Quote:
Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b
The first thing that I noticed about your post was that "Iraq would remain neutral, unless invaded by NATO" (or the Pact?). Iraq will get invaded -- by both sides. That oil's just too damn valuable. That also means that it will probably get nuked a bit by both sides. There will be lots or wrecks on the bottom of the Persian Gulf, and it's shores will be an ecological nightmare for generations from destroyed shipping and oil wells. No way the rest of the world will just let Iraq sit there and be quietly neutral.
As for Saddam, he'll probably get offed by someone trying to cut a deal with one side or the other -- or trying to play both ends against the middle. Hell, Uday might even be willing to try that one himself. And that person will get offed, and so on, and so on, until Iraq is back down to the tribal warfare phase.
|
Sorry, I should have clarified... this is for late 1996 and 1997 up to the nuclear exchange. I agree that oil production and transportation facilities in both combatant and neutral nations are going to get atomised.
If they sell oil to the Soviets through Tabriz, then it would be up to NATO to invade Iraq, and given the call on their forces from Transcaucasian Front next door, I don't see CENTCOM being able to do much about it beyond liberal application of F-15Es with CBUs on oil infrastructure.
If they sell oil to the West, then the Soviets would probably start talking to Uday and Qusay.
RDF Sourcebook has things pretty quiet in Iraq through 1997. During the exchange the army starts falling apart and in 1998 the Soviets instigate a coup, which quickly goes bad. This is the "neutral" option in my post above.
I agree the Gulf is going to be a stinking mess for generations to come. Kinda like in real life...