WI the US lets Iraq absorb Kuwait

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
If it sent its army somewhere as part of a US-led effort, Israel would almost certainly lay off. But Israel has inevitably remained an Egyptian strategic concern, albeit concealed of late. I mean Egyptian spokesmen couldn't have been ingenuous when they claimed acquisition of Rafales and S-300s was meant to protect them from ISIS, lol.

If the ISIS franchise in Libya takes control of most of the country...

But the basic point of the discussion was no US involvement and I just don't see Israel occupying Sinai just because Egypt is distracted elsewhere...
 
What about if the Iraqi invasion followed an Islamist coup which deposed the Emir and was carried out to "restore order" or something along those lines?
 
If the ISIS franchise in Libya takes control of most of the country...

Even if ISIS did, Cairo's existing inventory would be more of a match for any airpower they might have. The S-300, in particular, had to have been intended to counter the IAF.

But the basic point of the discussion was no US involvement and I just don't see Israel occupying Sinai just because Egypt is distracted elsewhere...

True it didn't happen even at the height of the Yemen conflict, prior to the '67 war.
 
I don't think this would happen in isolation... if the US is going to stay involved in the ME in general, then they would not want Saddam having Kuwait and increasing his wealth and power. However, if, after the whole thaw in the Cold War, if the US decides that it doesn't really want to be involved in the ME anymore and is disengaging in general, then what Saddam does or doesn't do wouldn't matter much to DC. Either that, or DC decides that the US is going to throw it's support behind Saddam to be the new strong man/great power in the ME, but I don't see that happening...
 

CaliGuy

Banned
You mean reneged on a deal to supply oil to the US cheaply, in exchange for letting him keep Kuwait? Or attacking KSA also in violation of the deal? I'd always be against an "operation freedom" but I can see "desert storm" in the latter scenario, and maybe sanctions in the former.
I was primarily thinking of the former here; however, the latter can also apply here.
 
Due to 2 likes on me writing a paragraph or two on the History of Kuwait, so here it is:

The town of Kuwait was officially established in 1613 by a bunch of Najdi Bedouins and Arabic traders and merchants due to its importance at the head of the Gulf and its bay. The Al Sabah came to Kuwait not long after a century later along with the Bani Utbah. Sabah bin Jaber, or Sabah I, was chosen to be the representative, or Sheikh, of the old town of Kuwait (Kut or Qurain, as it was called back then). The town was a part of the Khalidi Emirate initially and then fell to the Ottoman forces. Kuwait was established as a "Kaymakam" in within the Ottoman Vilayet of Basra (Which is where the Baathists are supporting their claim in Kuwait). However Kuwait was forced into the Vilayet due to organisational and logical reasons, however the Sultans in Constantinople gave Kuwait Kaymakam status to give them considerable authority due to them being quite different, from the rest of the Basra Vilayet. Also note that Kaymakam is considered as a "second-level" province within the Ottoman organisational structure. The Al Sabah continued to rule Kuwait as they saw fit without any intrusion by the Vilayet of Basra. This harmony was cut short however when around the late 1800s Basra, and some Ottoman elites, wants to fully integrate Kuwait into the Vilayet, this caused many in Kuwait, including Sheikh Mubarak the Great, fear that their autonomy would be stripped away from them. This changed however when Sheikh Mubarak successfully got the British to stop such a thing to happen after Sheikh Mubarak signed a treaty with the British in 1899 that effectively severed Kuwait from the rest of the Ottoman Empire.

Also note that Kuwait was, and still is, a very diverse place where trading from Kuwait to all the way to Southeast Asia brought with them new people and cultures that would eventually mould Kuwait into a radically different culture in terms of Language, Culture and Politics. So much so we are considered even a bit different from our GCC brothers.

The fact Saddam, and many before him actually, tried to claim Kuwait and Kuwaitis to be Iraqis is complete act of Hubris by Saddam and his elite. You can see a great deal of difference when you cross the border and go to Basra. Kuwaitis do not consider themselves to be Iraqi, not in 1610, 1899, 1961 nor 1990.

Also consider the Iraqis' lack of knowledge of Diwaniyas and Gengeveh prior to the 1990 occupation as further proof of significant cultural difference between us.

It reminds me very much of how outsiders view the Falkland Islands.

Neat borders seem to matter more to some people than what the local population might want.

Ask they would, but could/ would any of those country be able and willing to contribute enough military force?
Turkey borders Iraq, Pakistan doesn't have nukes yet and another war with India could break out anytime and Egypt has at least a logistical problem moving troops and can be sure to be save from Iraqi aggression, because you know, there is Israel in between...

I doubt that Egypt would get involved if the US mediated a pro-Iraq "resolution" to the conflict.

As I remember Egypt was really upset with both Saddam and the Gulf Arab monarchies for breaking "Arab unity". (It's been a while since I read up on this, but how I remember it, Egypt had put alot of effort into mediating between Iraq and its creditors and was annoyed at what it saw as the bad faith of both sides.

Egypt might agree to be part of a multinational force if the US asked (and put money up) for it.

I'm not sure if Turkey and Pakistan would be willing to guarantee Saudi Arabia and station troops there - though if it did happen, I suspect US diplomacy would play a big role on getting them to do this.

fasquardon
 
However, if, after the whole thaw in the Cold War, if the US decides that it doesn't really want to be involved in the ME anymore and is disengaging in general, then what Saddam does or doesn't do wouldn't matter much to DC. Either that, or DC decides that the US is going to throw it's support behind Saddam to be the new strong man/great power in the ME, but I don't see that happening...

The end of the Cold War meant there wasn't much danger of Saddam giving the USSR great power to blackmail the West by controlling the oil it needed, through him. But the US couldn't disengage because the region was economically critical; moreover there's the pro-Israel lobby. The latter was undoubtedly important. In theory, one arab state taking the land and oil of another was no problem, since the aggressor would still sell the oil. Economically it wouldn't make much difference. But the US must've worried that if Saddam got too rich and powerful, he'd initiate a war with Israel in a few years--a very big one--which could prove extremely costly to the US as internal politics compels it to back Israel.
 

GarethC

Donor
Definitely.

BAe Systems had started their biggest relationship, with KSA, in 1985 with the first Al-Yamamah agreement for Tornados and such like, and wielded some influence in Whitehall, Westminster, and Conservative Central Office. The British defence relationship with the UAE (who would also be concerned at any threat to Saudi) would also contribute to the decision. There would be an upgrade of the Armilla Patrol station (probably to a CVH & escorts, at least initially) and the likely deployment of RAF and armoured formations to Saudi for joint exercises or goodwill visits. That's a lot of goodwill, to quote Yes, Minister.
 
The end of the Cold War meant there wasn't much danger of Saddam giving the USSR great power to blackmail the West by controlling the oil it needed, through him. But the US couldn't disengage because the region was economically critical; moreover there's the pro-Israel lobby. The latter was undoubtedly important. In theory, one arab state taking the land and oil of another was no problem, since the aggressor would still sell the oil. Economically it wouldn't make much difference. But the US must've worried that if Saddam got too rich and powerful, he'd initiate a war with Israel in a few years--a very big one--which could prove extremely costly to the US as internal politics compels it to back Israel.
yes, so long as the US decides to stay involved in the ME, they aren't going to be happy with Saddam annexing Kuwait. Thus, my (unlikely) idea that only if the US decides to abandon the place completely does it happen, and that includes abandoning Israel as well. Very unlikely to happen, but I don't see how else the US would be willing to allow it...
 
The end of the Cold War meant there wasn't much danger of Saddam giving the USSR great power to blackmail the West by controlling the oil it needed

I've always wondered what would have happened if the Soviets hadn't been busy falling apart when Saddam invaded.

While Saddam hoped the Soviets would protect him from American anger, I really can't imagine them doing so - the Soviets were heavily attached to the idea that international boarders should not be changed by force (since they feared the US using force on THEM to change their borders) and championing an unreliable character like Saddam wouldn't gain them a whole lot in a scenario like this.

However, I have read that the US couldn't have launched its counter-invasion of Kuwait unless it was able to pull forces from Europe. If the Soviets were still a threat in Europe, the US might have been unable to invade. In which case, even where the Soviets weren't backing Iraq's action, they could still help Saddam just by existing and looking dangerous.

BAe Systems had started their biggest relationship, with KSA, in 1985 with the first Al-Yamamah agreement for Tornados and such like, and wielded some influence in Whitehall, Westminster, and Conservative Central Office. The British defence relationship with the UAE (who would also be concerned at any threat to Saudi) would also contribute to the decision. There would be an upgrade of the Armilla Patrol station (probably to a CVH & escorts, at least initially) and the likely deployment of RAF and armoured formations to Saudi for joint exercises or goodwill visits. That's a lot of goodwill, to quote Yes, Minister.

Britain overtaking the US in influencing the Gulf monarchies would be a fascinating place to go with a TL. I wonder what the UK could do with that goodwill?

fasquardon
 
While Saddam hoped the Soviets would protect him from American anger, I really can't imagine them doing so - the Soviets were heavily attached to the idea that international boarders should not be changed by force (since they feared the US using force on THEM to change their borders) and championing an unreliable character like Saddam wouldn't gain them a whole lot in a scenario like this.

More importantly, IMO, was the sorry state of the USSR when Saddam made his move. It had abdicated as a superpower, and was no longer in a good position to challenge the US.

However, I have read that the US couldn't have launched its counter-invasion of Kuwait unless it was able to pull forces from Europe. If the Soviets were still a threat in Europe, the US might have been unable to invade. In which case, even where the Soviets weren't backing Iraq's action, they could still help Saddam just by existing and looking dangerous.

Exactly. Soon after the war, there was an interesting article by Jeffry Record, who made two points. First he thought the '91 war wasn't really a "war" in the usual sense--a mutually lethal exchange of fire. (The term "slaughter" would've been better.) Second, Saddam's strategic timing was awful--a point I made in my blog piece. I suggested he should've avoided attacking Iran and gone after Kuwait in 1985--time enough to prepare his armed forces but while the USSR was still intact.
 
More importantly, IMO, was the sorry state of the USSR when Saddam made his move. It had abdicated as a superpower, and was no longer in a good position to challenge the US.

Yeah. The Soviets were pretty flabbergasted that Saddam just expected them to keep the US of his back. Not only because "why would we" and "it's rude to just assume" but also "are you following international news Mr. Hussein?"

Exactly. Soon after the war, there was an interesting article by Jeffry Record, who made two points. First he thought the '91 war wasn't really a "war" in the usual sense--a mutually lethal exchange of fire. (The term "slaughter" would've been better.) Second, Saddam's strategic timing was awful--a point I made in my blog piece. I suggested he should've avoided attacking Iran and gone after Kuwait in 1985--time enough to prepare his armed forces but while the USSR was still intact.

Good to hear I remembered right.

I really wonder what the US would have done if they couldn't have pulled troops from Europe... I just can't see them doing nothing.

fasquardon
 
Yeah. The Soviets were pretty flabbergasted that Saddam just expected them to keep the US of his back. Not only because "why would we" and "it's rude to just assume" but also "are you following international news Mr. Hussein?"



Good to hear I remembered right.

I really wonder what the US would have done if they couldn't have pulled troops from Europe... I just can't see them doing nothing.

fasquardon

Probably air strikes and mobilizing some Guard divisions if they wanted boots on the ground. Whether or not they'll get there before KSA capitulates is anybody's guess.
 
The idea is either the US actively involves itself with negotiating a deal between Saddam and the Kuwaitis over oil drilling and the debt, or encourages Iraq to absorb Kuwait to strengthen Iraq as a US ally in the region and as a counter-weight to Iran.

Negotiating a deal between Kuwait and Iraq is one thing, though not really on the table. Saddam didn't want a bigger slice of the disputed oil fields or a partial write-down of Iraq's debts to Kuwait. He wanted all the oil, and to erase the entire debt, and while he was at it, to get all of Kuwait's other oil. See Lewis Carroll's "The Owl and the Panther" for the probable Iraqi approach to such "negotiations".

But as to Iraq absorbing Kuwait: Kuwait was a sovereign nation; a member of the UN and the Arab League; a huge trading partner, investor, and major debt holder for several large industrialized countries including the US. Kuwait objected strenuously to Saddam's ambitions, and would not be one whit more cooperative because the US was playing footsie with Saddam. Kuwait's economic and diplomatic stature was sufficient to make any such move by the US extremely damaging to US prestige. The other Gulf states would be horrified.

So the whole idea doesn't fly.
 
I really wonder what the US would have done if they couldn't have pulled troops from Europe... I just can't see them doing nothing.

They could've just imposed sanctions and sent a few troops and planes to KSA to ward off attack. But Saddam might've beat them to KSA had he planned and prepared to go there after taking Kuwait. As I wrote in the blog piece, taking KSA might've made sanctions unfeasible. Too much of world oil production could've been taken off the market--Iraq, Kuwait and KSA combined.
 
Yeah. The Soviets were pretty flabbergasted that Saddam just expected them to keep the US of his back. Not only because "why would we" and "it's rude to just assume" but also "are you following international news Mr. Hussein?"
from what I remember, the Soviets tried to get involved diplomatically and at one point declared that they had a negotiated solution all worked out, but Bush and the allies were having none of it... and that was about the extent of their involvement...
 
from what I remember, the Soviets tried to get involved diplomatically and at one point declared that they had a negotiated solution all worked out, but Bush and the allies were having none of it... and that was about the extent of their involvement...

I am sure, sure, that Saddam tried to get the Soviets involved earlier and they gave him a flat "no" and were asking the Egyptians and Jordanians what the heck Saddam was smoking and could they please sober him up.

Again, I haven't read up on this recently, so I may be misremembering, but I think the episode you are recalling was part of the general panic as everyone but Saddam realized that the US was serious about going to war and that once the ball got rolling the US would not be leaving. As such, various countries in the Middle East were hoping to patch some deal together so that the US wouldn't remove Iraq as a regional actor, giving Iran a freer hand and destabilizing the very delicate situation with Israel. I'm pretty sure the Soviets either involved themselves in that last rush or were pulled in to try and give the thing more stature.

And Saddam at this point was still living in a land of hope and dreams, so I'm pretty sure any "negotiated solution" would not have actually solved very much - either because it didn't involve Iraq or because it did involve Iraq (and as a result was completely unrealistic).

fasquardon
 
I am sure, sure, that Saddam tried to get the Soviets involved earlier and they gave him a flat "no" and were asking the Egyptians and Jordanians what the heck Saddam was smoking and could they please sober him up.
fasquardon
so, I dug out my copy of "Crusade" and looked through it (lord, that book is so disjointed and non-linear), and what I was thinking of was the Soviet attempt to forestall the ground war, announcing to the world that they had detected a 'change in attitude' in Saddam... but this was after the air war had already started, and has nothing to do with the POD here... before the war, the Soviets apparently tried to talk Saddam into unconditionally withdrawing from Kuwait, but made no real diplomatic headway...
 
Top