WW3: NATO vs. WP in the Middle East

Anchises

Banned
According to some people (*cough* Kissinger *cough*), Europe harboured hopes that the USA and the Soviets would lead WW3 "over their heads". CONUS and Russia nuke each other while Europe is spared. Obviously this required a sizeable ASB intervention.

However with the rising importance of the Middle Eastern oil, the Persian Gulf became a vital geostrategic region.

The Carter-Doctrine only shows how important the Gulf really was for the United States.

For the discussion lets assume a TL where the Iranian Revolution was a communist one. The People's Republic of Iran then joined the WP.

Also no Gorbi and the Soviet economy isn't in the dire straits of OTL. The economy functions well enough, to prevent the military decay that plagued the Soviets IOTL.

So somwhere between 1985-1991 the Soviets decide, that control over the oil reserves is the only way to continue being a Superpower. An offensive in Europe will most likely trigger nuclear war and NATO is well prepared for any feasible Soviet plan. They decide to prepare a conventional offensive and the necessary infrastructure to gain control over the Saudi Arabian oil fields.

Would it be feasible to (mostly) "limit" WW3 to the Middle East? Basically a scenario where Europe is secondary theater or sees no active fighting at all.

How would such a WW3 play out ?
 
Would it be feasible to (mostly) "limit" WW3 to the Middle East? Basically a scenario where Europe is secondary theater or sees no active fighting at all.

I don't think so. The US will have a large naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean and Persian Gulf, the Soviets can't really challenge that without breaking out the nukes or else the US Navy would win handily.

I don't see any scenario where this doesn't escalate into a full nuclear exchange and we all glow in the dark.
 

Anchises

Banned
I don't think so. The US will have a large naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean and Persian Gulf, the Soviets can't really challenge that without breaking out the nukes or else the US Navy would win handily.

I don't see any scenario where this doesn't escalate into a full nuclear exchange and we all glow in the dark.

So similiar to what would most likely happen in Europe?

I assumed that without France and Britain being directly endangered, the likelihood of nuclear armageddon would be a tad lower.

And I also assumed that with Iran and Iraq in the Soviet camp (and enough time to build critical infrastructure), the Soviets wouldn't be forced to use nukes against the USN.

Of course there also remains the question, if tactical nukes used against the USN, would trigger a wider nuclear war. I have heard some claims that "naval nukes" carried a lesser risk of escalation.
 
And I also assumed that with Iran and Iraq in the Soviet camp (and enough time to build critical infrastructure), the Soviets wouldn't be forced to use nukes against the USN.
Iraq could switch to American camp due to Iran being the Soviet camp.
 
According to some people (*cough* Kissinger *cough*), Europe harboured hopes that the USA and the Soviets would lead WW3 "over their heads". CONUS and Russia nuke each other while Europe is spared. Obviously this required a sizeable ASB intervention.

However with the rising importance of the Middle Eastern oil, the Persian Gulf became a vital geostrategic region.

The Carter-Doctrine only shows how important the Gulf really was for the United States.

For the discussion lets assume a TL where the Iranian Revolution was a communist one. The People's Republic of Iran then joined the WP.

Also no Gorbi and the Soviet economy isn't in the dire straits of OTL. The economy functions well enough, to prevent the military decay that plagued the Soviets IOTL.

So somwhere between 1985-1991 the Soviets decide, that control over the oil reserves is the only way to continue being a Superpower. An offensive in Europe will most likely trigger nuclear war and NATO is well prepared for any feasible Soviet plan. They decide to prepare a conventional offensive and the necessary infrastructure to gain control over the Saudi Arabian oil fields.

Would it be feasible to (mostly) "limit" WW3 to the Middle East? Basically a scenario where Europe is secondary theater or sees no active fighting at all.

How would such a WW3 play out ?

Given the Soviets had just had their arses handed to them by Muslim Afgahnis they would be somewhat stupid to try that somewhere hotter. Also the Soviet Indian Ocean and Mediterranean squadrons would have had their collective arses kicked by 6th Fleet in addition the Israeli's might well find themselves in the mix together with the Saudi's and Jordanians.

The Russians didn't have a direct route to Saudi and certainly lacked sufficient sea lift capacity to do anything that aggressive, they could have tried to repeat their invasion of Iran as in the 1940's but see Afghanistan for a reason not to go through that sort of shit storm again. Another option would be to use a proxy (yes Saddam I am looking at you) and adding some Russian formations as "volunteers" but that is difficult as logistics would be a killer.

The only other option would be to foster some sort of widespread Communist uprising in Saudi which the Russians would the recognise, but getting a genuine pro-Soviet uprising would be very difficult after 1979 as most Muslims would likely be fairly anti-Russian let alone anti-Soviet.
 
So similiar to what would most likely happen in Europe?

I assumed that without France and Britain being directly endangered, the likelihood of nuclear armageddon would be a tad lower.

Well the entire point of NATO is that an attack on one is an attack on all so if the US is overtly attacked by WP forces that would trigger a collective response. NATO would certainly be fully mobilized and on alert in Europe to forestall any Soviet attacks there and we're basically in a situation where the nukes starting flying as soon as the first mushroom cloud goes up in the Middle East.
 

Anchises

Banned
Given the Soviets had just had their arses handed to them by Muslim Afgahnis they would be somewhat stupid to try that somewhere hotter. Also the Soviet Indian Ocean and Mediterranean squadrons would have had their collective arses kicked by 6th Fleet in addition the Israeli's might well find themselves in the mix together with the Saudi's and Jordanians.

The Russians didn't have a direct route to Saudi and certainly lacked sufficient sea lift capacity to do anything that aggressive, they could have tried to repeat their invasion of Iran as in the 1940's but see Afghanistan for a reason not to go through that sort of shit storm again. Another option would be to use a proxy (yes Saddam I am looking at you) and adding some Russian formations as "volunteers" but that is difficult as logistics would be a killer.

The only other option would be to foster some sort of widespread Communist uprising in Saudi which the Russians would the recognise, but getting a genuine pro-Soviet uprising would be very difficult after 1979 as most Muslims would likely be fairly anti-Russian let alone anti-Soviet.

Iran ITTL is in the Soviet Camp and Iraq is too. So the Soviets would have a direct route.
 
Well the entire point of NATO is that an attack on one is an attack on all so if the US is overtly attacked by WP forces that would trigger a collective response. NATO would certainly be fully mobilized and on alert in Europe to forestall any Soviet attacks there and we're basically in a situation where the nukes starting flying as soon as the first mushroom cloud goes up in the Middle East.
That is not automatic, it is choice based. Also NATO covers a certain geographical area.
 

Anchises

Banned
That is not automatic, it is choice based. Also NATO covers a certain geographical area.

Technically the Soviets wouldn't be attacking the USA, they would be attacking the Saudis and Kuwait.

Something more similiar to Desert Storm and not necessarily something that would trigger an alliance case.
 
Top