WI: USSR backs Iraq and invades Iran circa 1981?

mowque

Banned
Sword Point was actually pretty good. A bit too focused on the tactical and not the strategics, but worth the read.
 
Like I pointed out before, I'm thinking that the Soviets would invade but not go anywhere near the mouth of the Gulf. And they'd probably just count on the Iraqis' ability to take the oil-terminals and fields around Khorramshahr.

In your story, the Iraqis bowed out and switched their arms patron to the French from the USSR. If they don't do that, or take longer to make such a decision, I wonder how the rest of the Gulf or Arab states would react.

Odd thought: The Syrians and Israelis could be on the same side here, in at least de facto cooperation.
 
Like I pointed out before, I'm thinking that the Soviets would invade but not go anywhere near the mouth of the Gulf. And they'd probably just count on the Iraqis' ability to take the oil-terminals and fields around Khorramshahr.

Wouldn't matter, in fact that was the best case scenario because we could base in Iran without having to get another country involved. It would also mean the 82nd could land and deploy instead of jumping. Anything but an accidental incursion that was quickly corrected could have triggered a response
 
They wouldn’t need to. The largest Iranian oil fields are in Khuzestan, close to the Iraqi border and the target of Saddam’s invasion. A Soviet invasion in the north would prevent Iranian forces from deploying against the Iraqis and could do so without even a significant incursion into Iran being required.

A narrow distinction that would not prevent US involvement if there were any chance of our oil supply being threatened either by the Soviets or by one of their satellites.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Wouldn't matter, in fact that was the best case scenario because we could base in Iran without having to get another country involved. It would also mean the 82nd could land and deploy instead of jumping. Anything but an accidental incursion that was quickly corrected could have triggered a response

Go ahead and read my story. There's more things the US has to consider in this situation than "omg the russians our coming lets pwn 'em." They've got a LOT of things to work through, especially if the Soviets are noticeably not going anywhere near the oil fields.

There's also that little bit of the Hostage Crisis. People will remember.
 
Possible World War Three.

There's no way the United States would interpret that as anything other than a Soviet attempt to get a shot at the Persian Gulf, it would get worse from there, and could very possibly lead to global thermonuclear war.

The Soviets know that making a bold move like that will get them in trouble, Gorbachev has no interest in doing that in the middle of a big thaw in relations between the United States and the Soviet Union.

If the USSR really was of the persuasion that active intervention in yet another country is necessary they definitely are going to leave the Iranians alone, just too much chance of a confrontation with the Americans. The ones they would go after would be the Syrians, who backed Iran, but even then that is just likely to throw Hafez Al-Assad firmly into the open and waiting arms of the United States and its allies in the Gulf States.

With the nasty element in this that the US Army of the early 1980s wasn't worth squat in terms of a major war, meaning the likelihood of a general nuclear exchange with the Soviet nuclear arsenal at its most formidable escalates with every US disaster on the battlefield, and in reality in the 1980s as horrible as it sounds the Soviet arsenal was by far superior in structure to the US arsenal. The USSR's internal crises prevented this factor from ever affecting superpower relations, but if it comes to a shooting war, those internal issues mean bupkiss.
 
With the nasty element in this that the US Army of the early 1980s wasn't worth squat in terms of a major war, meaning the likelihood of a general nuclear exchange with the Soviet nuclear arsenal at its most formidable escalates with every US disaster on the battlefield, and in reality in the 1980s as horrible as it sounds the Soviet arsenal was by far superior in structure to the US arsenal. The USSR's internal crises prevented this factor from ever affecting superpower relations, but if it comes to a shooting war, those internal issues mean bupkiss.

Could you... elaborate on that?
 
Could you... elaborate on that?

The Soviets were developing what was by all means a very capable counterforce structure (meaning they were using the superior size of their arsenal to directly target the US arsenal), combining this with their own Pershing II-style missiles, and were focused from first to last on use of nuclear weapons as just bigger bombs with mushroom clouds as weapons of war. The USA, by contrast, relied on big nuclear arsenals to *cover* for its conventional weaknesses on a regular basis, so the USA really needed a big, technologically complex nuclear arsenal more than the Soviet Union did.
 
The Soviets were developing what was by all means a very capable counterforce structure (meaning they were using the superior size of their arsenal to directly target the US arsenal), combining this with their own Pershing II-style missiles, and were focused from first to last on use of nuclear weapons as just bigger bombs with mushroom clouds as weapons of war. The USA, by contrast, relied on big nuclear arsenals to *cover* for its conventional weaknesses on a regular basis, so the USA really needed a big, technologically complex nuclear arsenal more than the Soviet Union did.

I agree that the US Army was not in the best of shape (I think it had actually improved from the mid 70s) but I'm not sure the Soviet army was actually all that great either. Yes it was bigger and could absorb casualties but I'm not sure it was the monster force that some stories and references made it out to be. It was in the U.S. DOD's best interest for the 'Evil Empire' to seem to be more of a threat then it was. This was to get bigger budgets and the fact that no one ever lost a war by overestimating an opponents capability.

All that said I sure didn't want to find out how ugly things would be. We assumed that it would be an ugly chemical environment even if not nuclear so no one looked forward to anything actually happening
 
I agree that the US Army was not in the best of shape (I think it had actually improved from the mid 70s) but I'm not sure the Soviet army was actually all that great either. Yes it was bigger and could absorb casualties but I'm not sure it was the monster force that some stories and references made it out to be. It was in the U.S. DOD's best interest for the 'Evil Empire' to seem to be more of a threat then it was. This was to get bigger budgets and the fact that no one ever lost a war by overestimating an opponents capability.

All that said I sure didn't want to find out how ugly things would be. We assumed that it would be an ugly chemical environment even if not nuclear so no one looked forward to anything actually happening

The USSR of the time was very much more capable than the USA, as it had a superior structure and comprehension of what a large-scale mechanized war required. And at a crude level the USSR doesn't need to be the best army ever, either. It just needs to be better than its US contemporary.
 

Ismail

Banned
Assuming that the USSR strikes with decent-enough force, just how far would it be able to get in Iranian territory anyway? Could it capture the capital with effort?
 
Top