The US and its allies overthrow Saddam Hussein back in 1991

[Burton K Wheeler]

Here is a news article from the time: https://washingtontimes.com/news/2004/apr/7/20040407-124311-9361r/. It includes those quotes from a military source: "Iran does not want a success in Iraq" "A democratic Iraq is a death knell to the mullahs." What do you think of this? I think the wording is ambiguous enough to support both of our views.

I think it's an unfiled Washington Times article from April 2004 with an unnamed source saying something that would have been spectacularly dumb even at the time.

 

[OHC]

Here is a news article from the time: https://washingtontimes.com/news/2004/apr/7/20040407-124311-9361r/. It includes those quotes from a military source: "Iran does not want a success in Iraq" "A democratic Iraq is a death knell to the mullahs." What do you think of this? I think the wording is ambiguous enough to support both of our views.

I don't mean to dogpile but the Washington Times is an organ of the Unification Church (the Moonies) and regularly publishes right-wing conspiracy theories. It's not a good news source.

 

[Ricardolindo]

I don't mean to dogpile but the Washington Times is an organ of the Unification Church (the Moonies) and regularly publishes right-wing conspiracy theories. It's not a good news source.

Thing is, they did mention a military source and considering the context of the time, it isn't, really, implausible that someone in the military did say that.
That being said, I now agree with Burton K Wheeler that said military source was being far too optimistic.

 

[Ricardolindo]

Very possible. It's also worth noting that Saddam invading Kuwait was far from inevitable. Nationalistic cover aside, the main reason Saddam invaded Kuwait in the first place was because he owed them a ton of money he couldn't afford on loans acquired during the Iran-Iraq War. Without a belief that US power would back them militarily, Kuwait would probably be much more cautious and conciliatory in its dealings with Iraq (allow Iraq to negotiate a more favorable repayment plan, not slant drill into Iraq when they're unable to meet payments, etc.). It's entirely likely imo that under a President Dukakis the Gulf War never happens at all.

Saddam only invaded Kuwait because April Glaspie's confusing statement convinced him that the US wouldn't care about it. No offense to the woman, but I suspect any other ambassador would have explained themselves better.

 

[CaliGuy]

Very possible. It's also worth noting that Saddam invading Kuwait was far from inevitable. Nationalistic cover aside, the main reason Saddam invaded Kuwait in the first place was because he owed them a ton of money he couldn't afford on loans acquired during the Iran-Iraq War. Without a belief that US power would back them militarily, Kuwait would probably be much more cautious and conciliatory in its dealings with Iraq (allow Iraq to negotiate a more favorable repayment plan, not slant drill into Iraq when they're unable to meet payments, etc.). It's entirely likely imo that under a President Dukakis the Gulf War never happens at all.

That makes sense. That might also mean that Iraq gets nukes sometime in the 1990s since no one is actually going to stop them, correct? I don't seem to recall Israel preparing for any new air raids on Iraq in the years leading up to 1991 (perhaps because they were unaware of just how advanced the Iraqi nuclear weapons program was by then).

I'll have to double-check, but I seem to recall previously seeing a TIME Magazine article from the early 1990s years ago about how Iraq was just one or two years away from successfully building nuclear weapons in 1991.

Saddam only invaded Kuwait because April Glaspie's confusing statement convinced him that the US wouldn't care about it. No offense to the woman, but I suspect any other ambassador would have explained themselves better.

But would the US actually be willing to make more firm statements in regards to guaranteeing Kuwaiti security when a lot of politicians in the US (especially Democrats) would be unwilling to actually have the US fight for Kuwait in the event of an Iraqi invasion of that country?

 

[Geordie]

Not to sound all neocon, but the Iranian role in the Iraqi insurgency is hard to overstate.

This leads to an interesting question, although outside the scope of the current WI.

What if Bush doesn't refer to the Axis of Evil in his 2002 State of the Union?

I don't think there's much point trying to make him leave Iran out of the Axis; once the phrase exists, Iran is in. However, a quick Google suggests that it was coined by a speechwriter who'd been instructed to make the case for attacking Saddam, and became enamored of the analogy of Iran and Iraq as a modern day axis. So what if the writer just concentrates on Iraq and Saddam? Maybe a further conentration on the crimes against his own people? Saddam as a Hitler of the Middle East? A mad dog who has attacked Iran, Kuwait, and his own citizens, and needs to be stopped before he lashes out against somebody else? No threat to Tehran that they're next, as soon as Saddam has had his account settled. Iran and the US keep working together on picking up fugitives fleeing Afghanistan? I'm not convinced that this unoffical partnership will ever see an open rapprochement, but the butterflies from not being actively antagonistic towards Iran appear to be absolutely enormous when 2003 rolls around.

 

[CaliGuy]

This leads to an interesting question, although outside the scope of the current WI.

What if Bush doesn't refer to the Axis of Evil in his 2002 State of the Union?

I don't think there's much point trying to make him leave Iran out of the Axis; once the phrase exists, Iran is in. However, a quick Google suggests that it was coined by a speechwriter who'd been instructed to make the case for attacking Saddam, and became enamored of the analogy of Iran and Iraq as a modern day axis. So what if the writer just concentrates on Iraq and Saddam? Maybe a further conentration on the crimes against his own people? Saddam as a Hitler of the Middle East? A mad dog who has attacked Iran, Kuwait, and his own citizens, and needs to be stopped before he lashes out against somebody else? No threat to Tehran that they're next, as soon as Saddam has had his account settled. Iran and the US keep working together on picking up fugitives fleeing Afghanistan? I'm not convinced that this unoffical partnership will ever see an open rapprochement, but the butterflies from not being actively antagonistic towards Iran appear to be absolutely enormous when 2003 rolls around.

Good PoD. I also wonder if relations would have been better with North Korea had they not likewise been included in the Axis of Evil. I actually read that Clinton discussed negotiating a final peace treaty to the Korean War with them near the end of his administration only to have Bush Jr. scrap these plans after he came into office. Maybe there's an additional PoD right there?

 

[Charles EP M.]

As everyone says, it probably goes a lot better than OTL 2003. You probably get a shaky illiberal democracy in Iraq itself. It will also be really expensive, difficult, means US troops on long-term deployment, has some insurgents, and uses up political capital for America because it's an occupation. OTL the Gulf War was a big swinging victory for America but so was OTL invasion of Iraq, it's everything after that's the hard and grim part nobody likes. It's possible that won't make them eager to go abroad for warfare again in the near future - so that has an impact on Bosnia and Kosovo etc.

This leads to an interesting question, although outside the scope of the current WI.

What if Bush doesn't refer to the Axis of Evil in his 2002 State of the Union?

That is a good question. Iran might be quite glad Bush is nobbling Iraq if they think they're not next - an old enemy is gone and they have room to get influence in the new country.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

This leads to an interesting question, although outside the scope of the current WI.

What if Bush doesn't refer to the Axis of Evil in his 2002 State of the Union?

I don't think there's much point trying to make him leave Iran out of the Axis; once the phrase exists, Iran is in. However, a quick Google suggests that it was coined by a speechwriter who'd been instructed to make the case for attacking Saddam, and became enamored of the analogy of Iran and Iraq as a modern day axis. So what if the writer just concentrates on Iraq and Saddam? Maybe a further conentration on the crimes against his own people? Saddam as a Hitler of the Middle East? A mad dog who has attacked Iran, Kuwait, and his own citizens, and needs to be stopped before he lashes out against somebody else? No threat to Tehran that they're next, as soon as Saddam has had his account settled. Iran and the US keep working together on picking up fugitives fleeing Afghanistan? I'm not convinced that this unoffical partnership will ever see an open rapprochement, but the butterflies from not being actively antagonistic towards Iran appear to be absolutely enormous when 2003 rolls around.

The Iranians aren't going to bend the knee like Qaddafi did. Even if they have the same interest in wiping out Al Qaeda and supporting the new Iraqi and Afghan governments they won't stop supporting Hezbollah, and the Israelis are going to have the same interest they did OTL in puffing up Iran as their existential threat. At some point the Bush administration is going to collide with the Iranians, and a successful Iraq occupation just makes the nature of that collision more dramatic.

The other issue is that there are two Iranian foreign policies. The relevant one in this period was the IRGC's. Besides the fact that the Americans might get belligerent towards Iran, the IRGC might get skeptical of U.S. military bases encircling Iran.

 

[CaliGuy]

I think it's an unfiled Washington Times article from April 2004 with an unnamed source saying something that would have been spectacularly dumb even at the time.

Well, to be fair, democratic revolutions can have a habit of spreading even in the Middle East. Just look at the Arab Spring.

 

[CaliGuy]

The Iranians aren't going to bend the knee like Qaddafi did. Even if they have the same interest in wiping out Al Qaeda and supporting the new Iraqi and Afghan governments they won't stop supporting Hezbollah, and the Israelis are going to have the same interest they did OTL in puffing up Iran as their existential threat. At some point the Bush administration is going to collide with the Iranians, and a successful Iraq occupation just makes the nature of that collision more dramatic.

The other issue is that there are two Iranian foreign policies. The relevant one in this period was the IRGC's. Besides the fact that the Americans might get belligerent towards Iran, the IRGC might get skeptical of U.S. military bases encircling Iran.

So, even if Al Gore wins in 2000, you still see significant limitations in just how warm US-Iran relations can actually become in the 2000s, correct?

BTW, do you think that 9/11 still happens under an Al Gore Presidency?