WI Saddam attacked Kuwait instead of Iran?

King Thomas

Banned
Instead of a long war in Iran, his generals tell him it would be easier to attack and occupy Kuwait and/or invade Saudi Arabia, as Kuwait's army is tiny next to his and Saudi Arabia's, whilst not as small as Kuwait's is weak. Do it quickly, they say, before the West can moblise troops in the region.
 

Cook

Banned
Why would Iraq do that? Invading Kuwait does not address the problems created by Iran.

Iraq’s invasion of Iran wasn’t to address a problem it was to seize a perceived opportunity. Saddam decided to act while Iran’s military was weakened by the chaos caused by the Islamic Revolution to grab the oil producing areas close to their common border.

Iraq’s limited access to The Gulf via the Shatt al-Arab waterway becomes irrelevant if Saddam had been able to grab Kuwait, either the entire country or just the northern half down to Kuwait Bay.

The best opportunity would seem to be if Saddam wasn’t greedy and seized only the northern half of the country with the oil fields near their common border and greater access to The Gulf, presenting it to the world as a border readjustment rather than invading the entire country. Then US could be expected to deploy forces to Kuwait under those circumstances to defend the rest of the country, but would be unlikely to fight a border war for what was essentially desert and oil wells; no ‘war for oil’.


Such a proposal however would run counter to Saddam’s basic greed; if he was going in he’d want the entire country.
 

Ismail

Banned
In 1991 there were revolts by Shia Muslims. Considering that Khomeini in 1979 was already calling on Shia Muslims in Iraq to overthrow Saddam I rather doubt Saddam would want to invade Kuwait, which would have pretty much isolated him diplomatically from everyone and made him completely vulnerable to an Iranian invasion, as well as making such an invasion significantly more defensible in international eyes.

Iraq would have also probably not gotten US or perhaps even Soviet armaments. Basically an Iranian invasion would have caught Iraq with its pants down.
 

Cook

Banned
Considering that Khomeini in 1979 was already calling on Shia Muslims in Iraq to overthrow Saddam...



Khomeini’s calls for a Shia uprising in Iraq in the early 1980’s fell on deaf ears just as Saddam’s call for the Arabs of Khuzestan to rise up and welcome him as a liberator did.


The rebellions in ’91 were prompted by the belief that the Iraqi army had been destroyed and that the Americans would not let Saddam remain in power. The situation of ’91 was enormously different from ten years earlier.

Iraq had historically claimed ownership to the territory of Kuwait so Saddam could have made the claim of righting a historical wrong with far more justification than his attempt to annex Khuzestan, which had never been part of Iraq, had.
 
Last edited:
Iraq tried that in 1961 but was deterred by british response. Seeing how US replaced British commitments in the region following british reduction it's likely US will respond in similr vein.

Of course it dependson how region develops prior to POD and when POD is. If you want ~1980 invasion with revolution in Iran (Kuwait instead of Iran) than that would be risky thing for Iraq. On one hand you have large iran on your flank fired by revolutionary zeal. Plus this would isolate Iraq from other Arabs. In OTL Saddam managed to cast himself as Arab bulwark against Iranian menace which was both heretic shi'ia and Persian. Invading Kuwait would topedo that and making smaller Gulf countries flock under US protection even more.

If you want invasion without iranian revolution that would be even riskier as US would use Iran as proxy to smack Iraq down or as base for their own response. Plus Iran is even bigger threat due to absence of revolutionary chaos and has farstronger forces, something Saddam simply can't ignore.

In other words, unlikely as whichever way Saddam turns he has to count on Iran ready to do someserious damage.
 
Top