The West Lets Iraq Invade Kuwait
- Thread starter Wolfhound
- Start date
HeavyWeaponsGuy
Banned
a. To be brutally honest, it might well have to involve an ASB to happen without a really, really early PoD. The West intervened agains the Iraqi invasion because nobody wanted to see Saddam's regional ambitions upsetting the balance of power in the area. Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states were also eager to avoid an aggressive, militaristic Iraq in the region, even one that bolstered the Arab states against Iran.
You'd probably have to go way back, you might even butterfly the US intervention on behalf of the Ba'athists if you want to. Or you could have simply a more US-friendly Ba'ath Party that's going to sell oil exploration and development contracts to US oil companies rather than nationalizing Iraqi oil like OTL. You could probably accomplish this with a Saudi Arabia/Aramco style setup with 50% going to Iraq and the rest going to foreign companies that hold contracts. This might mean a significantly poorer Iraq but possibly one that compensates with favorable levels of American investment and military aid, way better Iraqi military than OTL without those atrocious Soviet air defense systems that cost them dearly in the Iran-Iraq War. Basically it would mean that Iraq is taking a role with the US not unlike Saudi Arabia OTL.
This PoD though would probably butterfly away the Iran-Iraq War which lead directly to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, but the closer your PoD is to the actual OTL invasion the more ASB it is. You'd have to be talking about the fact that the USA is willing to completely alienate its ally Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab League to allow Iraq to invade Kuwait. I know your topic is "the West" but the Gulf War was a "US leads, Europe follows scenario" as it often is and there's not much to convince me that this TL would change that dynamic in any significant way.
Maybe there would be a really, really bad split between the US and Saudi Arabia following the OPEC oil embargo. OTL the two countries realized they needed each other and patched things up, but maybe US policy wonks decide that the US and the West in general need another ally in the Middle East if the Saudis turn on us again. Maybe the US more extensively bolsters Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War and even intervenes on its behalf so that Iran stops disrupting Persian Gulf trade. In that scenario the US might well find it has a friend for life in Saddam so it gives Iraq a free hand in getting its revenge on Kuwait for overproduction of its oil resources.
b. ITTL we're going to probably have a worse Middle East overall. Nations would be joining, either by force or by dissatisfaction with the status quo, the pro-Iraq camp or the pro-Arab League camp. The Arab League itself might fragment as an organization and become a useless rubber stamp in the worst case scenario. There'd probably be at least one war against Iraq or a more indirect proxy war fought between the two factions, either way you'd get fairly periodic supply shocks resulting in recession for the rest of the world. The US and the West would have much larger garrisons in the Middle East to keep the peace in a region that's basically a simmering pot waiting to boil over.
You'd probably have to go way back, you might even butterfly the US intervention on behalf of the Ba'athists if you want to. Or you could have simply a more US-friendly Ba'ath Party that's going to sell oil exploration and development contracts to US oil companies rather than nationalizing Iraqi oil like OTL. You could probably accomplish this with a Saudi Arabia/Aramco style setup with 50% going to Iraq and the rest going to foreign companies that hold contracts. This might mean a significantly poorer Iraq but possibly one that compensates with favorable levels of American investment and military aid, way better Iraqi military than OTL without those atrocious Soviet air defense systems that cost them dearly in the Iran-Iraq War. Basically it would mean that Iraq is taking a role with the US not unlike Saudi Arabia OTL.
This PoD though would probably butterfly away the Iran-Iraq War which lead directly to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, but the closer your PoD is to the actual OTL invasion the more ASB it is. You'd have to be talking about the fact that the USA is willing to completely alienate its ally Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab League to allow Iraq to invade Kuwait. I know your topic is "the West" but the Gulf War was a "US leads, Europe follows scenario" as it often is and there's not much to convince me that this TL would change that dynamic in any significant way.
Maybe there would be a really, really bad split between the US and Saudi Arabia following the OPEC oil embargo. OTL the two countries realized they needed each other and patched things up, but maybe US policy wonks decide that the US and the West in general need another ally in the Middle East if the Saudis turn on us again. Maybe the US more extensively bolsters Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War and even intervenes on its behalf so that Iran stops disrupting Persian Gulf trade. In that scenario the US might well find it has a friend for life in Saddam so it gives Iraq a free hand in getting its revenge on Kuwait for overproduction of its oil resources.
b. ITTL we're going to probably have a worse Middle East overall. Nations would be joining, either by force or by dissatisfaction with the status quo, the pro-Iraq camp or the pro-Arab League camp. The Arab League itself might fragment as an organization and become a useless rubber stamp in the worst case scenario. There'd probably be at least one war against Iraq or a more indirect proxy war fought between the two factions, either way you'd get fairly periodic supply shocks resulting in recession for the rest of the world. The US and the West would have much larger garrisons in the Middle East to keep the peace in a region that's basically a simmering pot waiting to boil over.
Incognito
Banned
Actually, I don’t think this POD would butterfly away the Iraq-Iran War unless the Iranian Revolution is somehow prevented. Saddam saw an opportunity and used the Islamic Revolution in Iran as an excuse to capture oil-rich areas of Iran, so I do not see why this would change if he was more pro-U.S.
HeavyWeaponsGuy
Banned
This might be a change on Iran's part to be less confrontational towards Iraq than it was OTL, Saddam was certainly being opportunistic but he also had concerns that Iran was going to export its Islamic revolution outside of its borders, Khomeini would either tone it down or go to war with Iraq and get trounced. An Iraq that is clearly pro-US as opposed to the weird third way it took OTL might attract the Soviets to the Iranian side, though concerns about Iranian ideology might restrain them.
Either way, Iraqi victory in the Iran-Iraq War or no Iran-Iraq War whatsoever would probably mean not the same level of devastation Iraq suffered in the war that lead them to take the gambit of invading Kuwait.
HeavyWeaponsGuy
Banned
Bump, I must say I have an inherent weakness for modern Mideast threads but I want to see if we can get more ideas...
HeavyWeaponsGuy
Banned
To be honest I don't really think so, every nation and their grandmother was calling for intervention, it was one of those insanely rare cases where most of the world's nations were willing to put aside power politics and their own issues to form a unified coalition against Iraq.
US policy since pretty much forever in recent memory has been absolutely, unequivocally defend resources in the Persian Gulf. Kuwait's resources and those of the rest of the Persian Gulf are simply too important to the world to be upset.
Saddam's bid for more power in the region was pretty much unilaterally viewed as upsetting to the balance of power in the Middle East. Like my earlier post it's not hard to imagine that if Iraq were allowed a free hand to aggressively expand into Kuwait than it would have serious implications for the stability of the region. Really if one thinks about it the 2003 invasion of Iraq was nothing overly surprising in some ways. Bush might not have had the most intelligent foreign policy but the invasion was basically a culmination of years of concentrated effort on the part of multiple US presidents to weaken and ultimately destroy Saddam's regime. Reagan got to play nice with Iraq and sell them all sorts of military goodies (and 8 strains of anthrax but I don't think a lot of people like to talk about that) during the Iran-Iraq War but Bush Sr. was the one who got to deal with the fallout after that war that ultimately culminated in Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
Simply put, there's not really that much way that you could get a world opinion that's against intervention without a huge PoD (i.e. massive worldwide depression that makes it impossible to intervene) that may well butterfly the war altogether. The Persian Gulf, and therefore Kuwait, are simply far too intwined into international energy security, the US would've fought Iraq even if it were the only nation lined up against it. The Arab League doesn't like Iraq's militarism any more than the US does and won't tolerate it either. There is simply no way that the US will not wind up in an "America saves the day" situation.
All things the same, Dukakis would have gone in as well.
The real change would need to be a US that sees Saddam as a necessary dictator and an Iraq that wants to still make deals with the US. Some changes could be closer ties due to the Iran-Iraq War, perhaps no Iran-Contra Scandal (either not getting out or never happening). Or some actual Islamist happenings in Iraq that Saddam keeps a lid on, making the US see him as necessary to stop militants from taking power.
Cook
Banned
Dammit, why do people keep seeing Dukakis as a pacifist?
He was ex-army for Christ sake!
Why can't ex-army personnel be pacifists for that matter? Your point, in other words, is valid, but your reasoning is not.
Cook
Banned
No, everyone’s accepted the Bush campaign projection of Dukakis as a pacifist when in fact he wasn’t.
I vaguely remember a report that Bush's first response was non-intervention but that his mind was quickly made right by his advisors. A quick goggle check though, and I could not verify it.
Be that as it may, if Patrick Buchanan had succeeded in his primary challange and gone on to win the Presidency, as unlikely as that was, then you might have had a president non-interventionist enought to refuse to intervene.
Be that as it may, if Patrick Buchanan had succeeded in his primary challange and gone on to win the Presidency, as unlikely as that was, then you might have had a president non-interventionist enought to refuse to intervene.
gridlocked
Banned
It was not the done deal as being portrayed above (Heavy Weapons has good points BUT). Read the archives from the Old New York Times they talk about the invasion being a done deal and the administration dead set that nothing like it would happen again.
Three things would have to change (maybe two out of three). POD would be either Summer 1988 when Dukakis was ahead or Christmas of 1989 when Panama turns into an unexpected disaster and Scrowcraft takes the blame.
1) First the invasion made the Saudis nervous because Saddam's tanks were to close to the their oil fields. Immediately after the invasion he would have to cut a deal w/the Saudis. Such things include pledges to use the Kuwaiti oil revenue to pay back the Saudi loans from the Iran-Iraq war. Pledges that Saudi territoty is inviolate and an immediate pull back of the tanks. Pledges to treat the Sunnis well etc. Saddam had good enough relations w/the Saudis this is plausible that they do some horse trading after the invasion.
2) Bush-Scrowcroft was going to intervene. Offing/firing Brent Scrowcraft might do it if Bush had a more pacific adviser, (Perhaps if PANAMA was a disaster) but the easier thing to do is let Dukaskis win the election. Remember not including Grenada the last time we got involved in a 'Crusade' was Vietnam which haunted the Democratic party. I believe over half of the Democrats opposed the Gulf War.
3) When was the Soviet Coup attempt? [edit- Grid took place in the same month a year later] Make it successful and a year early and Iraq still has its patron and the Soviets use their veto at the UN. Make Gorbachev swing to the hard line view to prevent internal dissent and show the Russian military that the USSR is not collapsing just b/c it gave up Eastern Europe and it might have the same effect.
For an AH site you guys sure like giving reasons why things are impossible. My relatives didn't think it was a done deal until Bush drew his line in the Sand which did not happen the next day. They did not think it was going to be an easy victory instead of a quagmire until Desert Storm actual happened.
Three things would have to change (maybe two out of three). POD would be either Summer 1988 when Dukakis was ahead or Christmas of 1989 when Panama turns into an unexpected disaster and Scrowcraft takes the blame.
1) First the invasion made the Saudis nervous because Saddam's tanks were to close to the their oil fields. Immediately after the invasion he would have to cut a deal w/the Saudis. Such things include pledges to use the Kuwaiti oil revenue to pay back the Saudi loans from the Iran-Iraq war. Pledges that Saudi territoty is inviolate and an immediate pull back of the tanks. Pledges to treat the Sunnis well etc. Saddam had good enough relations w/the Saudis this is plausible that they do some horse trading after the invasion.
2) Bush-Scrowcroft was going to intervene. Offing/firing Brent Scrowcraft might do it if Bush had a more pacific adviser, (Perhaps if PANAMA was a disaster) but the easier thing to do is let Dukaskis win the election. Remember not including Grenada the last time we got involved in a 'Crusade' was Vietnam which haunted the Democratic party. I believe over half of the Democrats opposed the Gulf War.
3) When was the Soviet Coup attempt? [edit- Grid took place in the same month a year later] Make it successful and a year early and Iraq still has its patron and the Soviets use their veto at the UN. Make Gorbachev swing to the hard line view to prevent internal dissent and show the Russian military that the USSR is not collapsing just b/c it gave up Eastern Europe and it might have the same effect.
For an AH site you guys sure like giving reasons why things are impossible. My relatives didn't think it was a done deal until Bush drew his line in the Sand which did not happen the next day. They did not think it was going to be an easy victory instead of a quagmire until Desert Storm actual happened.
Last edited:
gridlocked
Banned
As to its effects. Saddam Hussein becomes the most powerful ruler in the Arab World. Oil prices might be slightly higher, because of Saddam would have more power in OPEC. This by itself would not change a lot since Saddam has to rebuild and sit on the Kurds, Shia, and Kuwaitis so Saddam being the most powerful ruler in the Arab lands doesn't change much until he gets that A-bomb 
No Oslo. The Palestinians were allies of Saddam and Arafat was in his hard-line camp being bankrolled.
The shit hits the fans when Saddam gets nuclear weapons in the mid-90s what do the Israelis do? What does Iran?
No Oslo. The Palestinians were allies of Saddam and Arafat was in his hard-line camp being bankrolled.
The shit hits the fans when Saddam gets nuclear weapons in the mid-90s what do the Israelis do? What does Iran?
Damn, your right. Sooo, POD Buchanan gets wins in 88, for some reason.
Bush decides not to run for some reason. Health problems?
Super Parker Brothers
Banned
Huh. Well we should remember that the Americans went out of their way to tell the Indonesians that they would support them marching in and invading the stuanchly Christian East Timor so we may want to look more into Kuwait having made a fauz pass about oil prices.---------- I also recall that Sammad wanted Kuwait to cede one island at the mouth of the Tigris to Iraq and lease another so that may come into play. Maybe if the Hashemites seemed less pleasing than the Baathists it would have been forgiven earlier... A conflict between Saudi Arabia with both Iraq and Kuwait over the neutral zones?-------Apologies about all of the lines paragraphs dont show when i post. -May I ask if anyone has written up something on the Baathist unifying, the Hasshemites going through with unification, or the Baathists taking over after that? If Israel needed balance or if a bizarre compromise where Sinair, Cisjordan, and Lebanon unified in exchange for the Arabs getting everything but Oman it iight would. or I remember reading years back that somebody suggested Gaada try to unify with the subsaharan Muslim countries instead of the Levant and Berbery. If that around?