Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the Americans had not invaded Iraq in 2003 and that Saddam Hussein were still in power there now. How would he view the conflict in neighbouring Syria? Would he be supporting the Assad regime, or not?

I began wondering about this a few days ago, prompted by the spate of tenth-anniversary articles about Iraq, and started asking friends for their opinion. I also posed the question on Twitter and received a variety of answers.

I know it's a very hypothetical question of the what-if-Hitler-had-won kind but it's still worth asking. Attempting to answer it highlights the murky world of Middle Eastern politics with its shifting and often contradictory alliances – and especially in relation to Syria. What began in a straightforward way, as in Tunisia and Egypt, with protests by disaffected citizens has now turned into a multi-faceted conflict with many different fingers in the pie.

At first glance, Saddam and the Assads – historically the two most brutal Arab regimes – might seem like natural allies: Baathist, pan-Arab nationalist, relatively secular and both claiming to be torch-bearers for resistance against Israel, imperialism, etc.

At the same time, though, Iraqi Baathists and Syrian Baathists saw themselves as rivals for leadership of "the struggle" and despite their relative secularism, the Iraqi regime was predominantly Sunni while the Syrian regime is predominantly Shia.

The Sunni-Shia divide would be one important factor for Saddam in deciding which way to jump regarding Syria. Assad is currently backed by Shia Iran, and Saddam fought an eight-year war with Iran in the 1980s. In that, he was supported by several Sunni regimes in the Gulf – Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE – though he later felt let down by them and decided to invade Kuwait. 

Saddam also had problems with his own Shia population in Iraq, which could be another reason for opposing Assad. But what about the Kurds, whose population straddles the borders of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran? Saddam was worried about them and their national aspirations too – a point of common ground with Assad.

In the 1991 war over Kuwait, Syria joined the US-led coalition against Iraq and provided 14,500 troops – more than any other Arab country. Saddam viewed this as an example of Syrian hypocrisy, pointing out that while Syria was opposing his occupation of Kuwait Syrian forces were also occupying part of Lebanon. For Saddam, then, the current conflict in Syria might be an opportunity to settle old scores.

On balance, I doubt that Saddam would be offering any tangible support to Assad. But what would be his view of the rebels? Would he be willing to place Iraq in the same camp as most western countries as well as a number of Arab countries that he despised?

Perhaps not quite in those terms but, like the rest of these external players, he would be looking for influence in a post-Assad Syria and probably adding pro-Iraqi fighting groups to the overall mix.

Readers' thoughts on this are welcome. Post them in the comments section below.

Posted by Brian Whitaker
Saturday, 9 March 2013