deltaforce
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 45 
Likes: 1
|
Post by deltaforce on Mar 14, 2017 1:10:04 GMT
I think the Iran-Iraq War would be avoided, while there were some disputes Saddam would be wary of attacking a stable, strong Iran that is allied with the US. Only when Iran had lost its US alliance and was going through a period of instability did he feel comfortable to attack, and even then he was probably the loser of the war, failing to achieve his goals and getting huge debts and losses. So probably Saddam would not attack Iran TTL. That would probably mean he's still in power today. Iraq would be making a very foolish mistake if it attacked. Imperial Iran had one of the strongest militaries outside of the superpowers, in many cases using equipment on par with and sometimes even more advanced than the countries it was purchasing from. The F-14 Tomcat was the centerpiece of the Imperial Iranian Air Force, and the Imperial Iranian Army was set to receive advanced tanks from the United Kingdom that went on to become the Challenger 1 ( source). With a steady supply of components the Iranian military would be able to work to its full potential and would have a major advantage over Iraq. Just look at the difficulty Iraq had attacking Iran after a year of military purges and a cutoff of military training and other assistance. |
|
deltaforce
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 45
Likes: 1
|
Post by deltaforce on Mar 14, 2017 1:20:22 GMT
I think the Iran-Iraq War would be avoided, while there were some disputes Saddam would be wary of attacking a stable, strong Iran that is allied with the US. Only when Iran had lost its US alliance and was going through a period of instability did he feel comfortable to attack, and even then he was probably the loser of the war, failing to achieve his goals and getting huge debts and losses. So probably Saddam would not attack Iran TTL. That would probably mean he's still in power today. With no Iraq-Iran war there will be no Iraq debt hold by Kuwait and therefore with a strong Iran next door, Iraq will not invade Kuwait in the 1st Gulf War in 1990. It would still be an area of tension. Iraq has always considered Kuwait to be a lost province stolen from it by the British ( source), and it even had a showdown with the British in the 1960s shortly after Kuwait gained its independence which led to the British launching Operation Vantage as a show of force. |
|
deltaforce
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 45
Likes: 1
|
Post by deltaforce on Mar 14, 2017 1:22:12 GMT
With no Iraq-Iran war there will be no Iraq debt hold by Kuwait and therefore with a strong Iran next door, Iraq will not invade Kuwait in the 1st Gulf War in 1990. Yes, and the Americans probably continue to have an uneasy but positive relationship with Saddam. So no Iraq War. The Arab Spring might come to Iraq but given Saddam's brutality(or that of his sons) any uprising could well be stifled. As for Iran I think they'd be very close to the US and would have modernized/Westernized even further. Iran already had a nuclear program, and while they were doing actual nuclear power(the Shah reasoned the oil would run out so better have a backup) there were already rumors Iran was moving to get a nuclear bomb and without international sanctions and opposition to their program they may get a bomb by the 1990s or 2000s. It's generally considered that regional powers with a massive advantage over their rivals do not pursue nuclear weapons programs because sparking a nuclear arms race makes their other advantages useless. Imperial Iran would have a strong conventional military (even Islamic Iran has a strong conventional military), but that wouldn't mean much against a country with nuclear weapons. |
|
deltaforce
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 45
Likes: 1
|
Post by deltaforce on Mar 14, 2017 1:31:37 GMT
Yes, and the Americans probably continue to have an uneasy but positive relationship with Saddam. So no Iraq War. The Arab Spring might come to Iraq but given Saddam's brutality(or that of his sons) any uprising could well be stifled. As for Iran I think they'd be very close to the US and would have modernized/Westernized even further. Iran already had a nuclear program, and while they were doing actual nuclear power(the Shah reasoned the oil would run out so better have a backup) there were already rumors Iran was moving to get a nuclear bomb and without international sanctions and opposition to their program they may get a bomb by the 1990s or 2000s. Also i see the F-14 in Iran being replace by a F-22 variant that is co funded by Iran, this will bring the cost down for that fighter and as a result we will see the F-22 being operated by Iran, United States, Japan and Israel in the universe. It's possible for Imperial Iran, but preserving Israel's qualitative advantage over other countries in the Middle East has been part of United States foreign policy since at least the 1980s, especially for F-15 and F-15E sales to Saudi Arabia ( source). There's a similar understanding with the F-35. The F-22 attracted some interest from Israel, Japan, Australia, and other countries during its development, but the main reason why it didn't gain any foreign orders is because of the Obey Amendment ( source) which applies to the entire airframe. The United States has often sold variants of sensitive equipment with downgraded equipment, and that might be possible for F-22 export customers, but the complicating factor for the F-22 is that the entire airframe is sensitive technology. That makes removing classified features more complicated than changing out avionics and other electronics. |
|
deltaforce
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 45
Likes: 1
|
Post by deltaforce on Mar 14, 2017 1:32:42 GMT
What would be the fate of Syria TTL? Would Iran still support the assad regime or would it be toppled? How would an Iraq still run by Saddam Hussein react to the civil war there? Or would butterflies make the situation vastly different? Any ideas on what happens in Syria TTL? Syria would keep closer ties with the Soviet Union and we do not now if the Arab Spring ever happens here, it could happen in some form but if it happens in Iraq, we now for sure Saddam is going to use ever force to crush it as quickly as he can as he has always done,. That's likely what happens. Imperial Iran and Israel were allies and it wouldn't make sense for Iran to support Syria since its an enemy of Israel. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,370
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 14, 2017 3:52:28 GMT
Syria would keep closer ties with the Soviet Union and we do not now if the Arab Spring ever happens here, it could happen in some form but if it happens in Iraq, we now for sure Saddam is going to use ever force to crush it as quickly as he can as he has always done,. That's likely what happens. Imperial Iran and Israel were allies and it wouldn't make sense for Iran to support Syria since its an enemy of Israel. Something we are seeing these days. |
|
deltaforce
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 45
Likes: 1
|
Post by deltaforce on Mar 14, 2017 5:04:50 GMT
That's likely what happens. Imperial Iran and Israel were allies and it wouldn't make sense for Iran to support Syria since its an enemy of Israel. Something we are seeing these days. It's partially a show of force and partially due to Syria being a strategic location offering the Soviet/Russian Navy a Mediterranean Base beyond the Dardanelles. It's the same reason why the Soviets were involved in Somalia, it's a strategic location on the other size of the Suez Canal on the Horn of Africa. All the major European powers were involved in the Central Mediterranean and the Horn of Africa region after the Suez Canal opened up in the mid-1800s apart from those too late to it (Imperial Russia, Imperial Germany) or without major overseas interests (Austria-Hungary). |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,370
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 14, 2017 14:51:56 GMT
Something we are seeing these days. It's partially a show of force and partially due to Syria being a strategic location offering the Soviet/Russian Navy a Mediterranean Base beyond the Dardanelles. It's the same reason why the Soviets were involved in Somalia, it's a strategic location on the other size of the Suez Canal on the Horn of Africa. All the major European powers were involved in the Central Mediterranean and the Horn of Africa region after the Suez Canal opened up in the mid-1800s apart from those too late to it (Imperial Russia, Imperial Germany) or without major overseas interests (Austria-Hungary). So no Iranian Revolution means Syria will be the only terror sponsor in the region. |
|
deltaforce
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 45
Likes: 1
|
Post by deltaforce on Mar 14, 2017 23:47:09 GMT
It's partially a show of force and partially due to Syria being a strategic location offering the Soviet/Russian Navy a Mediterranean Base beyond the Dardanelles. It's the same reason why the Soviets were involved in Somalia, it's a strategic location on the other size of the Suez Canal on the Horn of Africa. All the major European powers were involved in the Central Mediterranean and the Horn of Africa region after the Suez Canal opened up in the mid-1800s apart from those too late to it (Imperial Russia, Imperial Germany) or without major overseas interests (Austria-Hungary). So no Iranian Revolution means Syria will be the only terror sponsor in the region. The Assad family are Alawites and Shia, while Syria is majority Sunni as well as most of the Middle East (and most Muslims in general). It's no where near as close as the split within Christianity. Iran is the only credible country to try to start a major Shia movement because it's the only large Shia country. Syria and Iraq were both run by Baathist parties, which are Arab Nationalist and secular socialists. The rulers of those countries only started moving away from the secularism when they found themselves needing to shore up their core base of support. Saddam became a very strong promoter of Sunni Islam after the 1991 Gulf War (although he did things many Islamic scholars consider to be haram, such as the Blood Koran) and Assad only started to emphasize Shia Islam to help firm up support against largely Sunni opposition while also making appeals to Syrian Christians. If Syria and Iraq remain Baathist and stable they might still carry out terrorism, but likely more in the vein of the typical things authoritarian countries are likely to do. Saudi Arabia is a far more likely nexus for terrorism as it is Sunni and promotes Wahhabism, which attracts a huge amount of radical Islamic thought and terrorism. |
|
