WI Saddam Hussein allowed to annex Kuwait

[starman]

An important development was that the Soviets under Gorbachev no longer supported their Iraqi allies. Put a hardliner in the Kremlin and things look different. Then you'd be looking at Western sanctions against Iraq instead of war IMHO.

One problem was, by 1990 the USSR was already so demoralized and shot there was little chance of a hardliner coming to power, or putting his policies into practice.
Right after the '91 war, Prof. Jeffry Record said Saddam's blunder was bad timing. I suggested he would've had a much better chance had he left Iran alone in 1980, and began secret preparations for taking Kuwait. If he did it in 1985 he may have have succeeded.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

The premise is unlikely. In the post-WW II world, one nation simply invading another nation and annexing all or part of it is a gross violation of The Rules.

The nearest anyone has come to that:

North Vietnam invading and conquering South Vietnam; except that the two states were recent divisions of a single country, and North Vietnam's attack was resisted by the US for many years with great force.

Goa, Western Sahara, and East Timor were all colonial enclaves seized by dominant neighbors; East Timor was given up, and Western Sahara remains contested.

But if Saddam got away with annexing Kuwait...

First, it scares hell out of the other Gulf states; none of them are strong enough to resist invasion. All would have to make explicit defensive alliances with major powers that would include at least "tripwire" ally forces based in their territories. Russia is allied with Saddam, and the US clearly couldn't be relied on. That leaves China, possibly France, possibly India or Pakistan.

Second, Iraq becomes much stronger. Iraq borrowed a lot from the Gulf States during the Iraq-Iran War. Its debts to Kuwait are eliminated; Iraq can also repudiate its debts to the other Gulf States. Iraq will try to claim Kuwait's sovereign wealth fund; if they get it, that eliminates Iraq's debts to outside countries.

Iraq will have an enormous cash flow. Possibly enough to disrupt th Gulf statesl,

 

[Saint_007]

Russia is allied with Saddam, and the US clearly couldn't be relied on. That leaves China, possibly France, possibly India or Pakistan.

Saddam was only a nominal ally at best. He ticked off quite a few people when in power. The Assads were more consistent and trustworthy allies than Saddam, so Russia/the USSR would be more inclined to help Damascus should Baghdad try anything. Then again, this is 1990/1991 USSR, which was on the way out, followed by the downward spiral of the Yeltsin years.

France did have good ties with Saddam, but only because he was offering them good prices on oil and such. And they're certainly not going to stick their necks out for him.

Second, Iraq becomes much stronger. Iraq borrowed a lot from the Gulf States during the Iraq-Iran War. Its debts to Kuwait are eliminated; Iraq can also repudiate its debts to the other Gulf States. Iraq will try to claim Kuwait's sovereign wealth fund; if they get it, that eliminates Iraq's debts to outside countries.

Iraq will have an enormous cash flow. Possibly enough to disrupt th Gulf statesl,

Considering he was sitting on a massive oil field, both Iraq's and Kuwait's, he'd be able to badly disrupt oil-based economies, like how Saudi Arabia undersold oil in the 2000s to fuck with Iran's income - though it can backfire for obvious reasons.

 

[starman]

Saddam was only a nominal ally at best. He ticked off quite a few people when in power. The Assads were more consistent and trustworthy allies than Saddam, so Russia/the USSR would be more inclined to help Damascus should Baghdad try anything.

I dunnoo...Iraq was an oil rich state that could better pay for Russian arms. It was also bigger and strategically located--a pretty valuable ally for a Cold war superpower.

Then again, this is 1990/1991 USSR, which was on the way out, followed by the downward spiral of the Yeltsin years.

I wonder if a successful occupation of Kuwait and domination of the gulf by a Soviet client/ally could've strengthened the USSR's position vis a vis the West sufficiently to enable it to survive longer.

 

[starman]

The premise is unlikely. In the post-WW II world, one nation simply invading another nation and annexing all or part of it is a gross violation of The Rules.

It helped if a major power was willing to back up an occupier. Israel occupied parts of three arab countries and still has territory once belonging to two.

Second, Iraq becomes much stronger. Iraq borrowed a lot from the Gulf States during the Iraq-Iran War. Its debts to Kuwait are eliminated; Iraq can also repudiate its debts to the other Gulf States. Iraq will try to claim Kuwait's sovereign wealth fund; if they get it, that eliminates Iraq's debts to outside countries.

Iraq will have an enormous cash flow. Possibly enough to disrupt th Gulf statesl,

Of course a more solvent Saddam would've invested even more in advanced arms, including WMD if he could.

 

[Philip]

. I suggested he would've had a much better chance had he left Iran alone in 1980, and began secret preparations for taking Kuwait. If he did it in 1985 he may have have succeeded.

This would be interesting. It would be very difficult for a US-led coalition to expel Iraq even if USSR remains (at least formally) uninvolved.

First, USA (largest contributor), UK (contributor #3) and the rest of NATO can not redeploy all ground forces from Europe that they did OTL. Second, in the context of the Cold War, would Syria (#6 contributor) and Egypt (#4 contributor) join? Without them, the coalition starts to look like a crusade.

Goa, Western Sahara, and East Timor were all colonial enclaves seized by dominant neighbors; East Timor was given up, and Western Sahara remains contested.

Didn't Saddam try to spin the invasion this way? Recovering a province stolen by perfidious Albion? Could he have been more effective in this?

 

[starman]

First, USA (largest contributor), UK (contributor #3) and the rest of NATO can not redeploy all ground forces from Europe that they did OTL.

Right, this was a point I made in a previous thread, and what Prof. Jeffry Record wrote in '91.

Second, in the context of the Cold War, would Syria (#6 contributor) and Egypt (#4 contributor) join? Without them, the coalition starts to look like a crusade.

The USSR cast too long a shadow over Syria even if it wanted to oppose Saddam.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

It helped if a major power was willing to back up an occupier. Israel occupied parts of three arab countries and still has territory once belonging to two.

Israel occupied those territories in the course of a defensive war initiated by those countries. (All three countries were in a long-standing state of war with Israel, suspended only by a truce, had publicly proclaimed their intent to destroy Israel, and massed troops on Israel's borders in obvious preparation for attack.)

Israel did not annex the Gaza Strip (which was not legally part of Egypt)., and returned the Sinai to Egypt when Egypt agreed to peace.

Israel has annexed only a small part of the West Bank (whcich Jordan acquired extralegally in 1948, and renounced title to in 1988).

Israel has never formally annexed the Golan Heights, and has several times offered to return the territory to Syria if Syria would make peace with Israel.

Thus, regardless of whether one approves of israeli actions regarding these territories, they are not any sort of precedent for what Saddam intended for Kuwait.

 

[starman]

Israel occupied those territories in the course of a defensive war initiated by those countries.

If you're referring to the '67 war it was most certainly not a defensive war on Israel's part, initiated by an arab attack. They provoked it but didn't start it.

.... and massed troops on Israel's borders in obvious preparation for attack.)

This is the greatest propagandistic myth of the 20th century. Nasser precipitated a crisis, but all three arab armies were deployed defensively.