What if Iraq had invaded Saudi Arabia in 1990?

One of the biggest "what-ifs" in history has gotten surprisingly very little study. I say surprisingly because at the time this was a major issue of contention and concern.

In August of 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. We know that much. However, people of my generation, either don't know or forgot that Iraq was actually proceeding to press on into Saudi Arabia and seize their oil fields. This was the primary motivating factor in deploying forces to Saudi Arabia and launching Operation Desert Shield. Until around early October, however, the amount of U.S. forces in the theater was actually very limited.

So, what if Iraq had dashed into Saudi Arabia? Would that thin line of U.S. paratroopers, Marines, and limited amounts of airpower have stood up to the armored thrust? Many people say that despite the Gulf War's eventual ending, nothing would have changed the fact that in the early days, an Iraqi offensive southward would not have been stopped.

Once again, lets say Iraq invades Saudi Arabia in August of 1990:

1) Would CENTCOM been able to stop them?
2) If not, what was the likelihood that tactical nuclear weapons would have been used to halt the assault?
3) If Iraq was successful, what would be the immediate and long-term consequences (where would we be today?)

Look forward to the responses.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
1) Would CENTCOM been able to stop them?
2) If not, what was the likelihood that tactical nuclear weapons would have been used to halt the assault?
3) If Iraq was successful, what would be the immediate and long-term consequences (where would we be today?)

Look forward to the responses.

1. I think the Iraqi attack would have been blunted. The overall leadership of the military in Iraq wasn't the greatest. They probably would have made some inroads into S.A. but the combined US and Saudi forces would have managed to hold together long enough for ground and air support to really pour in. Iraq's supply line would have been cut off by air strikes, leaving them unsupplied, far from home.

2. Probably one of the most likely times a tactical nuke would have ever been used would be in a sitiuation like this. Iraq's line of supply would have been stretched to the breaking point, and the risk to our oil supply would have made using a Tactical nuke very tempting.

3. Iraq would not have been able to conquer all of S.A. in time, therefore, US and Coalition forces would have poured in. The Defeat Iraq would have been inevittable once that happend. What would have been different is that probably about 50% of S.A. oil fields would have been a mess for a good 3-5 years afterwords and Saddam would have been toppled much earlier. The whole dynamic there would have been very different, hard to play what if with this part of it.

reply to post by sweatmonicaIdo


Wasnt all the Iraqi build up on the saudi border a load of CRAP?
I heard it was nothing but rumour, that was used to justify murdering more iraqi's.
I shall investigate.

MOSCOW - When George H. W. Bush ordered American forces to the Persian Gulf – to reverse Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait – part of the administration case was that an Iraqi juggernaut was also threatening to roll into Saudi Arabia.

Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated in mid–September that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key US oil supplier.

But when the St. Petersburg Times in Florida acquired two commercial Soviet satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time, no Iraqi troops were visible near the Saudi border – just empty desert.

"It was a pretty serious fib," says Jean Heller, the Times journalist who broke the story.

"That [Iraqi buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn't exist," Ms. Heller says. Three times Heller contacted the office of Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney (now vice president) for evidence refuting the Times photos or analysis – offering to hold the story if proven wrong.

foi.missouri.edu...

Jean Heller, the Editor of The St. Petersburg Times hired a U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in the Reagan Administration, and a former image specialist for the Defense Intelligence Agency, Peter Zimmerman, to analyze the satellite photographs, to no avail. There simply were no Iraqi troops poised to invade Saudi Arabia.

reply to post by sweatmonicaIdo


They did invade Saudi, to a degree. Iraq attacked the Saudi town of Khafji, just inside the border with Kuwait. The Coalition was caught totally off guard. Two Marine Recon teams were trapped (but not captured) in the town. It also resulted in the biggest "friendly fire" incident since Vietnam. By the end of the day, the Iraqi's were defeated in Khafji.

en.wikipedia.org...

1)Would CENTCOM been able to stop them?
2) If not, what was the likelihood that tactical nuclear weapons would have been used to halt the assault?
3) If Iraq was successful, what would be the immediate and long-term consequences (where would we be today?)

1. Yes, we would've stopped them. We had vast air superiority, the Iraqi's had no air support whatsoever. If you have no air support in a conventional war, you're defeated. Plus there was a buildup of Coalition forces in Saudi as well as whatever US troops that were on the ground at the time.

2. Likelihood of tactical nukes? NIL. It would've been a conventional counter-attack.

3. If Iraq had been successful. Oil production would've been interrupted and prices would've skyrocketed. The Saudi royal's would've ran into exile. We would've counterattacked, slaughtered them, and drove them back to Iraq. Then the Saudi royals would return, and let us build bases there, like we have now. Basically like what Kuwait did. The Kuwaiti royals returned from Saudi and let us build the bases in Kuwait.

That's how i see the scenario.

Cheers!

Originally posted by pavil
1. I think the Iraqi attack would have been blunted. The overall leadership of the military in Iraq wasn't the greatest. They probably would have made some inroads into S.A. but the combined US and Saudi forces would have managed to hold together long enough for ground and air support to really pour in. Iraq's supply line would have been cut off by air strikes, leaving them unsupplied, far from home.

Again, keep in mind that many experts have stated the initial force deployments would have been insufficient to stop the Iraqis. In the early days, there really was no coalition and Saudis were very much there for symbolic purposes rather than military ones. It was not even until mid-October that the coalition had sufficient forces to defend Saudi Arabia.

2. Probably one of the most likely times a tactical nuke would have ever been used would be in a sitiuation like this. Iraq's line of supply would have been stretched to the breaking point, and the risk to our oil supply would have made using a Tactical nuke very tempting.

That's interesting because I read something through Wikipedia the other day that stated one of the U.S.' possible situations that would warrant a nuclear strike was an enemy supply convoy of 100+ vehicles. Very intriguing.

3. Iraq would not have been able to conquer all of S.A. in time, therefore, US and Coalition forces would have poured in. The Defeat Iraq would have been inevittable once that happend. What would have been different is that probably about 50% of S.A. oil fields would have been a mess for a good 3-5 years afterwords and Saddam would have been toppled much earlier. The whole dynamic there would have been very different, hard to play what if with this part of it.

I'm not sure Iraq ever intended to capture all of Saudi Arabia, just the oil fields. Even if they didn't capture the whole country, deploying forces to an Iraqi-occupied country would have been very difficult.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Again, keep in mind that many experts have stated the initial force deployments would have been insufficient to stop the Iraqis. In the early days, there really was no coalition and Saudis were very much there for symbolic purposes rather than military ones. It was not even until mid-October that the coalition had sufficient forces to defend Saudi Arabia.

Again it's what if. Sure if Iraq was intent on doing it, it probably could have, but our Air assets would have pummeled their armor and supply. It would have been hairy, no doubt. The tripwire effect of the initial troops prevented an invasion, for whatever reason.

That's interesting because I read something through Wikipedia the other day that stated one of the U.S.' possible situations that would warrant a nuclear strike was an enemy supply convoy of 100+ vehicles. Very intriguing.

I would almost have guaranteed that should Iraq have attempted to take over S.A. by military invasion and the U.S. didn't have enough assets in the area to stop them we would have made a "line in the sand" that was glassed over. We probably would have lobbed a couple tactical nukes in a remote area of Iraq as a very big warning followed by tacs dropped on Republican Guard units if Iraq didn't heed that warning. You don't mess with the U.S's oil supply line, we tend to overreact to it.

I'm not sure Iraq ever intended to capture all of Saudi Arabia, just the oil fields. Even if they didn't capture the whole country, deploying forces to an Iraqi-occupied country would have been very difficult.

Perhaps I was wrong, I though the oil field were more spread out, they seem mainly in the north east of the country. Still, not taking the ports of S.A. would have meant the eventual flood of US/Coalition troops. Iraq Achilles heel would have been air power and supply lines. The end result would have been the same just longer and with more casulties and damaged oil fields. Iraq was not going to keep the Kuwaiti and S.A. oil fields, no matter what.

Originally posted by pavil
Again it's what if. Sure if Iraq was intent on doing it, it probably could have, but our Air assets would have pummeled their armor and supply. It would have been hairy, no doubt. The tripwire effect of the initial troops prevented an invasion, for whatever reason.

I would almost have guaranteed that should Iraq have attempted to take over S.A. by military invasion and the U.S. didn't have enough assets in the area to stop them we would have made a "line in the sand" that was glassed over. We probably would have lobbed a couple tactical nukes in a remote area of Iraq as a very big warning followed by tacs dropped on Republican Guard units if Iraq didn't heed that warning. You don't mess with the U.S's oil supply line, we tend to overreact to it.

Scary thought. We probably came very closest to nuclear warfare in 1990 and 1991. On the other hand, when I was a junior in high school, I remember by chemistry teacher telling us that General Schwarzkopf did once publically threaten to turn Iraq into a sheet of glass, but that was more in response to the threat of chemical attack.

Are you a Gulf War veteran, by any chance? You seem to have some good insight into an issue most people are completely oblivious about.

Originally posted by bg_socalif
1. Yes, we would've stopped them. We had vast air superiority, the Iraqi's had no air support whatsoever. If you have no air support in a conventional war, you're defeated. Plus there was a buildup of Coalition forces in Saudi as well as whatever US troops that were on the ground at the time.

Again, please note that the Coalition was not established until the end of October. Until then, it was a single brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division, a Marine Expeditionary Brigade (some of it, at least), the 1st Tactical Fighter Wing, and aircraft carrier battlegroups still hundreds of miles away. That against nearly 450,000 Iraqi troops and 700 of their aircraft. That makes them mere speedbumps, as the soldiers called it, and sitting ducks for the Iraqi Air Force.

2. Likelihood of tactical nukes? NIL. It would've been a conventional counter-attack.

What do you believe would've kept the U.S. from nuking the Iraqis?

3. If Iraq had been successful. Oil production would've been interrupted and prices would've skyrocketed. The Saudi royal's would've ran into exile. We would've counterattacked, slaughtered them, and drove them back to Iraq. Then the Saudi royals would return, and let us build bases there, like we have now. Basically like what Kuwait did. The Kuwaiti royals returned from Saudi and let us build the bases in Kuwait.

Do you think our position in the Middle East would be more favorable now if your scenario took place?

[edit on 24-10-2007 by sweatmonicaIdo]

Just as a 'major environmental disaster' of oil spillage into the red sea was acknowledged by G1 himself as not true. I have problems with untruths. It allows people to do things under the guise of 'untruths'. I'm not down with that.

Originally posted by jpm1602
Just as a 'major environmental disaster' of oil spillage into the red sea was acknowledged by G1 himself as not true. I have problems with untruths. It allows people to do things under the guise of 'untruths'. I'm not down with that.

Are you asserting that Iraq never had any intention of invading Saudi Arabia?

reply to post by sweatmonicaIdo



No just a student of warfare and History, makes for a good combo. I don't think it was Swartzkoff who threatened use of nuclear weapons but the first Bush Admin in a very direct private channel threat to Saddam. He must have took the threat seriously enough as he did have the capability to try WMD attacks but never did. Even in war there is honor of sorts.


[edit on 24-10-2007 by pavil]

The interesting dilemma this scenario brings up is the question of at what point do you decide foreign interests are worth going all-out for. In other words, why do our commanders even consider nuclear weapons? Clearly, the oil fields of Saudi Arabia were the main concern. But would it really have been worth it to use nukes should the Iraqi offensive overrun our forces?

It also makes me wonder about the U.S. military of 2007's ability to defend against a hypothetical attack. Should a strong regional power invade another country and threaten world energy security, it'd be very interesting to see our military defend against a massive enemy force. In 1990, at least, the U.S. still had the benefit of a massive and powerful Cold War military. Today, with the emphasis and "lighter" and "faster," we may be able to deploy more quickly, but we can't concentrate as much force as we were once able to. Apparently, the U.S. nuclear strategy has also changed dramatically (SIOP no longer exists), so it'd be interesting to see if our nuclear strategy has become more "liberal" or "conservative."

No 'sweat....' What I am saying is there was a final push at the end of the 92 conflict that was based upon the untruth of oil being deliberately pumped into the sea, and the threat of a major environmental disaster that G1 himself said was untrue, months later.

IMO tactical nukes wouldn't have been an option because the use of nukes would have meant that the all important oil fields may have become inaccessible due to the fallout. I don't what the RSAF was flying in 1990 so I cant comment if they could have counted an invasion effectively with Air Power.

Forgot to add that Iraq didn't have much of a navy that I am aware of so they were limited to what there ground and air forces could archive.

[edit on 25-10-2007 by xpert11]

reply to post by sweatmonicaIdo


seeing as its home to Islams holiest Site
and Iraq being sunni run

very far fetched

reply to post by xpert11

In 1972 the first of 114 Northrop F-5s were delivered to the RSAF and, as of 1992, the air force still used three squadrons of later versions of the F-5 in the fighter-ground attack role, one squadron for reconnaissance, and a number of aircraft as advanced jet trainers. In 1984 first deliveries were taken of the more advanced F-15s. By 1992 the SAF had seventy-eight F-15s, including fighter conversion trainers.

www.globalsecurity.org...

looks like they were getting some nice gear from the UK and US

Originally posted by bodrul
seeing as its home to Islams holiest Site
and Iraq being sunni run

very far fetched

Well the nuking would've probably have been done in Iraq and Kuwait, not Saudi Arabia. The idea was to not even let them in because they were such a short distance from the oil fields.