Crisis in the Kremlin - Our 1988 USSR
But like Turkey they both actually oppose some Soviet interest in the area, unlike more pro-Soviet Arab Socialists and the like. ;D
True but with how Saddam has been ruling Iraq... we should be careful when the time comes...
I agree that Iran could be desperate enough for more modern equipment and economic help to agree to deal with us : China and North Korea can not provide as good weapons or industrial support as we can. And our more tolerant politics towards muslims and less tolerant towards Israel could make us more attractive partner.
But becoming friends with Iran can alienate all Arab countries, and we were expanding our influence there. I do not see any gain. What can Iran give us? Oil, gas? So can the Arabs, and he have our own resources anyway. Strategic bases? So can the Arabs and they can offer more. Economic cooperation? The same.
We can try to normalize relations with Iran, but not at the cost of antagonizing the Arabs.
What time? It is not as Saddam is preparing to invade Kuwait or something....*
* OOC: I think we should try to avoid using use our knowledge about future (in relation to the year we are now ITTL) to make decisions about Soviet policy. I mean we know NOW that Saddam invaded Kuwait, but could the Soviet leaders know it?
Noted but still remaining cautious of Iraq with what happened with Iran...
Doesn't mean we couldn't replace them with anyone mroe suiting to us and the Iraqi people from within the Baathist Arab Socialists.
I endorse this motion. Not only is Iran rich in natural resources but with its 80 to 90 mil population its enormous market for Soviet industrial products and due to western sanctions and China currently being underdeveloped its basically market waiting for us to go in.
Also geopolitically its a corridor to India that isn't allinged to the US (Turkey/Pakistan).
Don't forget that this isn't a moment of American unipolarity in Which US can get away with invasion.
But honestly we don't even need to chose between the two as much as balance them
We are not all-powerful, let's remember what happened when USSR tried to install socialists it likes in Afghanistan. Honestly im fine with Saddam as long as he remains friendly towards USSR and a bulwark against Iran in the region.
Otherwise we should support his invasion of Kuwait as that will rise oil prices.
Last edited:
I must say that in my games, I am never replacing certain leaders only to prevent bad thing from happening, cause its using OTL knowledge on the one hand, and on the other it makes games boring, when you are preventing some events from happening, only because something bad is going to happen.
Because we and the Afghan Supporters of ours tried to change to much to fast and to directly acting against the overall population society, culture, religion and traditions, something that would not be as severe with the right Arab Socialist Iraqi Leader I feel.
I more so mean afterwards, when they become more of a burden, then a asset to us, not previously before soemthing happens. But given the devastating outcome of the Iraq-Iran War and the Kuweit Invasion it should be clear Saddam is not our best man in Bagdad clearly and not in our best interest to once more spread Arab Socialist influence in the Middle East. Should still be enough tiem before US invasion to get rid of him and any Arab Socialist would nto back Islamist Jihadists to attack and trigger US response, but mainly support other Baathist/ Arab Socialist movements, parties and governments alongside us in the region.
Another problem with that is that it isn't that simple, Saddam overcame numerous Coups and assassination attempts, so just replacing him isn't really an realistic, at least not without direct invasion which comes with its own set of problems .
I wouldn't say it's about the lack of will as it's about lack of ability. Saddams regime caused and more importantly survived all those crises, this alone makes it quite unlikely that we would be able to do a bloodless regime Change.
As for Saddam being liability, let's look at it from wider geopolitical perspective. When he invaded Iran Saddam was acting opportunistically and he even had backing of the gulf nations in it, not to mention Iran was international pariah state hated by both Superpowers (Soviet Union was actively selling weapons to Iraq in otl and Iran itself fought proxy war against USSR) , when he invaded Kuwait USA despite defeating him wasn't able to go for regime change due to the lack of support in the UN and the region. Generally speaking Saddam while a trouble is still tolerable for the Gulf states, enough so that they prefer him over Iran even with him invading Kuwait. As for Kuwait itself ? Kuwait and Gulf states are unlikely to be our allies anytime soon and Saddam invaded Kuwait due to it rising oil production and dropping down the prices, so that invasion is actually good for our economy.
Other thing to consider is that we aren't strangers to backing adventurous leaders, for example Gaddafi is actively backing armed groups across the world and is invading Chad and claiming part of its territory while fighting a proxy war with France, yet we are backing him and are welcoming him in COMECON.
Basically this is all part of geopolitical game in a bid to gain influence and from the regional standpoint as well as from the world standpoint Saddam isn't liability to us, at least not any more than other leaders are.
Last edited:
I agree with the sentiment of "Saddam may be a bastard but some of the time he is OUR bastard". No sense pulling out of Afganistan only to repeat the process in Iraq..
Relations with Tehran are not at their nadir but is it a bit early for major state visits?
Besides, poor Gorbachev would rightly feel unappreciated about being sent into that den when he could be in Western capitals hammering out our landmark economic treaties as the face of the New Detente. Lower level backroom talks would be prudent though.
Hvaing slept on the idea of a Trade Fair, I'm reasonably confident that the Gen. Sec. could dangle the idea before Reagan without conceding much ideological ground.
They have sparred before and Romanov won handily (at least we thought so, maybe the Americans remember it differently).
For his part Reagan, more than his plausible successors, seems likely to run with the proposal and it might provide an opening for other agreements as suggested by the Thread Committee.
If drawing contingencies for Romania after the unrest requires a bit too much historical hindsight in 1988 even for a paranoid Kremlinite then the suggestion is withdrawn. Bringing Romania back into the fold would be a major victory in Europe, one unlikely to happen under it's current leadership, but no doubt opportunities to meddle will present themselves in the coming years.
[I look forward to the update when it comes and hope you have a speedy reconnection]
Relations with Tehran are not at their nadir but is it a bit early for major state visits?
Besides, poor Gorbachev would rightly feel unappreciated about being sent into that den when he could be in Western capitals hammering out our landmark economic treaties as the face of the New Detente. Lower level backroom talks would be prudent though.
Hvaing slept on the idea of a Trade Fair, I'm reasonably confident that the Gen. Sec. could dangle the idea before Reagan without conceding much ideological ground.
They have sparred before and Romanov won handily (at least we thought so, maybe the Americans remember it differently).
For his part Reagan, more than his plausible successors, seems likely to run with the proposal and it might provide an opening for other agreements as suggested by the Thread Committee.
If drawing contingencies for Romania after the unrest requires a bit too much historical hindsight in 1988 even for a paranoid Kremlinite then the suggestion is withdrawn. Bringing Romania back into the fold would be a major victory in Europe, one unlikely to happen under it's current leadership, but no doubt opportunities to meddle will present themselves in the coming years.
[I look forward to the update when it comes and hope you have a speedy reconnection]
It's important to note that otl Iraq had backing of USA, Western Europe (mostly France) and Gulf states, while Iran was left with what N.Korea ,Lybia, China and Syria could provide (Syria even imposed sanctions on Iraq).
Otl USSR just like in ITTL adopted policy of strict neutrality, but moved closer to Iraq as war progressed , but it still maintained support for Iran via proxies (N.Korea,Libya,Syria).
Regarding Gorbachev, after he came to power relations continued to progress and agreement with Iran regarding common oil exploration in Caspian Sea was achieved, plus both countries agreed to deepen economic cooperation and in 1986 Iran resumed Iranian natural gas exports, which had been halted in 1980.
Main problem for both countries was Iran-Iraqi war and war in Afghanistan, but once war with Iraq ended Soviets and Iran achieved a deal involving export of missle system components, deal to do final assembly of Soviet aircraft and armored vehicles and establish licensed Soviet equipment factories in Iran.
Given that this all happened during Gorbachevs otl rule (some things happening during the war) and the fact that we also took more neutral stance ITTL its quite likely that Gorbachev would like to go to Iran to strike few lucrative deals as internally he probably wants to be seen not only as a face of detente with the West, but also as a creator of New Soviet forgein policy based on more pragmatic stance opposed to ideological purity and someone willing to go against mainstream Western opinion if it will benefit USSR. Man should be more concerned for internal opinion in Soviet Union than about Western opinion as his political career depends on that opinion.
Last edited:
