraqis out. But what if Saddam, with no Iran front, had moved into Kuwait and KSA by say 1985 when the USSR was still intact? The Kremlin might pay lip service to an anti-aggression view, but would it allow the US to attack an important client militarily?
 

bguy

Donor
But what would be the use of sending in troops if the oilfields were lost? What value does the rest of KSA have? Of course you could say the initial intervention, like desert shield in the OTL, would be a prelude to throwing the Iraqis out. But what if Saddam, with no Iran front, had moved into Kuwait and KSA by say 1985 when the USSR was still intact? The Kremlin might pay lip service to an anti-aggression view, but would it allow the US to attack an important client militarily?

How is the Kremlin going to stop it? The United States isn't going to let Iraq occupy Kuwait and the Saudi oil fields. Doing so would mean giving Saddam control of nearly half the world's oil supply which is obviously totally unacceptable. Nor will the US be deterred from action by the Soviets vetoing any UN resolution. Control of half the world's oil supply is too important (it would essentially give Saddam the ability to crash the world economy at will), so the US is going to eject him from Kuwait and KSA regardless of whether the UN approves or not. That means unless the Soviets are willing to militarily intervene on Saddam's side (i.e. start World War 3), they have no way to prevent the US from driving Saddam out of Kuwait and KSA, and Saddam isn't nearly important enough to the Soviets to be worth triggering MAD.
 
But what would be the use of sending in troops if the oilfields were lost?

To retake them, duh...

What value does the rest of KSA have?

Launch pad for the counteroffensive, of course.

Of course you could say the initial intervention, like desert shield in the OTL, would be a prelude to throwing the Iraqis out. But what if Saddam, with no Iran front, had moved into Kuwait and KSA by say 1985 when the USSR was still intact? The Kremlin might pay lip service to an anti-aggression view, but would it allow the US to attack an important client militarily?

This claim of the Iraqis being a client state of the Soviets really doesn’t have much substance to it and reeks of post-Gulf War revisionism when the US tried to bury its own assistance to him and paint the man as always being on the “other side”. While it is true that Iraq was pretty friendly with the Russians, Saddam was never an outright client of the Soviets and wasn’t even as close with them as, for example, the Syrians were. He also maintained strong relations with the western powers prior to the Gulf War, who also never really saw him as a Soviet client and supported him heavily. What’s more, what can the Soviets do to back Saddam up in a meaningful way? Kick off WW3? Is a random case of unsanctioned Iraqis aggression really worth that to them?
 
How is the Kremlin going to stop it? The United States isn't going to let Iraq occupy Kuwait and the Saudi oil fields. Doing so would mean giving Saddam control of nearly half the world's oil supply which is obviously totally unacceptable. Nor will the US be deterred from action by the Soviets vetoing any UN resolution. Control of half the world's oil supply is too important (it would essentially give Saddam the ability to crash the world economy at will), so the US is going to eject him from Kuwait and KSA regardless of whether the UN approves or not. That means unless the Soviets are willing to militarily intervene on Saddam's side (i.e. start World War 3), they have no way to prevent the US from driving Saddam out of Kuwait and KSA, and Saddam isn't nearly important enough to the Soviets to be worth triggering MAD.
They will insist on diplomatic negotiations. If Sadam plays it smart, he can gain a lot in exchange for a withdrawl from the occupied Saudi Arabian east coast. All the while negotiating under the political protection of the USSR. The early 80 's were one of the coldest periods in the cold war. Only for that reason the USSR will likely put their heels in the sand in this case. After OTL's invasion of Kuwait president Bush still insisted on a fiat of Gorbachew for a militairy intervention.
 

bguy

Donor
They will insist on diplomatic negotiations. If Sadam plays it smart, he can gain a lot in exchange for a withdrawl from the occupied Saudi Arabian east coast. All the while negotiating under the political protection of the USSR. The early 80 's were one of the coldest periods in the cold war. Only for that reason the USSR will likely put their heels in the sand in this case. After OTL's invasion of Kuwait president Bush still insisted on a fiat of Gorbachew for a militairy intervention.

Different situation. The First Gulf War only involved Iraq seizing Kuwait. Seizing the Saudi Arabian oil fields is far, far, far more provocative than seizing Kuwait. (Saudi Arabia having double the oil reserves of Kuwait.) The U.S. might tolerate the annexation of Kuwait under the right circumstances, but it would never stand for a hostile power seizing the Saudi oil fields. Indeed it would be safe to say that the US's biggest three red lines during the late Cold War (the lines for which the United States would absolutely be willing to fight World War 3) were:

1) Invading the United States;
2) Invading Western Europe and/or Canada;
3) Invading Saudi Arabia.

So while the US might negotiate with Saddam (if for no other reason than that it will take time to move III Corps to the Middle East) those negotiations will only last until the heavy divisions are in place. Then if Saddam is still in Saudi Arabia the US will attack.

Furthermore, the Soviets know this. They get that Saudi Arabian oil is absolutely vital to the Western worlds economy and thus that the US will definitely fight to keep that oil out of Saddam's hands. The Soviets also know that they don't have any vital interests at stake. They aren't bound to Saddam by any treaty obligations, his continued existence (let alone his conquests) aren't important to Soviet security, and they don't need Middle East oil for anything. Thus with them knowing that the US absolutely will fight to eject Saddam from Saudi Arabia and with them having absolutely nothing vital at stake, there is no way the Soviets put their heels in the sand. The Soviet leadership is not suicidal and will not sacrifice Moscow for Saddam.
 

Deleted member 67076

Im honestly not sure if Saddam would invade any other place if he decides not to go for Iran. Saudi and Kuwait are under American protection, Jordan is an ally, Israel is a no go despite funding the PLO, Turkey is an important ally. If anything the most likely target would be Syria, if only to remove Hafez Al Assad and try to get a union from that. But even then that leads to potentially upsetting the Soviets and their major base south of the Black Sea.

Hmmm. So the theocratic and repressive elements will have less power, there would likely be a more diverse and pluralistic government which ultimately offers more freedom and prosperity. Yeah, that would be a horrible outcome. ;)
Sure, in between the inevitable Dirty War, low level insurgencies, and delayed economic diversification. The 80s are gonna be rough either way. Im not even sure if the Thermidore of the 90s will come (Though one could argue if that will be necessary).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tyg
Furthermore, the Soviets know this. They get that Saudi Arabian oil is absolutely vital to the Western worlds economy and thus that the US will definitely fight to keep that oil out of Saddam's hands. The Soviets also know that they don't have any vital interests at stake. They aren't bound to Saddam by any treaty obligations, his continued existence (let alone his conquests) aren't important to Soviet security, and they don't need Middle East oil for anything. Thus with them knowing that the US absolutely will fight to eject Saddam from Saudi Arabia and with them having absolutely nothing vital at stake, there is no way the Soviets put their heels in the sand. The Soviet leadership is not suicidal and will not sacrifice Moscow for Saddam.

It should also be pointed out that even though Saddam will ultimately lose, the consequences of this invasion regardless of the ultimate outcome, will be a massive spike in oil prices which will pump in badly needed hard currency to the Soviet economy. So the Soviets lose nothing by washing their hands of Saddam and can still profit it from it even by doing so.
 
Im honestly not sure if Saddam would invade any other place if he decides not to go for Iran. Saudi and Kuwait are under American protection, Jordan is an ally, Israel is a no go despite funding the PLO, Turkey is an important ally. If anything the most likely target would be Syria, if only to remove Hafez Al Assad and try to get a union from that. But even then that leads to potentially upsetting the Soviets and their major base south of the Black Sea.

Iraq did volunteer forces for some of the Arab Israeli wars. I think they sent a contingent in 1993. But I agree that there are no good options for aggressive military action. A stable Iran is to dangerous. Hussein only took the chance because of his perception that Iran was in chaos, it was the weakest it had been in a generation, and he believed he had the backing of Saudi Arabia and the United States.

There's no real advantage to going after Syria. Basically it would be pointlessly invading their desert hinterland from his desert hinterland. Logistically it would be extremely expensive and difficult, and there's no real resources or opportunity. The Syrian military would be roughly comparable in strength and resources. Basically, all risk and no gains.

Invading Saudi Arabia or Turkey is a roundabout way to commit suicide. Jordan is pointless. The only candidate is Kuwait. Maybe if he's in a position to make a move when the Kuwaiti stock market bubble collapses, he'll get away with it. Otherwise, perpetual stalemate.
 
Yeah since without an outside force to help unify them, Iran would need to focus internally and given the religious conservative government, fat chance of that happening. Hell, this might coinside with the Arab Spring even.

Maybe yet another civil war in the region to throw on top of Libya, Syria and Yemen?
 
Iraq had pretty much 'permission' from everyone to invade Iran. The Soviets were supportive, the US was supportive even the other Arab nations in the Middle East were supportive. (IIRC Syria was about the only nation to support Iran during the war) The US had already made it clear that no "outside" intervention was going to be allowed, (ie: Soviet hands off) but felt that Iraq had 'valid grievances' to address with Iran. (Which was bull but keep in mind anything that took down the Iranian Revolutionary Government pretty much meant the US could keep Iran's foreign money)

Iran was in fact the ONLY place Iraq would get such cooperation and they and everyone else knew it.

Oddly enough this is pretty clear since when Iraq actually DID invade Kuwait EVERYONE, (and I do mean EVERYONE) was against it. The US, Russia, the rest of the Middle East and even China were VERY interested in pushing Iraq out of Kuwait and away from Saudi. Part of the reason Osama Bin Laden hated Hussein so much, (and why they would NEVER cooperate) was because his invasion of Kuwait brought massive foreign forces into Saudi Arabia which he had spent decades convincing the Saudi government to kick out.

Randy
 
While it is true that Iraq was pretty friendly with the Russians, Saddam was never an outright client of the Soviets and wasn’t even as close with them as, for example, the Syrians were.

Iraq had some western made arms but the vast bulk of its arsenal was from the USSR or east block.

He also maintained strong relations with the western powers prior to the Gulf War, who also never really saw him as a Soviet client and supported him heavily.

Largely because of Iran being a mutual enemy.

What’s more, what can the Soviets do to back Saddam up in a meaningful way? Kick off WW3?

Well, as long as the USSR was intact it served to tie down a lot of western conventional strength in Europe. The USSR long prevented the US from eliminating Castro's Cuba, so it could've deterred the US from attacking Iraq if it chose. Although it may have opposed aggression in principle, it still could've prevented war--no use getting back oil if you're nuked.

Is a random case of unsanctioned Iraqis aggression really worth that to them?

If Iraq had taken half the world's oil, and became heavily dependent on Moscow for protection, that could've given the USSR enormous potential leverage over the West and Japan via Iraq.
 
Oddly enough this is pretty clear since when Iraq actually DID invade Kuwait EVERYONE, (and I do mean EVERYONE) was against it. The US, Russia, the rest of the Middle East and even China were VERY interested in pushing Iraq out of Kuwait and away from Saudi.

No basically only KSA, Syria, the US and european states wanted him out. Jordan quietly backed Iraq and so did many Palestinians and others. Most of the world went along with the US and KSA because by then the USSR was washed up, leaving the US the only superpower with virtual carte blanche.
 
The Soviets condemned the invasion of Kuwait, and tacitly supported the American police action, but it was pretty clear the Soviets had plenty of troubles at home and were in no condition to help or hinder. In a year's time, they'd be gone.

Besides, the Soviets knew Saddam was a bit of an untrustworthy, wild card. Hafiz Al-Assad was a more reliable ally, and the Syrians strongly distrusted and feared the Iraqis for ideological and geopolitical reasons. They (both the Syrians and the Soviets) quietly supported the intervention, but officially stayed quiet.
 

deanna

Banned
It's often forgotten that there was still a Soviet Union when So Damn Insane (thank you, Krusty the Klown) invaded Kuwait.

If i had a penny for every article - or post, even on here - that talks about what Russia or the Russian Federation did or might do in August 1990, I'd be very wealthy.
 
Iraq had some western made arms but the vast bulk of its arsenal was from the USSR or east block.



Largely because of Iran being a mutual enemy.



Well, as long as the USSR was intact it served to tie down a lot of western conventional strength in Europe. The USSR long prevented the US from eliminating Castro's Cuba, so it could've deterred the US from attacking Iraq if it chose. Although it may have opposed aggression in principle, it still could've prevented war--no use getting back oil if you're nuked.



If Iraq had taken half the world's oil, and became heavily dependent on Moscow for protection, that could've given the USSR enormous potential leverage over the West and Japan via Iraq.

Except the USSR KNOWS this is a line the Western powers are unwilling to allow them to cross. Giving a Soviet client state control of half the world's oil supply is UNACCEPTABLE. It allows the Soviets to strangle their economies when and where they want. There will be war between the Western states and Iraq, and if the USSR does ANYTHING but sit there and be quiet, nukes will fly for Moscow.
 

bguy

Donor
Well, as long as the USSR was intact it served to tie down a lot of western conventional strength in Europe.

III Corps and the Rapid Deployment Force (i.e. the forces the US would send to the Middle East to eject Saddam from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait) weren't stationed in Europe, so they can be deployed without reducing any of the west's conventional strength in Europe. (Admittedly, III Corps was the principle Reforger force, but even during the Cold War it had contingency mission plans for deployment to Southwest Asia, so obviously it was understood that there were circumstances where it would be necessary to use it someplace other than Europe.)

The USSR long prevented the US from eliminating Castro's Cuba, so it could've deterred the US from attacking Iraq if it chose.

It wasn't the USSR that prevented the US from attacking Cuba. Kennedy decided to forego a direct US invasion of Cuba in 1961 (well before the Soviets had made any military guarantees to protect Castro.) The reason the US never invaded Castro's Cuba directly was because the optics of the United States invading a Third World country simply because we didn't like it's government would have been terrible and would have turned the entire Third World against the US. (This is also why Eisenhower stood against the British and French in the Suez Crisis.) It doesn't do any good to topple a Castro or Nasser if by doing so you whip up a hurricane of anti-western sentiment that creates a dozen new anti-western leaders.

That won't be an issue though in the US ejecting Saddam from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. No one is going to view Saddam as a victim of imperialist aggression after he launched unprovoked invasions of two of his neighbors, so the US doesn't have to worry about turning the Third World against it when it ejects Saddam.

Although it may have opposed aggression in principle, it still could've prevented war--no use getting back oil if you're nuked.

The US submitting to Soviet nuclear blackmail is simply not going to happen. Doing so would utterly destroy the US's world position as every other nation would now know the Americans will fold whenever the Soviets threaten to break out the nukes. No plausible US president would ever agree to such an abject surrender.

If Iraq had taken half the world's oil, and became heavily dependent on Moscow for protection, that could've given the USSR enormous potential leverage over the West and Japan via Iraq.

Which is exactly why the West would never stand for Saddam gobbling up Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
 
They (both the Syrians and the Soviets) quietly supported the intervention, but officially stayed quiet.

Well, Syria wasn't so quiet. It sent troops to help evict the Iraqis from Kuwait. They weren't actually used, because the similarity of equipment increased the risk of friendly fire incidents, but that's beside the point.
 
Top