WI: Saddam invades Kuwait, ten years earlier?

Carter almost certainly would have responded with strong military interventionism. Iraq under the Baathist party was considered a socialist state and by no means an ally of America. In addition, when George HW Bush intervened in Kuwait he was following what was known as the Carter Doctrine. Under this doctrine, the USA promised to the world to protect its interests in the Persian Gulf by force, and if you know one thing about America it is their desire to appear strong on foreign policy to the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine
 
Would Iraq not invading Iran lead to a counterrevolution being more likely to happen in Iran? Didn’t Iraq invading help unite the country against a common enemy and build support for the regime?
 
Would Iraq not invading Iran lead to a counterrevolution being more likely to happen in Iran? Didn’t Iraq invading help unite the country against a common enemy and build support for the regime?

Without knowing anything about Iran, would it have been possible for Iraq to sponsor various ethnic and political dissenters in order to provoke a lengthy civil war in Iran, far cheaper way to eliminate Iranese threat than a full blown war?
 
I think that a Saddam Invasion of Kuwait on 22 September 1980, will not ending good for Iraq future

Because the second Oil crisis that started in 1979
The price of crude oil more than doubled to $39.50 per barrel over the next 12 months,
Now does Saddam the foolery of Kuwait invasion during the Oil Crisis would skyrocket the price of crude oil
(OTL during OTL Kuwait invasion the price jump from $18 to $41,45)

Just imagine The price of crude oil at $39.50 goes up to $80 after 1980 Invasion prolong and worsen the second Oil Crisis
The Industry nation will not tolerate this, in same time the al-Sabah family will do everything to get Kuwait back and will pay for military operation just like OTL.
And a coalition is formed between the al-Sabah family, USA and European Industry nation (Britain, France & other, maybe entire NATO ?)
In OTL was Saddam consider as Ally for Wester nation against Iran under Ayatollahs, what let to Proxy War called First Gulf war - September 1980 to August 1988.
Here is consider as Backstabber Traitor of Communist working for USSR

A 1981 Operation Desert Storm would be quite different as the 1991 version because Hardware the Military use
Like AH-64 Apache undergoes testing and enter service only in 1984.

Let's look on outcome, there two ways this end:

Good one
The coalition wins Operation Desert Storm
Jimmy Carter could get reelected as The President who gave US it Pride back after Vietnam that depends on timing (nope Walter Mondale still get Butcher in election of 1984).
The UN deals with post War Iraq or trial Saddam in Den Hague for War Crimes
The Soviet could do litte in Crisis do internal problems like Leonid Brezhnev declining health
In Aftermath the Soviets will overwork there Military strategy after they failed with Iraq troops against the coalition forces.

Bad one
The Operation Desert Storm ended bloodshed and high losses for the coalition forces.
Ronald Reagan is elected with Promis "To end this second Vietnam" and goes harder course against Iraq allies USSR.
The USSR actively helps Iraq
in mean time the World economy has second great depression do to high price of crude oil at $100
(Note China is not yet a economic Powerhouse in early 1980s)


Oh by the way
There is legendary Movie franchise that is based on concept of a 1980 war about Oil goes terrible wrong.

very good analysis on that story (for the War issue jump to 5:15 min)
 

Ramontxo

Donor
Irak moving against kuwait is going to scare, a lot, the Saudis and the other gulf states. They will not only pay for the American war bills they are going to literally flood the markets with oil. Iran itself would like everybody involved (Iraq the Americans Saudis etc) go to hell and I don't see them stopping to sell petrol. The chances of Iraq resisting the US ARMY are the same of Gwyneth Paltrow calling me for a date AND humble me refusing...
 
This is Jimmy Carter as US president not Ronald Reagan. The USA is still suffering from a post Vietnam War malaise and Congress would not support direct US military intervention.
 
This is Jimmy Carter as US president not Ronald Reagan. The USA is still suffering from a post Vietnam War malaise and Congress would not support direct US military intervention.
Incorrect.

$2 gallon Gasoline would get constituents screaming at their Congressman to 'Do Something'
 
Oil prices could be stopped from going up too much. Saddam offered the US increase oil production at a cheaper price if they looked the other way to the otl Kuwait invasion. A US being in a recession and Vietnam not being that long ago might be incline to accept it. The US also has Saudi who can easily increase oil production and flood the market if things got to bad but the US response to Iraq in this situation could greatly impact Saudi-US relationships.

Furthermore, you have Iran dealing with a revolution which is likely to see more counter resistance internally without the war with Iraq and the Soviets are entering into Afghanistan during this time. You also got the Lebanese civil war going on and I think, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Saddam pretty friendly with one of the Yemens during the time. The Soviet leaning one. Could they cause trouble for the Arabian nations if they fought Iraq. The Arabian nations especially Saudi are in the most direct position to take action. Everyone else has other conflicts they are dealing with.

I don’t think the US would response to this so soon after Vietnam with direct military intervention at least on their part even if they are very against it. Also Soviet response is still a consideration to worry about. The otl Gulf War was the first military intervention the US could make without worrying about a foreign power response. They might use the navy and air force to bomb and attack them at most but almost no troops. If it turns into a war it could go a few ways. First one is that the Arab or Gulf nations who oppose Saddam invasion of Kuwait form a coalition with Saudi as the head and US support. These nations provide the troops to push Saddam out of Kuwait while the US provides naval, air, and economic support. The US would support advancing Arab coalition troops while also doing bombing strikes on Iraq until the pull out or are forced to leave Kuwait. The US might have a few advising officers in Saudi to train and observe coalition troops but it would be low in numbers and not talked about much. The coalition likely stops once Kuwait is liberated and doesn’t advance into Iraq. Other option is a coalition like this forms but without US support which means the conflict could go either way. A unique third option could be a add on of the first one where America convinces the UN, NATO, or a European power to help the Arab coalition against Saddam directly but that definitely risk bringing the Soviets into the conflict and most people there are probably unwilling to join that conflict. Annexing people is against international law at this point.

US approach on this could impact how relationships form in the area. If they support or lean Iraq’s way too much they lose Saudi and other Arab states support which is unlikely but I guess not impossible. Saddam is the type who would quickly change from pro-Soviet to pro-US if given the chance. Iraq is a ally against Soviet leaning Syria and Iran if Iraq is with the US. Even those it is dangerous to go against allies like this the US is probably pretty aware theocratic monarchs like Saudi and the gulf states are very unlikely to ever side with the Soviets. Iraq has a good amount of oil too. The only thing the US might push with them if allies is for Iraq to avoid mentioning or causing issues with Israel which Saddam might be inclined with given the right incentives. Saddam might be unable to officially support Israel due to public opinion but he could unofficially. Israel is a natural balance against Syria or Jordan if ever needed.

If Iraq is able to take Kuwait without anyone interfering they are put in a interesting situation. The US and gulf states might respond with economic sanctions, embargos, and diplomatic ties cut but Iraq can get pass that. The oil gives Iraq leverage with other nations and markets which helps them. The invasion of Kuwait by itself and without foreign involvement is likely to be quick and easy for Iraq. Its almost like German troops marching into Luxembourg. They could honestly try an push their luck and invade Iran after taking Kuwait. They have Soviet support and Iran is still gathering themselves and is diplomatically isolated. The US has shown it is unwillingness to involve themselves and are not likely to help Iran. Saddam could soften things with Europe by providing cheaper oil to ease tensions over Kuwait and still get support from them against Iran. Saddam can use the invasion of Kuwait to ready his army for an invasion of Iran and use that time to build up more unrest in Iran before invading them. If Iraq and Saddam become to bold and growing in power to fast those the US might in the off chance try to patch things up with Iran. The US already has one theocratic ally in the region. The only issue would be is then trying to get Saudi and Iran on social terms with each other which I don’t know how likely that is or what is needed for that to be done. Iran and Saudi are both reactionary regimes and have common enemies in Iraq and the Soviets.
 
Given most Congressional Democrats didn't want to intervene in 1990 - instead favouring sanctions - which is ten years further away from the memory of Vietnam than 1980, and when the USSR was in a state of advanced collapse, taking it as a given that there would be intervention in 1980 if this had happened is a mightily ambitious argument.
 
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 has a long tradition of seeing Kuwait as rightful Iraqi territory, their nineteenth province, going back well before Saddam came to power. Abd al-Karim Qasim as Prime Minister of Iraq announced shortly after Kuwait's independence in 1961 that it would be incorporated into Iraq and moved military forces in what was perceived as a threatening manner, it was only British deployment of troops in support of Kuwait that forced them to back down.
 
I don't see this as 'saving Carter'... it's more likely to be 'one more nail in his coffin'.... on top of the fiasco in Iran, the Russians in Afghanistan, the struggling economy, we now have this latest crisis... Reagan or some other hawk is going to win big...
 
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.
If the US did intervene against an Iraqi attempt to capture the oil-rich Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia in the early 1980s, would people like bin Laden have made the same response actually made during the middle 1990s ten years beforehand? Would we have seen claims of a duty to kill American citizens in the late 1980s during the Reagan era instead of in the late 1990s during the Clinton era?

Would we then be faced with the possibility of a 9/11-type attack in the early 1990s instead of the early 2000s? I have thought that there would have been major implications if a September 11-type attack had occurred during the Bush Senior presidency: it could have patched up his flagging support against Clinton and Perot and perhaps allowed him to win a second term.

Would a scenario featuring a 9/11-type attack circa 1991 have allowed a more hardline conservative Republican to win the White House in 1996?

What would the effects of a hardline conservative (say Pat Buchanan-type) President on the US’ relationship with Europe, East Asia, Canada and New Zealand from the late 1990s onwards?
 
Last edited:
Top