Successful Baathist Syria-Iraq

[eurofed]

ITTL the talks for a political merger of Syria and Iraq under the leadership of the respective wings of the Baathist party in the late 1970s are successful. Saddam Hussein soon outmaneuvers and marginalizes, purges, or co-opts all his rivals for the leadership of the new union of Syria-Iraq (or 'Syraq' for short). He spends the next few years consolidating both the new union and his absolute control of it. In the early 1980s, he exploits the post-revolutionary weakness of Islamist Iran, which is busy tearing itself apart with a violent power struggle between the dominant Islamists and their Communist, social-democratic, and Islamic socialist opponents and a purge of the old monarchist elites that wrecks the Iranian army.

Syraq invades Iran with the aim of seizing ethnically-Arab and oil-rich Khuzestan. The initial Syraqi offensive is a decisive success that overruns Khuzestan thanks to the grater resources granted by the union and a sensible strategy that concentrates Syraqi forces and air power. Iran's troubles are magnified by the poor choice of Iran's supreme guide Khomeini that distrusts and neglects the conventional army and instead focuses on poorly armed and trained if eager revolutionary militias for a counterattack. The Iranian forces bleed themselves with a series of human-wave attacks that accomplish few gains. The Iranians try to open a second front in Lebanon thanks to the support of Shiite militias. This worsens the chaotic situation of the Lebanese Civil War and eventually leads Syraq and Israel to a combined intervention in Lebanon that almost amounts to unspoken alliance of convenience. The conflict leads to a de facto partition of Lebanon between the southern and western portion controlled by Israel and its Maronite auxiliaries, and the northern and eastern portion controlled by Syraq and its Sunni auxiliaries. The Shiite militias are crushed, the Palestinians get split between a pro-Syraqi faction that is kept on a tight leash in northern Lebanon by Saddam, and an anti-Syraqi faction that is expelled from Lebanon.

The Iranians also attempt to stir up Kurd and Shiite opposition to the Baathist regime, but this actually accomplishes limited benefits for them. By the mid-late 1980s, Iran faces collapse because of demoralization from bloody defeats, economic collapse due to loss of oil revenues, and resurgent armed opposition to the Islamist regime. Khomeini is toppled by the Second Iranian Revolution and Iran is forced to sign a peace that concedes Khuzestan to Syraq. After a power struggle between the various revolutionary factions, a coalition between the social democratics, the Islamic socialists, and the resurgent monarchists defeats and purges the Communists and the Islamists. Iran remains plagued by Islamist terrorism for a few years, but eventually suppresses it. To rebuild its economy after the loss of most of its oil and gas revenue, Iran turns to exploitation of its mineral resources. Because of its hostility to Islamism, when the Taliban threaten to take over Afghanistan, the Iranians intervene to support the Northern Alliance, which takes over the country.

Saddam spends the next few years after the end of the Iran-Syraq war consolidating his gains and enacting a ruthless urge of Shiite and Kurd militant groups. In the early 1990s, a crisis develops in the Far East because of American opposition to the North Korean nuclear program. It escalates to US bombing of the NK nuclear sites, NK all-out attack against South Korea, Japan, and US bases in the region, and the Second Korean War. The American-South Korean-Japanese coalition stops the NK offensive and rolls them back all the way to the Yalu river, crushing all NK opposition and seizing its surviving leaders for war crimes trials. China is unhappy with the outcome but hesitant to intervene against superior American military power, especially after its recent domestic unrest and with Russia basically unable to provide help. It eventually gets pacified with an agreement that limits deployment of foreign forces in northern Korea above the 40th parallel. Korea is reunified under South Korean leadership and northern Korea gets gradually rebuilt and integrated into Western standards by a joint effort of America, Japan, and southern Korea.

Saddam exploits the opportunity of America being busy in East Asia to invade and annex Kuwait, picking its slant drilling into border oilfields as a pretext. The Americans are unhappy with the outcome but hesitant to undergo the effort of a two-theater war, and eventually negotiate their de facto acceptance of the new status quo in exchange for demilitarization of the Syraqi-Saudite border. Syraq spends a few years consolidating its new gains, then rising tensions with Israel in the early 2000s explode in a Syraqi-Israeli war. It plays out rather like the Kippur War w/o an Egyptian involvement, an intially successful Syraqi offensive drive in southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights is eventually stopped and pushed back by the Israeli that regain all the lost territory and drive forward to conquer more in Lebanon and western Syria. An armistice mediated by the USA, Europe, and Russia effectively restores the status quo ante. Both sides claim victory.

Because the Gulf War and US military deployment in Saudi Arabia did not occur, Osama Bin Laden and several of his associates got killed during the Iranian-Taliban conflict, secular Baathism looks like a more successful model than Islamism to many Muslims thanks to the successes of Syraq and the failure of Khomeinism, Islamist terrorism becomes a rather less serious problem for the world. It occasionally flares up across the Muslim world, especially due to Saudi Arabia sponsoring Sunni Islamist groups as proxies against Syraq and Iran, and more rarely spills over in the Western countries, but much less so than OTL.

[lordroel]

Oct 8, 2017 19:22:02 GMT eurofed said:

ITTL the talks for a political merger of Syria and Iraq under the leadership of the respective wings of the Baathist party in the late 1970s are successful. Saddam Hussein soon outmaneuvers and marginalizes, purges, or co-opts all his rivals for the leadership of the new union of Syria-Iraq (or 'Syraq' for short). He spends the next few years consolidating both the new union and his absolute control of it. In the early 1980s, he exploits the post-revolutionary weakness of Islamist Iran, which is busy tearing itself apart with a violent power struggle between the dominant Islamists and their Communist, social-democratic, and Islamic socialist opponents and a purge of the old monarchist elites that wrecks the Iranian army.

Syraq invades Iran with the aim of seizing ethnically-Arab and oil-rich Khuzestan. The initial Syraqi offensive is a decisive success that overruns Khuzestan thanks to the grater resources granted by the union and a sensible strategy that concentrates Syraqi forces and air power. Iran's troubles are magnified by the poor choice of Iran's supreme guide Khomeini that distrusts and neglects the conventional army and instead focuses on poorly armed and trained if eager revolutionary militias for a counterattack. The Iranian forces bleed themselves with a series of human-wave attacks that accomplish few gains. The Iranians try to open a second front in Lebanon thanks to the support of Shiite militias. This worsens the chaotic situation of the Lebanese Civil War and eventually leads Syraq and Israel to a combined intervention in Lebanon that almost amounts to unspoken alliance of convenience. The conflict leads to a de facto partition of Lebanon between the southern and western portion controlled by Israel and its Maronite auxiliaries, and the northern and eastern portion controlled by Syraq and its Sunni auxiliaries. The Shiite militias are crushed, the Palestinians get split between a pro-Syraqi faction that is kept on a tight leash in northern Lebanon by Saddam, and an anti-Syraqi faction that is expelled from Lebanon.

The Iranians also attempt to stir up Kurd and Shiite opposition to the Baathist regime, but this actually accomplishes limited benefits for them. By the mid-late 1980s, Iran faces collapse because of demoralization from bloody defeats, economic collapse due to loss of oil revenues, and resurgent armed opposition to the Islamist regime. Khomeini is toppled by the Second Iranian Revolution and Iran is forced to sign a peace that concedes Khuzestan to Syraq. After a power struggle between the various revolutionary factions, a coalition between the social democratics, the Islamic socialists, and the resurgent monarchists defeats and purges the Communists and the Islamists. Iran remains plagued by Islamist terrorism for a few years, but eventually suppresses it. To rebuild its economy after the loss of most of its oil and gas revenue, Iran turns to exploitation of its mineral resources. Because of its hostility to Islamism, when the Taliban threaten to take over Afghanistan, the Iranians intervene to support the Northern Alliance, which takes over the country.

Saddam spends the next few years after the end of the Iran-Syraq war consolidating his gains and enacting a ruthless urge of Shiite and Kurd militant groups. In the early 1990s, a crisis develops in the Far East because of American opposition to the North Korean nuclear program. It escalates to US bombing of the NK nuclear sites, NK all-out attack against South Korea, Japan, and US bases in the region, and the Second Korean War. The American-South Korean-Japanese coalition stops the NK offensive and rolls them back all the way to the Yalu river, crushing all NK opposition and seizing its surviving leaders for war crimes trials. China is unhappy with the outcome but hesitant to intervene against superior American military power, especially after its recent domestic unrest and with Russia basically unable to provide help. It eventually gets pacified with an agreement that limits deployment of foreign forces in northern Korea above the 40th parallel. Korea is reunified under South Korean leadership and northern Korea gets gradually rebuilt and integrated into Western standards by a joint effort of America, Japan, and southern Korea.

Saddam exploits the opportunity of America being busy in East Asia to invade and annex Kuwait, picking its slant drilling into border oilfields as a pretext. The Americans are unhappy with the outcome but hesitant to undergo the effort of a two-theater war, and eventually negotiate their de facto acceptance of the new status quo in exchange for demilitarization of the Syraqi-Saudite border. Syraq spends a few years consolidating its new gains, then rising tensions with Israel in the early 2000s explode in a Syraqi-Israeli war. It plays out rather like the Kippur War w/o an Egyptian involvement, an intially successful Syraqi offensive drive in southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights is eventually stopped and pushed back by the Israeli that regain all the lost territory and drive forward to conquer more in Lebanon and western Syria. An armistice mediated by the USA, Europe, and Russia effectively restores the status quo ante. Both sides claim victory.

Because the Gulf War and US military deployment in Saudi Arabia did not occur, Osama Bin Laden and several of his associates got killed during the Iranian-Taliban conflict, secular Baathism looks like a more successful model than Islamism to many Muslims thanks to the successes of Syraq and the failure of Khomeinism, Islamist terrorism becomes a rather less serious problem for the world. It occasionally flares up across the Muslim world, especially due to Saudi Arabia sponsoring Sunni Islamist groups as proxies against Syraq and Iran, and more rarely spills over in the Western countries, but much less so than OTL.

I think a United Syria-Iraq would go the same way as a earlier attempt by Egypt and Syria when they between 1958 and 1961 formed the United Arab Republic.

[stevep]

Oct 9, 2017 14:08:22 GMT lordroel said:

Oct 8, 2017 19:22:02 GMT eurofed said:

ITTL the talks for a political merger of Syria and Iraq under the leadership of the respective wings of the Baathist party in the late 1970s are successful. Saddam Hussein soon outmaneuvers and marginalizes, purges, or co-opts all his rivals for the leadership of the new union of Syria-Iraq (or 'Syraq' for short). He spends the next few years consolidating both the new union and his absolute control of it. In the early 1980s, he exploits the post-revolutionary weakness of Islamist Iran, which is busy tearing itself apart with a violent power struggle between the dominant Islamists and their Communist, social-democratic, and Islamic socialist opponents and a purge of the old monarchist elites that wrecks the Iranian army.

Syraq invades Iran with the aim of seizing ethnically-Arab and oil-rich Khuzestan. The initial Syraqi offensive is a decisive success that overruns Khuzestan thanks to the grater resources granted by the union and a sensible strategy that concentrates Syraqi forces and air power. Iran's troubles are magnified by the poor choice of Iran's supreme guide Khomeini that distrusts and neglects the conventional army and instead focuses on poorly armed and trained if eager revolutionary militias for a counterattack. The Iranian forces bleed themselves with a series of human-wave attacks that accomplish few gains. The Iranians try to open a second front in Lebanon thanks to the support of Shiite militias. This worsens the chaotic situation of the Lebanese Civil War and eventually leads Syraq and Israel to a combined intervention in Lebanon that almost amounts to unspoken alliance of convenience. The conflict leads to a de facto partition of Lebanon between the southern and western portion controlled by Israel and its Maronite auxiliaries, and the northern and eastern portion controlled by Syraq and its Sunni auxiliaries. The Shiite militias are crushed, the Palestinians get split between a pro-Syraqi faction that is kept on a tight leash in northern Lebanon by Saddam, and an anti-Syraqi faction that is expelled from Lebanon.

The Iranians also attempt to stir up Kurd and Shiite opposition to the Baathist regime, but this actually accomplishes limited benefits for them. By the mid-late 1980s, Iran faces collapse because of demoralization from bloody defeats, economic collapse due to loss of oil revenues, and resurgent armed opposition to the Islamist regime. Khomeini is toppled by the Second Iranian Revolution and Iran is forced to sign a peace that concedes Khuzestan to Syraq. After a power struggle between the various revolutionary factions, a coalition between the social democratics, the Islamic socialists, and the resurgent monarchists defeats and purges the Communists and the Islamists. Iran remains plagued by Islamist terrorism for a few years, but eventually suppresses it. To rebuild its economy after the loss of most of its oil and gas revenue, Iran turns to exploitation of its mineral resources. Because of its hostility to Islamism, when the Taliban threaten to take over Afghanistan, the Iranians intervene to support the Northern Alliance, which takes over the country.

Saddam spends the next few years after the end of the Iran-Syraq war consolidating his gains and enacting a ruthless urge of Shiite and Kurd militant groups. In the early 1990s, a crisis develops in the Far East because of American opposition to the North Korean nuclear program. It escalates to US bombing of the NK nuclear sites, NK all-out attack against South Korea, Japan, and US bases in the region, and the Second Korean War. The American-South Korean-Japanese coalition stops the NK offensive and rolls them back all the way to the Yalu river, crushing all NK opposition and seizing its surviving leaders for war crimes trials. China is unhappy with the outcome but hesitant to intervene against superior American military power, especially after its recent domestic unrest and with Russia basically unable to provide help. It eventually gets pacified with an agreement that limits deployment of foreign forces in northern Korea above the 40th parallel. Korea is reunified under South Korean leadership and northern Korea gets gradually rebuilt and integrated into Western standards by a joint effort of America, Japan, and southern Korea.

Saddam exploits the opportunity of America being busy in East Asia to invade and annex Kuwait, picking its slant drilling into border oilfields as a pretext. The Americans are unhappy with the outcome but hesitant to undergo the effort of a two-theater war, and eventually negotiate their de facto acceptance of the new status quo in exchange for demilitarization of the Syraqi-Saudite border. Syraq spends a few years consolidating its new gains, then rising tensions with Israel in the early 2000s explode in a Syraqi-Israeli war. It plays out rather like the Kippur War w/o an Egyptian involvement, an intially successful Syraqi offensive drive in southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights is eventually stopped and pushed back by the Israeli that regain all the lost territory and drive forward to conquer more in Lebanon and western Syria. An armistice mediated by the USA, Europe, and Russia effectively restores the status quo ante. Both sides claim victory.

Because the Gulf War and US military deployment in Saudi Arabia did not occur, Osama Bin Laden and several of his associates got killed during the Iranian-Taliban conflict, secular Baathism looks like a more successful model than Islamism to many Muslims thanks to the successes of Syraq and the failure of Khomeinism, Islamist terrorism becomes a rather less serious problem for the world. It occasionally flares up across the Muslim world, especially due to Saudi Arabia sponsoring Sunni Islamist groups as proxies against Syraq and Iran, and more rarely spills over in the Western countries, but much less so than OTL.

I think a United Syria-Iraq would go the same way as a earlier attempt by Egypt and Syria when they between 1958 and 1961 formed the United Arab Republic.

  With the intercidal infighting between the two parties and ancient rivaries between Damascus and Mesopotamia [it dates back that far] that seems very likely.  Also I wonder if as experienced a player as Assad senior would be displaced by Sadaam that easily.

[lordroel]

Oct 9, 2017 15:19:37 GMT stevep said:

Oct 9, 2017 14:08:22 GMT lordroel said:

I think a United Syria-Iraq would go the same way as a earlier attempt by Egypt and Syria when they between 1958 and 1961 formed the United Arab Republic.

  With the intercidal infighting between the two parties and ancient rivaries between Damascus and Mesopotamia [it dates back that far] that seems very likely.  Also I wonder if as experienced a player as Assad senior would be displaced by Sadaam that easily.

Do not think that Assad senior will go without a fight.

[eurofed]

Yeah, Pan-Arab attempts at union do not have a successful history but in this specific case I think things might go differently, for various reasons. Syria and Iraq are territorially contiguous and do not have the geographical division problem that plagued the Egypt-Syria union. Rivalries notwithstanding between Damascus and Bagdad, the Levant and Mesopotamia have been united in the same state during Muslim history very often, and attempts at their union in the modern era go as back as the 1920s. The union would take place under the aegis of the same Baathist party, and rivalries aside between the Syrian and Iraqi wings of the party, Pan-Arab ideological affinity has to account for something.

Assad senior was not that experienced a player when the union would take place, since in the latter 1970s he had been leader of Syria for less than a decade. Sure, he would not go down without a fight, but why should we assume he would necessarily come on top in the power struggle between him and Saddam, especially since Saddam was at least as ruthless and devious a player as Assad sr., if not more so? The scenario works just as well if we explictly assume a vicious power struggle occurs in the Baathist ruling elites soon after the union, and Saddam wins it. A few years occur between the union and the Iran-Syraq War, which the new leadership may use to consolidate its grip on power, purge rivals, and prepare for the conflict.

Heck, if necessary to make the scenario work we may even adjust the PoD so that Assad is entirely removed from the picture well before the union takes place, and a different leader  takes over in Syria, goes along with the project, and then loses the power struggle. Perhaps Assad sr. dies in an accident, or is purged in one of the Syrian coups before he can become dictator.

[lordroel]

Oct 9, 2017 16:02:32 GMT eurofed said:

Yeah, Pan-Arab attempts at union do not have a successful history but in this specific case I think things might go differently, for various reasons. Syria and Iraq are territorially contiguous and do not have the geographical division problem that plagued the Egypt-Syria union. Rivalries notwithstanding between Damascus and Bagdad, the Levant and Mesopotamia have been united in the same state during Muslim history very often, and attempts at their union in the modern era go as back as the 1920s. The union would take place under the aegis of the same Baathist party, and rivalries aside between the Syrian and Iraqi wings of the party, Pan-Arab ideological affinity has to account for something.

Assad senior was not that experienced a player when the union would take place, since in the latter 1970s he had been leader of Syria for less than a decade. Sure, he would not go down without a fight, but why should we assume he would necessarily come on top in the power struggle between him and Saddam, especially since Saddam was at least as ruthless and devious a player as Assad sr., if not more so? The scenario works just as well if we explictly assume a vicious power struggle occurs in the Baathist ruling elites soon after the union, and Saddam wins it. A few years occur between the union and the Iran-Syraq War, which the new leadership may use to consolidate its grip on power, purge rivals, and prepare for the conflict.

Heck, if necessary to make the scenario work we may even adjust the PoD so that Assad is entirely removed from the picture well before the union takes place, and a different leader  takes over in Syria, goes along with the project, and then loses the power struggle. Perhaps Assad sr. dies in an accident, or is purged in one of the Syrian coups before he can become dictator.

Wonder what the capitol will be of a united Syria-Iraq.

[stevep]

Nov 1, 2017 4:50:30 GMT lordroel said:

Oct 9, 2017 16:02:32 GMT eurofed said:

Yeah, Pan-Arab attempts at union do not have a successful history but in this specific case I think things might go differently, for various reasons. Syria and Iraq are territorially contiguous and do not have the geographical division problem that plagued the Egypt-Syria union. Rivalries notwithstanding between Damascus and Bagdad, the Levant and Mesopotamia have been united in the same state during Muslim history very often, and attempts at their union in the modern era go as back as the 1920s. The union would take place under the aegis of the same Baathist party, and rivalries aside between the Syrian and Iraqi wings of the party, Pan-Arab ideological affinity has to account for something.

Assad senior was not that experienced a player when the union would take place, since in the latter 1970s he had been leader of Syria for less than a decade. Sure, he would not go down without a fight, but why should we assume he would necessarily come on top in the power struggle between him and Saddam, especially since Saddam was at least as ruthless and devious a player as Assad sr., if not more so? The scenario works just as well if we explictly assume a vicious power struggle occurs in the Baathist ruling elites soon after the union, and Saddam wins it. A few years occur between the union and the Iran-Syraq War, which the new leadership may use to consolidate its grip on power, purge rivals, and prepare for the conflict.

Heck, if necessary to make the scenario work we may even adjust the PoD so that Assad is entirely removed from the picture well before the union takes place, and a different leader  takes over in Syria, goes along with the project, and then loses the power struggle. Perhaps Assad sr. dies in an accident, or is purged in one of the Syrian coups before he can become dictator.

Wonder what the capitol will be of a united Syria-Iraq.

  Light blue touch paper and stand back.   That would be another explosive issue for both blocs.  Neither would be that willing to back down to their traditional rivals.  You could try finding a compromise that isn't Damascus or Baghdad but its still going to be in one country or the other. 

  Also given that the Syrian regime is based around a loose coalition of minority groups keeping the majority Sunni down and the Iraqi one on a Sunni minority keeping the Shia majority down there is a potential problem there as well.  About the only things the two would agree on is at least token opposition to Israel and a determination to keep the Kurds down.

[eurofed]

Political dominance of the Alawites in the Syrian Baathist regime only developed under Assad's rule. ITTL it can be disposed of through the same factors that cause Assad to lose the power struggle for united Syraq or remove him from the picture before union takes place. Apart from this, it seems to me the natural power base of a united Syraq would be the Sunni community. The combined Sunnis of Syria and Iraq would be numerous and strong enough to keep down the Shia and the other minorities.

As it concerns the capital, I agree picking Damascus or Bagdad would be a bad idea. My best suggestion about this would be to pick a provincial center or build a brand-new city midway between them, e.g. someplace on the Upper Euphrates near the Syria-Iraq border. At first glance, I suppose Deir ez-Zor might be a suitable location.

[lordroel]

Nov 2, 2017 16:28:01 GMT eurofed said:

As it concerns the capital, I agree picking Damascus and Bagdad would be a bad idea.

Well it has to be a major city near the Syria-Iraq border, ore they like Brazil build one themselves.