Iran-Iraw war of 1980-88: what if Iraq 'won'

[ivanotter]

We might have been here before (as it seems with any good WI) - but here goes.

Iraq (Saddam) feared Iran, especially after the Iranian revolution. The threat was that Iran might have exported its success to the Shi'a majority, which would have caused untold misery for Saddam.

Iran was also aiming at Saddam, calling him a 'non-Muslim, etc. so it might have been a matter of time before something would have happened.

According to wiki, the Iraq war aims were: "Iraq's primary rationale for the invasion was to cripple Iran and prevent Ruhollah Khomeini from exporting the 1979 Iranian Revolution movement to Shia-majority Iraq and internally exploit religious tensions that would threaten the Sunni-dominated Ba'athist leadership. Iraq also wished to replace Iran as the dominant state in the Persian Gulf"

We also need to remember that Iraq is Arabic whereas Iran is not. Saddam hoped to also get the Arabic countries on his side - especially as they all feared Iran and its revolution.

So, What If: Iraq is winning the war, crippling Iran and getting control of the Shat-Al-Arab waterway and the border regions in dispute?

Crippling meaning that the Iranian army and air force gets severely depleted.

What now? Will Saddam win friends in the West? will Saudi be fine?

What else can happen? We also need to remember that USSR was involved in Afghanistan.

 

[peeter]

As I said in a recently previous WI asking this, if Iraq wins they’ll take most of Iran’s oil and Saddam would be one of the defacto most powerful men in the world alive. He would become the unquestionable leader of the arab world and would make it his mission to make israel’s life a living hell. Saddam is too powerful to not appease so the west tries to balance protecting Israel but not pissing off Saddam. He will definitely have a real nuclear program in the late 80s- early 90s. There's a good change Syria get’s invaded when the USSR falls. Also, Saddam doesn't invade Kuwait since he doesn't need their oil to pay off debts

 

[ivanotter]

I think it is a rather complex one. Saddam feared Iran a lot more than he feared Israel.

If Saddam really only wanted to take Iran down a notch (realising that nobody can 'win' against Iran), It might have been sound strategy in 1980, hoping that the revolution would have weaked Iran enough.

More complex issues will arise. Saudi tried to pacify Saddam (OTL) by handing him some $50 billion for his war. Saudi was not happy seeing Saddam becoming too powerful either.

As a matter of fact, nobody really wanted Saddam being powerful.

Knocking Iran off the perch might be too much for the stability in the region.

It is also debatable what the relationship to Israel might be. Saddam was rather pragmatic but the attack on Osirak might have been too much to overlook.

Shat-Al-Arab in the hands of Iraq? with Iran unable to do much about it?

 

[peeter]

It is also debatable what the relationship to Israel might be. Saddam was rather pragmatic but the attack on Osirak might have been too much to overlook

Considering he broke off relations with egypt in response to them doing a peace treaty with Israel I wouldn't imagine that he wouldn't antagonize Israel. Maybe not outright attack them but definitely fund and arm proxy groups to attack them.

 

[ivanotter]

... or maybe just rhetoric?

In any event: was the war inevitable after all?

 

[starman]

So, What If: Iraq is winning the war, crippling Iran and getting control of the Shat-Al-Arab waterway and the border regions in dispute?

Crippling meaning that the Iranian army and air force gets severely depleted.

What now? Will Saddam win friends in the West? will Saudi be fine?

The Iranian army and Air Force were severely depleted. Both sides suffered high losses but Iraq got plenty of replacements from the USSR and France whereas Iran got relatively little. Technically Iraq did win the war, in 1988, when it finally learned to script operations. But it won only in the sense that it forced Iran to stop fighting whereas before Tehran wanted to keep at it until Iraq was beaten.
At the time, the hostage crisis meant that Iraq did have friends in the West; most arab states favored it though Syria was a key exception.

 

[starman]

As I said in a recently previous WI asking this, if Iraq wins they’ll take most of Iran’s oil

I don't think that would've been sustainable, if it were possible. Note that, even after Iraq finally routed the Iranian forces in '88 it was content to get a ceasefire and did not try to push deeper into Iran, or take its oil. Had Iraq actually done that it would've had to subdue all of Iran or the Iranians would've been constantly fighting to get their oil back--and Iran is quite big and populous.

There's a good change Syria get’s invaded when the USSR falls.

Even then, Syria would've been a pretty difficult proposition.

Also, Saddam doesn't invade Kuwait since he doesn't need their oil to pay off debts

The key difference between Kuwait and Iran is the former was a cinch to subdue for this purpose.

 

[Gillan1220]

No Gulf War, or at least not a carbon copy of OTL.

Cody has a video of this.

 

[peeter]

even after Iraq finally routed the Iranian forces in '88 it was content to get a ceasefire and did not try to push deeper into Iran

I mean that was after 8 years of bloody fighting. my assumption of an Iraq win would be a faster decisive one where Iraq is able to annex the khuzestan region and hold serve which was their plan going into the war not take over Iran. Over 80% of their on shore oil is there

 

[Father Maryland]

The Iranian army and Air Force were severely depleted. Both sides suffered high losses but Iraq got plenty of replacements from the USSR and France whereas Iran got relatively little. Technically Iraq did win the war, in 1988, when it finally learned to script operations. But it won only in the sense that it forced Iran to stop fighting whereas before Tehran wanted to keep at it until Iraq was beaten.
At the time, the hostage crisis meant that Iraq did have friends in the West; most arab states favored it though Syria was a key exception.

In a lot of ways the Seizure of the US Embassy combined with the Mullahs fanatical Anti Communism and purging of Iranian communists were some of the worst geopolitical mistakes of the 20th century.

Since the first ensured the US would hate Iran for a generation, the second meant that the worlds other Superpower would hate them. Combined with the Shia's fervent opposition to the Sunni Gulf States and you had one of the most strongly isolated nations on the planet.

 

[Father Maryland]

Honestly I wonder what would the effects of a Iranian Islamic revolution would look like geopoliticalally if they hadn't pissed off the US so badly ( Say the US didn't take the Shah in but say still expelled the US embassy for a while without holding the staff hostage for so long.).

Obviously US/ Iranian relationships in the period would still not be good but it wouldn't cause the same level of intense loathing among the American people that would last a generation.

 

[Monk78]

Honestly I wonder what would the effects of a Iranian Islamic revolution would look like geopoliticalally if they hadn't pissed off the US so badly ( Say the US didn't take the Shah in but say still expelled the US embassy for a while without holding the staff hostage for so long.).

Obviously US/ Iranian relationships in the period would still not be good but it wouldn't cause the same level of intense loathing among the American people that would last a generation.

Probably far more support for Iranian military during and after the war

 

[Father Maryland]

Probably far more support for Iranian military during and after the war

Yep. Which makes me wonder if the Iraq- Iran might have been averted if the US Iranian military relationship had been continued even in a very weakened form. I mean as it was the Iranians not only instantly lost an ally but also almost all the maintenance logistical capabilities for their military ( performaed by Western Contractors), their sources of muinitions/ spare parts ( largely from US companies) and almost their entire officer NCO corps ( either executed, fled abroad, or imprisoned and tortured. For example at the start of the war I believe 95% of all fighter pilots were either executed, exiled or imprisoned. The Irans had like over a thousand modern F4s, F5s, and F14s but virtually no free pilots or maintenance personnel).

 

[Monk78]

Yep. Which makes me wonder if the Iraq- Iran might have been averted if the US Iranian military relationship had been continued even in a very weakened form. I mean as it was the Iranians not only instantly lost an ally but also almost all the maintenance logistical capabilities for their military ( performaed by Western Contractors), their sources of muinitions/ spare parts ( largely from US companies) and almost their entire officer NCO corps ( either executed, fled abroad, or imprisoned and tortured. For example at the start of the war I believe 95% of all fighter pilots were either executed, exiled or imprisoned. The Irans had like over a thousand modern F4s, F5s, and F14s but virtually no free pilots or maintenance personnel).

But according to Tom cooper most were released once war started
But I agree the Islamic republic was very naive in its foreign relations probably more so than taliban , but the hubris died down soon once they got trounced by Iraqis

 

[starman]

…. my assumption of an Iraq win would be a faster decisive one

That borders on ASB. One Iraqi general had serious doubts after going to war with Iran; after years of COIN fighting the army wasn't yet ready to resume conventional operations. To make matters worse, in his purge of '79 Saddam replaced many professional army commanders with political hacks..

which was their plan going into the war not take over Iran.

The problem is, Iran is not going to peacefully accept loss of its most important economic asset. There would be no end to skirmishing and sabotage.

 

[peeter]

That borders on ASB. One Iraqi general had serious doubts after going to war with Iran

I mean the question is what if Iraq won so I'm answering it in the most advantageous scenario for Iraq

The problem is, Iran is not going to peacefully accept loss of its most important economic asset

in my scenario I highly doub Iran will be able to sufficiently resist Iraqi occupation as it would probably be thrown into chaos getting crushed early on

 

[ivanotter]

This was a very 'unusual' war insofar as both sides got new equipment from the same suppliers.

US established diplomatic relationship with Iraq in 1984.
France and China were major suppliers With China selling to both sides. Spain was in on the act as well.

In essence: no clear-cut 'united front' in terms of support.

Iran-Contra did not help either.

It is still amazing how close a comparison can be to WWI. An early settlement could have happened (German 'win' in 1914 - Iraq 'win' in 1980), massive casualties and no clear goals, inevitable war (Iran was aiming at Saddam and it might just have been a matter of time anyway - Russian railway and suport for Slav nationalist made the AH aim at taking Russia down while there was still time).

So, an Iraq win could only have been achieved early and what would it have entailed really? Shatt-al-arab? a few border regulations?

And here is the suggestion: if Iraq had managed to make something decisive in 1980, would the rest of the world have supported Saddam? also after this mini-war then?