Iraqi-Israeli hostility dates back to 1948, and a state of war still exists between the two. What if Israel would have joined the campaigns against anti-Israeli Saddam Hussein? My guess is during the first Gulf War, opinion among the Arab States would have been divided whereas in 2003, the Arab States would loathe Israel for toppling an Arab dictatorship and marching in Iraq victoriously.
Israel Joins Both of the Gulf Wars
- Thread starter Montgomerie Ward
- Start date
I don't think other coalition members would have let them join in the first place apart from intelligence gathering and the like. The PR damage with Arab nations already on the coalition side would counteract any advantages gained from having Israel join in.
In his memories general Schwartzkopf mentions that during the 1st Gulf War when Iraq launched Scuds againt Israel, Israelis wanted to retaliate and conduct air raids against Iraqi targets. It caused panic among the coalition leaders, since the Arab allies, especially Saudi Arabia, would never agree to it, not to mention letting Israelis planes into their airspace. I think there was an idea to let Israelis attack unofficially, but it was quickly shot down (pun intended), since there were Arab officers in allies HQ and air control who would have immediately found out about it.
There was also an idea about Israelis getting full access to allied recon and choosing their own targets for allied strikes. It was vetoed (by Schwarzkopf himself, I believe), since allied commanders weren't happy about someone else deciding what their troops were supposed to do.
Anyway, if Israelis are officially or even unofficially in, Arabs are out.
There was also an idea about Israelis getting full access to allied recon and choosing their own targets for allied strikes. It was vetoed (by Schwarzkopf himself, I believe), since allied commanders weren't happy about someone else deciding what their troops were supposed to do.
Anyway, if Israelis are officially or even unofficially in, Arabs are out.
Well, IOTL, this was exactly what America sought, and succeeded, at preventing. Saddam rained Scuds at Israel when he was on the edge of defeat, knowing that having them join the war against him would prompt a mass walkout by the other Arab states. The Americans, however, knew that too, and simply dumped Patriot missiles on the Israelis to protect themselves with, and quite literally tying them down to keep them from declaring war.
Except not really. Syrians said that Israelis are entitled to response to Scud attacks. Egypt is not going to bitch either. Saudis are not going to walk out and dismantle coalition before Saddam is removed. that leaves three largest and most important Arab members in coalition. If smaller ones walk it's "who cares, it's not as if they are contributing hundreds of AFVs anyway"
Sure, those are government positions. But even in the early 90s, the Coalition knew the damage to the regimes' legitimacy in the Arab world of very clearly "letting" the Israelis participate alongside said Syrian-Egyptian-Saudi forces. Think the Algerian Civil War+Arab Spring two decades earlier.
Given a choice between pissing off population to potentialy dengerous degree and leaving undefeated and very hostile Iraq on their borders which option will Saudis choose?
Czar Kaizer
Banned
The first naturally, nearly the entire Muslim world despises Israel any Arab government would automatically lose legitimacy something which an authoritarian government like Saudi Arabia can't afford
I beg to digress. People often underestimate the origins of AQ and therefore ISIS and much of Salafi-Jihadism, despite the Afghan Experience, are almost all due to the Al Saud allowing the Americans to establish bases in the Kingdom to eject Iraq from Kuwait. The early 90s/mid-to-late 80s was the first wave of Political Islamism's (read: Muslim Brotherhood) wave of popularity in recent memory (late 20th century) in the Arab world, and despite popular opposition to the Americans' presence (not per se opposition to opposing Saddam) even domestically amongst Saudis was ignored by the government in favour of ejecting Saddam. By the late 90s (before the Second Intifada) there was a big "Palestine fatigue" in the Arab world, and the Palestinians in Kuwait and elsewhere's support for Saddam didn't help.
I would say, even in 1991, the Saudis would obviously say no Israelis allowed in KSA, but still continue with inviting the rest of the Coalition (which outside of Saudi/GCC would include Israel in this scenario) but still go along with inviting the Coalition and going ahead with the Gulf War.
However, I believe, it would have been a very different domestic outcome throughout the Arab world. But, I do not believe, leaders at the time would have believed as such.
according to one book I have on the war, pretty much every Muslim nation in the alliance was perfectly willing to look away if Israel chose to retaliate in response to the Scud attacks, and most of their populations thought the same. However, they were thinking more along the lines of air and missile strikes... it doubtful that having Israel actually put ground forces into SA was ever going to fly there. As for the 2nd war... don't see it happening in any way, Israel just didn't have a reason to do so...
Which means that Saudis will stay in coalition.
One of amin reasosn for rise of radical political islam is that Arab states were pretty good at crushing secular opposition of any stripe. They failed at crushing MB type because they were closely tied to religious infrastructure and only way to crush the would be to crush religion. Which would be both impossible and suicide for any regime
I don't see any scenario where Israel would commit ground forces to Arab state to attack another Arab state. Saudis wouldn't stand for it and Israleis aren't stupid enough to do it anyway. Special forces staging out of Israel and flying over saudi is an option.
That's true, however I think saudis would opt for Israeli participation to crush Saddam and expect to deal with any opposition later.
It's worth noting that maybe Israeli participation causes Saudis to tell US "Thank you for saving our bacon, not GTFO" because popular supprot for foreigners would be at the limit and this would be one way to placate them. How that impacts region down the road is anybody's guess.
I don't think ground forces were in the cards anway, from either side.
Utter disaster, especially in 1991. What was actually a very broad based effort turns into the Crusaders defiling Muslim lands. The Saudis couldn't afford to toss the Coalition out, Saddam would have been in Medina in a week, and not as a Pilgrim, but the government would likely have fallen inside of a year.
By 2003 the grand coalition was already mostly wrecked, but even then Sunni states were on bo0ard enough to allow U.S. & UK forces to base out of there. Bring Israel into the picture than the 2003 War doesn't even get off the ground. The governments of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates would have been overthrown if they had allowed forces openly allied with Israel to operate on Muslim soil.
It is often forgotten that the IDF and U.S. have NEVER officially engaged in combat together. American troops have fought beside different Arab/Muslim units, but never the Israelis. The day the U.S. does, is the day the Arab states turn their back on the U.S.
By 2003 the grand coalition was already mostly wrecked, but even then Sunni states were on bo0ard enough to allow U.S. & UK forces to base out of there. Bring Israel into the picture than the 2003 War doesn't even get off the ground. The governments of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates would have been overthrown if they had allowed forces openly allied with Israel to operate on Muslim soil.
It is often forgotten that the IDF and U.S. have NEVER officially engaged in combat together. American troops have fought beside different Arab/Muslim units, but never the Israelis. The day the U.S. does, is the day the Arab states turn their back on the U.S.
Saddam tried to get Israel into the coalition in order to break away the Arab states - who would have been on the same side. If that happened the US would have been forced to abandon its plans in 1990, because it would no longer have been able to actually challenge Saddam Hussein in Kuwait.
As for in 2003, its possible. The coalition was only the US, UK, Australia and Poland who invaded, so none of them would have objected to Israel in the coalition. But Israel would have needed to get to Iraq to do anything. Jordan and Syria would not allow the use of their airspace for some kind of aerial deployment.
As for in 2003, its possible. The coalition was only the US, UK, Australia and Poland who invaded, so none of them would have objected to Israel in the coalition. But Israel would have needed to get to Iraq to do anything. Jordan and Syria would not allow the use of their airspace for some kind of aerial deployment.