WI: Syria-Iran war against Iraq in 1990?

I'm running a geopolitical simulator set in January 1990 and, after thoroughly alienating the Syrian and Iranian players, those two decided to declare war on the Iraqi player and are both on the offensive.

My question is: how screwed would Iraq be in this situation? I'm imagining that, even with lots of Syrian troops in Lebanon, Iraq would not be able to withstand an invasion by two countries (particularly in the absence of foreign armaments.)

Also, what would the consequences be for the world (oil prices, etc.) and for Iraq itself in the event of Saddam being defeated? I'd imagine the Shia would dominate Iraqi politics, with Syria supporting figures like Ahmed Chalabi and groups like Islamic Dawa, and Iran supporting the SCIRI.
 
If we're using historical context, it's ASB. Iran has just ended the nightmare of the Iran-Iraq War and is in no hurry to start it up again. They're already broken from the war.

Syria's military is-iffy. Very iffy. By now Iraq is used to dealing with foes that move at a slow operational tempo, so if they can reposition in time and get bailed out financially, they would probably be able to snarl the Syrians with a huge defensive line and the RG as a strategic reserve for if/when a breakthrough did come.
 
If we're using historical context, it's ASB. Iran has just ended the nightmare of the Iran-Iraq War and is in no hurry to start it up again. They're already broken from the war.

Syria's military is-iffy. Very iffy. By now Iraq is used to dealing with foes that move at a slow operational tempo, so if they can reposition in time and get bailed out financially, they would probably be able to snarl the Syrians with a huge defensive line and the RG as a strategic reserve for if/when a breakthrough did come.
The context is the Iraqi player launching Scud missiles at Damascus over Syria violating its airspace, and formally annexing 2,600 square kilometers of Iranian territory it held at the end of the Iran-Iraq War, proclaiming it Iraq's 19th province (which the Iranian player argued violated the 1988 agreement to end the war.)

Also Iraq had fortified its troops around the aforementioned Iranian territory at the time Syria invaded.
 
From the OP and what I've read of Iran, they're in no position to launch any offensives into Iraq even with the annexing of Iran's territory.
They suffer numerous casualties, manpower's dwindling, morale is low, public's opinion isn't good.

Don't know much about Syria though
 
Seems like a set-up for a stalemate, at least initially.

Syria's army is inferior to the Iraqi military. They will not be capable of any significant offensive action, and even if they were,
I'd be willing to bet that any significant Iraqi targets would be outside the operational range of the Syrian army. That being said, Iraq won't be able to counterattack for similar reasons, especially with the Iranians to the East.

I'd expect the Iraqis to hold a defensive line near the Syrian border, whilst maintaining air superiority. Meanwhile, the Iranian-Iraqi border is stable, with the Iranians launching the occasional ballistic missile at Iraqi targets. Then the Iranians build up their forces and, after initial fierce fighting, break through Iraqi defences and drive to Baghdad.

After the Iran-Iraq War, the Iranians will see it as necessary to oust Saddam once and for all, as the Americans did in '03.
 
The only way to get these two to invade Iraq is right after the Gulf War when Saddam is dealing with internal rebellions in the country and has completely changed the dynamics of the relationship he had with the West through invading Kuwait (i.e. they wouldn't back him up). They could do it then, and Iran gets its dream of a united axis of Shiite countries bordering each other and able to project force to the Meditteranean, while Syria gets some serious fire support to call on in Lebanon and dealing with Israel. I've actually thought quite a bit about that POD.
 
Top