WI: Saddam invades Kuwait, ten years earlier?

[TrueFactsUnstated]

A meeting of Ba’ath Party ministers is assembled in the Presidential Palace in Baghdad. Foreign minister Tariq Aziz and defense minister Adnan Khairallah sit adjacent to President of the Iraqi Republic, Saddam Hussein, who after making one last puff on his Cuban cigar begins to speak.

“Gentlemen, you know why I have arranged this meeting. Major world events of the past year have provided Iraq with an opportunity of historical proportions. The revolution in Iran and the takeover of that accursed country by the mad mullah from Qom have resulted in it being severely weakening, both by the complete souring of relations between it and its imperial patron — the United States — and by Khomeini’s massive purge of his own military’s officer staff. While it would be very tempting for us to take this as an opportunity to invade Iran and liberate our Arab brethren in Khuzestan, we cannot forget the fact that Iran is still Iran. It is still a country whose population is nearly three times that of ours. And while we may achieve some initial success, they would very quickly reorganize and grind us down to a standstill, if not push us back all the way to Baghdad.”

“Rather”, he continues, “let us take this opportunity not to attack Iran, but to retrieve Iraq’s 19th province. I am of course talking about Kuwait. Carter is himself a weakling, just by his handling of the hostage crisis. And now that the United States has lost its regional bully, they are in no position, especially after Vietnam, to mobilize their forces against us. They cannot deal with the Soviets in Afghanistan, Revolutionary Iran, and us at the same time. And even the Saudi reactionaries will not side with Iran if that is what it takes to force us out. So gentlemen, let us return Kuwait to the bosom of Babylon”!

How accurate do you think Saddam’s assessment is? Would he likely succeed in occupying and annexing Kuwait? Would Carter respond with intervention ala Bush ‘91, in order to shore up his faltering approval rate? Or are the conditions for something analogous to the Gulf War simply not there, especially so soon after Vietnam and when all the popular outrage is geared towards Iran? Interested to hear what you think.

 

[starman]

No doubt, a move into Kuwait in 1980 would've been in some respects better than the OTL one ten years later. With the USSR still intact it was in a position to limit US options if it chose. It might tell the US it can defend KSA if it wants but it will oppose any US military solution in Kuwait. In addition the continued Soviet presence on the West German border would've limited what the US could send to the gulf.
There were some problems, though. In 1980, at least one Iraqi general opined that years of fighting the Kurds had left Baghdad's forces unfit for conventional operations. As Iraq's mediocre performance against Iran shows, the Iraqi army and air force of 1980 need more time and better preparation. In an old blog post, I suggested Iraq carefully prepare and beef up its forces for 5 years, until 1985, before going into Kuwait. The USSR would still be intact then, and with more time to prepare, and without the debilitating war against Iran, Iraq's forces would've been in a far better position to make the attempt.

 

[marathag]

Having a Soviet client State invade Kuwait won't look good, after signing the SALT II Treaty.
Seemingly to have greenlit Saddam and then invade Afghanistan? Carter would have to punch back

 

[Mark E.]

For Carter, it's "no more Mr. Nice Guy." He sends out the navy and the troops. If successful, it could be a big political advantage.

 

[Historian299]

Why on Earth would Saddam invade Kuwait? What he really wanted was to take out Iran. He only invaded Kuwait to use the oil to pay off Iraq’s debts after the Iraq-Iran War.

The US armed and supplied Iraq during the war, which started right after the hostage crisis. Ever see the photo of Donald Rumseld with Saddam? They were hoping that Saddam would win

Why would Saddam piss of the US, a potential friend, for Kuwait? Or he can go for more oil in Iraq and Sunni’s historic enemies. Who btw just had an revolution.

 

[Seandineen]

Might save mr. Carter

 

[FillyofDelphi]

How accurate do you think Saddam’s assessment is?

Saddam's advisor raises his hand and points out "Sir, your analysis of the difficulty of facing the regime of the Shia Persians isen't inaccurate... but have you considered that this threat could come down on us and light the powder keg of our own Shia populations should the Ayatollah chose to take advantage of the deployment in the south and our isolation from any source of arms imports? If the Americans will not intervene for the sake of Kuwait they certainly won't lift a finger to aid you in the shadow of such a move, and without their markets we cant hoe to emerge from an attack not completely crippled and broke"

 

[starman]

Might save mr. Carter

Yes even if he doesn’t actually fight Saddam the emergency, occurring before the 1980 elections, could’ve given the Democrats the same “don’t change horses in midstream” argument the Republicans used in ‘56, at the time of the Suez and Hungarian crises.

 

[starman]

Why on Earth would Saddam invade Kuwait? What he really wanted was to take out Iran. He only invaded Kuwait to use the oil to pay off Iraq’s debts after the Iraq-Iran War.

Iraq had long considered Kuwait part of it. In addition Saddam was very ambitious and wanted extra money to bankroll his arms buildup, nuclear program etc. Taking Kuwait would not only get him extra money but enable him to cast a long shadow over KSA.

The US armed and supplied Iraq during the war, which started right after the hostage crisis. Ever see the photo of Donald Rumseld with Saddam? They were hoping that Saddam would win

Why would Saddam piss of the US, a potential friend, for Kuwait?

The US backed Iraq—to some extent—only because of mutual animosity toward Iran. Washington and Baghdad were not natural allies. Only other nations like the USSR and France were willing to arm Iraq to the degree that Saddam wanted.

 

[Dolan]

There's a Communist Revolution in Kuwait...

Suddenly USSR drops Saddam like Potato, only to be given blank check by US to annex Kuwait ASAP.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Saddam wanted to become the top power in the Middle East. You don't go invading a minor neighbour, leaving your back exposed to your greatest rival, unless you've secured backing of a Great Power or a coalition of neighbouring countries if you want to be that.

This PoD likely gets Saddam coup'd if he presses ahead with his plan.

 

[seraphim74]

Saddam wanted to become the top power in the Middle East. You don't go invading a minor neighbour, leaving your back exposed to your greatest rival, unless you've secured backing of a Great Power or a coalition of neighbouring countries if you want to be that.

This PoD likely gets Saddam coup'd if he presses ahead with his plan.

Not to mention that AFAIK Saddam wanted to use a chaos and many purges in Iranian military after the Islamic Revolution which seriously weakened Iranian armed forces. From his POV it was a good opoortunity with limited time to use it, before new regime gets stronger and new commanders adapt to their new duties. Another thing is that Iran had very few friends at the time and actually was at odds with both superpowers: USA and USSR. Success in Iran was theoretically possible and possible gains (territorial and prestigious) significant.
OTOH invasion of Kuwait alienates at least 1 superpower (USA) and other Arab countries. The myth of Arab brotherhood still existed. IOTL during the Gulf War many Arab countries (including Egypt and Syria) stood against Iraq, because Saddam attacked another Arab state. No Arab country cared about Iran, since Iranians are not Arabs.

 

[starman]

There's a Communist Revolution in Kuwait...

Suddenly USSR drops Saddam like Potato, only to be given blank check by US to annex Kuwait ASAP.

I doubt the USSR would drop Iraq because it attacked a relatively minor state, even if communist. Or the US would approve of an invasion. The US just didn’t want Saddam getting too strong.

 

[starman]

Saddam wanted to become the top power in the Middle East. You don't go invading a minor neighbour, leaving your back exposed to your greatest rival, unless you've secured backing of a Great Power or a coalition of neighbouring countries if you want to be that.

But Iran was far weaker than under the Shah, and Khomeini wouldn’t have acted in US interests. In addition, even if the USSR disapproved of a takeover of Kuwait, it would still oppose an invasion of an important client.

This PoD likely gets Saddam coup'd if he presses ahead with his plan.

I have doubts. Saddam was great at maintaining himself in power. You’d think that after a catastrophic failing as bad as the Kuwait adventure of 1990–1991, he’d be dumped and killed. But he held on for over another decade despite the added liabilities of sanctions and limbo...

 

[Saint_007]

There's a Communist Revolution in Kuwait...

Suddenly USSR drops Saddam like Potato, only to be given blank check by US to annex Kuwait ASAP.

The likelihood of a Communist Kuwait is... let's just say I wouldn't bet money on it. The Gulf States, quite frankly, lack the infrastructure and mentality for a Communist takeover. There are the Emirs, the Army in their pocket, and the majority of the populace that is definitely not an industrial population, and thus not really open to the pressures required for a grassroots Socialist movement. Syria and Iraq were far more open to Western ideas - such as nationalism, socialism, and fascism - and as such developed Baathism and their brand of nationalist strongmen, while the Gulf States were still largely tribal, something not exactly conductive to a Socialist regime. The Gulf States, meanwhile, didn't really develop until the mass production of oil and the expansion of the infrastructure in the 1970s, and even then there was a strong leaning towards pure capitalism, as the emirs share a part of the oil wealth with the small populations of their countries. Kuwait had under 1.5M people, and even a fraction of the oil wealth would go a long way.

 

[Jukra]

I would guess the easiest, but non-Saddam way to get Iraq to become the Top Dog in Middle East would be to invade... no one. What are the benefits compared to risks, really? You have already a stupendous amount of oil.

With Iran going bonkers and possible tacit backing by USSR the Army can be kept fairly weak, perhaps with formation of Republican Guard to keep possibility of a coup low, as in OTL. Have Special Forces doing gymnastics to do the Arab Solidarity stuff and perhaps use them to destabilize Iran even further. Use most of the money for the boring stuff - health care, education, industry etc. Focus on keeping the population growth in check to get a demographic dividend. From 1990's onwards take a note from China on how to keep your country a dictatorship while getting rich.

But of course Saddam being Saddam would not do this.

 

[Michel Van]

Biggest issue with Iraq invasion of Kuwait in 1981
is that Saddam had his hand full from 22 September 1980, to 20 August 1988, with trying to invaded Iran...

 

[Saint_007]

Biggest issue with Iraq invasion of Kuwait in 1981
is that Saddam had his hand full from 22 September 1980, to 20 August 1988, with trying to invaded Iran...

I think the argument here is that instead of starting a fight with Iran, he decides to go after Kuwait instead. So the 1980 war in question is Iraq vs Kuwait, not Iraq vs Iran.

Still, I can't imagine it going well for him either. Saddam was a notoriously poor planner.

 

[mianfei]

I think the argument here is that instead of starting a fight with Iran, he decides to go after Kuwait instead. So the 1980 war in question is Iraq vs Kuwait, not Iraq vs Iran.

Still, I can't imagine it going well for him either. Saddam was a notoriously poor planner.

If the war saw Hussein annex Kuwait and the al-Sabah family forced into exile – and Iraq certainly had the artillery to achieve that – would the US have still regarded Saddam as an anti-Communist/anti-Khomeini ally and refused to worry if he went further into Saudi Arabia’s oilfields? With hindsight, one could almost see Saddam as a “less dangerous” ally than the Wahhabi House of Sa‘ud – many of whose members supported and funded al-Qa‘ida – but would petrol in the US have become less cheap than even in the late 1970s? [In my vocabulary, based upon runaway expansion of the Hadley cell – totalling 8˚ of latitude – over southern Australia and Central Chile since the 1960s/1970s and consequent virtual loss of their former winter rainfall, petrol must never be termed “expensive” but always “less cheap”].

If US fuel prices increased sufficiently – in 1979 they were at around $2.80 per gallon in 2004 dollars but fell to $1.50 per gallon by 1986 – there would have been massive pressure from both car companies and ordinary suburban and rural motorists to resolve any war between Saddam and the House of Sa‘ud and make petrol as cheap as before 1974. In that case, given that it stands implausible that the US would have recognised the threat the House of Sa‘ud posed, Saddam would have became the same US enemy he actually did become in the 1990s, only much earlier.

 

[BigBlueBox]

If the war saw Hussein annex Kuwait and the al-Sabah family forced into exile – and Iraq certainly had the artillery to achieve that – would the US have still regarded Saddam as an anti-Communist/anti-Khomeini ally and refused to worry if he went further into Saudi Arabia’s oilfields? With hindsight, one could almost see Saddam as a “less dangerous” ally than the Wahhabi House of Sa‘ud – many of whose members supported and funded al-Qa‘ida – but would petrol in the US have become less cheap than even in the late 1970s? [In my vocabulary, based upon runaway expansion of the Hadley cell – totalling 8˚ of latitude – over southern Australia and Central Chile since the 1960s/1970s and consequent virtual loss of their former winter rainfall, petrol must never be termed “expensive” but always “less cheap”].

If US fuel prices increased sufficiently – in 1979 they were at around $2.80 per gallon in 2004 dollars but fell to $1.50 per gallon by 1986 – there would have been massive pressure from both car companies and ordinary suburban and rural motorists to resolve any war between Saddam and the House of Sa‘ud and make petrol as cheap as before 1974. In that case, given that it stands implausible that the US would have recognised the threat the House of Sa‘ud posed, Saddam would have became the same US enemy he actually did become in the 1990s, only much earlier.

The USA had great relations with Saudi Arabia since the days of FDR and still has great relations with it, regardless of how the American public feels about it. The USA would definitely intervene against Iraq if it attacked Saudi Arabia. If the US is willing to let Iran continue to sell its oil in peace though, oil prices shouldn’t be too high assuming the UAE and Qatar don’t get dragged into the war.