August 1990: Saddam rolls on in to Saudi Arabia

[Von Schadewald]

August 1990: Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. But he doesn't stop there: he continues on in to Saudi Arabia.

The Iraqi army, with a core of battle-hardened veterans from the just-finished Iran-Iraq war, although paltry by world standards, is able to brush aside the even more paltry Saudis, despite their latest equipment.

When word gets out that King Fahd & the Saudi Royal family has fled to France, resistance collapses.

Jordan, Lebanon and Israel, with large Palestinan pro-Saddam minorities, are destabilised, Hussein being viewed as some kind of Islamic Messiah/5th Imam. Even the Iranians look on in admiration.

The conquest of the Saudi & Kuwaiti oil fields is so quick, and with the prospect of 30% of the world's oil being destroyed in the event of a US-led invasion, Bush weighs a nuclear decapitation of Saddam in Baghdad. But Bush is no Reagan and backs off.

Gloating over his conquest, Hussein loses interest in firing Scuds on Israel.

But the US quickly plots to use Israel, the only ones who could get away with it and refocus the Arab world at the same time, as a tool to take out Saddam with a 'false flag' operation. Israeli micro and mini nukes get to be used. The world gets to see what an above-ground 0.01 kT atom bomb explosion looks like.




(PS: Should the Moderator intend to lock this, before doing so, could he please explain if and where it is deficient in POD or POV, to give me a chance to amend it!).

[Tim Smith]

The Iranians look on in admiration? I don't think so - they'd be scared witless.

If the US were to allow Saddam to keep Saudi Arabia (remember Iraq has been a US ally up to now, so the Iranians have to consider this possibility), then within 10 years Iraq will be so rich that she'll be a regional superpower. The bankrupt Soviets would sell Iraq every piece of surplus military hardware Saddam could ever want, with the exception of nuclear missiles, so Iraq's military will become almost as strong as Russia's. Then by 2000 or so, Iraq will be in a position to attack Iran again - and win this time round!

No, I think the Iranians will be very worried indeed about the prospect of an Iraqi regional superpower. I would be, in their place.

Also, I'm not certain if an Israeli micro-nuke would decapitate Saddam - what if Saddam anticipates a strike aimed at him personally, and refuses to come out from his hardened Baghdad underground bunker?

[Crazy_Ivan]

(PS: Should the Moderator intend to lock this, before doing so, could he please explain if and where it is deficient in POD or POV, to give me a chance to amend it!).

It probably will be pulled.

[Baltasar]

I have to agree with Tim that the Iranians will be scared. The middle east does not have an history of uniting behind a successful army for too long. Even the Ottoman empire was very fractured and one did not have to look too hard to see that.

The Iran just made a draw in a dragged out war with Iraq and now Hussein refocusses to the west. The US would probably drop him like they did historically but sitting on the vast oil fields and with no room to stage an attack force, the US would have to rely on air superiority if they intended to drive the Iraqis back. However, if Saddam posed such a threat as to occupy a vast percentage of the currently available oil production, I can easily see the US sending in an even larger force than they did historically. The Iraqi air force was no match for the US carrier wings and once the sky belongs them, the US can basically land whereever they want to.

The Arab world probably wouldn't even protest as the Iraqis posed an obvious threat to their states and they would gladly have the US get their hands dirty.

[Baltasar]

The Iraqi troops only lighted the oil fields when they wanted to cover their retreat. As long as the US negotiate / mass their troops, nothing will burn. The US could also use a total embargo policy on Iraq, sealing off the coasts. If the US could do without the middle east oil, Saddam won't find many people who'd buy his precious black gold.

And what would the burning oil fields help the Iraqis if the US managed to temporarily ally themselves with Iran and stage an invasion from there? There'd be no point in wasting explosives on the wells as there would be few if any attacks on the occupation forces in Saudi Arabia.

[Crazy_Ivan]

Considering Syria's involvement in the Gulf war does anyone think that they or even the Jordanians let the U.S. have bases on their territory?

[Von Schadewald]

With the Syrians having memories of having been bombarded by US battleships only a few years earlier, I think not.

Thatcher was still UK PM in August 1990. She wanted the Coalition to go all the way to Baghdad in February 1991, but had resigned by then.

If for some reason 43 year old VP Dan Quayle had suddenly become president in September 1990, then the US action might have been quite different

[Crazy_Ivan]

Hmmmm the Syrians might be a lot more forgiving with a very threatening Saddam on their doorstep, I mean what were the historical reasons for their actual involvement in the Gulf war?

If no Syria what about Turkey?

[Tim Smith]

'Desperate Dan' might be more of a hawk than you realise in this situation. The US was dependent on Saudi oil, lack of which would have the entire US population up in arms over their loss of cheap gas. This is as bad or worse than the Opec oil crisis of the 1970's. Whichever administration the US had in office would have to be seen to be dealing with the situation....and a violent response would be the natural knee-jerk US reaction to the crisis.

[Andy H]

von.S wrote:-

(PS: Should the Moderator intend to lock this, before doing so, could he please explain if and where it is deficient in POD or POV, to give me a chance to amend it!).

Well I haven't locked it yet but your already introducing another WI within this WI and the thread was barely a few hours old. This is something you tend to do frequently. You don't give people time to respond and equally you fail to respond in detail to opposing views.

Your basic premise for the WI has been laid out and I'm thinking that your main question revolves around the use of a nuclear device sanctioned by the US under Israeli guise. Then your post about the oilwells was superfluous and thus removed, along with the unneccesary picture. Then on your next post you've introduced another WI by asking about Dan Qualyes possible difference to your scenario which is also a POD. Additionaly you add yet another picture (without any acknowledgement of source) which as you know are on the whole superfluous within WI's. If people didn't know who Dan Quayle was then a picture wont help.

The implications and decisions to use Nuclear weapons are huge, especially in such a region, so lets not overstretch this scenario by straying to far down that road and WW3 territory.

You state that Bush is no Regan but Bush decides to go nuclear! That to me seems more hawkish than Regan, and why wouldn't Bush go the conventional route, with a coalition as in the OTL?

Regards

Andy H

[BDV]

If Sod continues onto Riyadh then we have a replay of 1950, maybe using Qatar as a staging area. US moved "speedbumps" there quickly in OTL, and the carrier based airforce will engage iraquis ASAP. An coptic-yank landing at Duba (using US forces in the Med theater), attack from Turkey (with same), and/or a brazen amphibious assault between Kuwait CIty and Basra are all possibilities.

I don't see the need for nukes, however.

P.S.
Actually I like the last move best. If US simply sails into Basra while Sod's boy's are scattered throughout Arabian peninsula (quite a big place), what exactly is the punk gonna do about it?

[Carl Schwamberger]

Just in case any one want to read ahead here's another thread on the same question.

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/s ... 893&page=2

[Robert Rojas]

Greetings to both citizen Von Schadewald and the community as a whole. Well V.S., in respect to your introductory posting of Tuesday - July 13, 2010 - 12:31pm, old Uncle Bob is of the school of thought that the Baathist apostate from Mesopotamia is going to incur the collective wrath of the Sunni Sect of the Islamic faith for deposing the Wahhabist House of Saud in general and defiling the holy sites of MECCA and MEDINA with his sacrilegious occupation in particular. Needless to say, you may rest assured that there will be a clarion call for JIHAD throughout the greater Sunni world. I rather suspect (rightly OR wrongly) that the nations of Jordan, Egypt and Turkey will be able to muster enough military strength to oust the Baathist apostate from Mesopotamia from both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Ironically, the State of Israel will play a small but highly vital role in the liberation of both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait by allowing the Egyptian Army to transit across the State of Israel into invasion staging areas located within Jordan. Of course, to assauge ANY potential security concerns from the powers-that-be in Tel Aviv, the units of the Egyptian Army transiting across the State of Israel would be "escorted" by elements of both the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps. In short, the conquest of Iraq would simply transpire in year 1990 as opposed to the real world conquest that had actually transpired in year 2003. Finally, at least from my perspective anyway, the financially strapped and militarily drained Shiite Islamic Republic of Iran would be more than content to watch their historical Babylonian adversary liquidated by the forces of the Arab League along with their American, British and Turkish allies. It's just some alternative food for thought. Falafel anyone? Well, that's my initial two Yankee cents worth on this latest adventure into the realm of the surreal - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you a copacetic day over in your wretched corner of the Balkans. And remember, Allah works in mysterious ways!

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob

[PeterOT]

Greetings to both citizen Von Schadewald and the community as a whole. Well V.S., in respect to your introductory posting of Tuesday - July 13, 2010 - 12:31pm, old Uncle Bob is of the school of thought that the Baathist apostate from Mesopotamia is going to incur the collective wrath of the Sunni Sect of the Islamic faith for deposing the Wahhabist House of Saud in general and defiling the holy sites of MECCA and MEDINA with his sacrilegious occupation in particular. Needless to say, you may rest assured that there will be a clarion call for JIHAD throughout the greater Sunni world. I rather suspect (rightly OR wrongly) that the nations of Jordan, Egypt and Turkey will be able to muster enough military strength to oust the Baathist apostate from Mesopotamia from both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Ironically, the State of Israel will play a small but highly vital role in the liberation of both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait by allowing the Egyptian Army to transit across the State of Israel into invasion staging areas located within Jordan. Of course, to assauge ANY potential security concerns from the powers-that-be in Tel Aviv, the units of the Egyptian Army transiting across the State of Israel would be "escorted" by elements of both the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps. In short, the conquest of Iraq would simply transpire in year 1990 as opposed to the real world conquest that had actually transpired in year 2003. Finally, at least from my perspective anyway, the financially strapped and militarily drained Shiite Islamic Republic of Iran would be more than content to watch their historical Babylonian adversary liquidated by the forces of the Arab League along with their American, British and Turkish allies. It's just some alternative food for thought. Falafel anyone? Well, that's my initial two Yankee cents worth on this latest adventure into the realm of the surreal - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you a copacetic day over in your wretched corner of the Balkans. And remember, Allah works in mysterious ways!

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob

Uncle Bob,

A valuable contribution as always. Might I posit a few potential speedhumps for the impending jihad against the moustacioed one.

Saddam might make himself a more difficult target for jihad if he attacks Israel. This might just take the form of conentional scud missiles, as in OTL, or it might even involve chemical attacks. Such posturing might make the mullahs & governments like Egypt & Jordan think twice about their next move (Syria will make the usual calculations & try to pick the best side).

I still think he is doomed, but I suspect that the hammer will be a US instrument deployed in a different place than OTL & with a different plan (the air war starts sooner to stop Saddam progressing further into SA & the troops deploy from somewhere closer to the UAE/Qatar).

[Baltasar]

Peter, since Saddam would be aware of Israeli (tactical) nukes and their quite powerful conventional forces, would he want to start such a fight? If he intended to unite the Arab world behind him, this would not be an unlogical step, but apparently he was after oil / money back then, which in turn would make an attack on the Saudis more sensible.

If the US turned out to attack him right away and he was certain that other Arab countries might join the US, he could lob some ordanance towards Israel for good measure and try to depict himself as the great Jihadist. I'm sure his legendary minister of comedy affairs would've loved that one.