The Aftermath of Iraq’s 1991 Missile Attacks

In 1991, while the Gulf War raged in Kuwait and Iraq faced a coalition of 34 countries, a surprising development unfolded. Iraq's sudden missile attacks on Israel. Although Israel had stayed out of the conflict, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein targeted the nation with modified ballistic missiles, creating a volatile new dimension in the war. To understand this decision, we need to explore the technology behind these attacks, the motivations driving Saddam’s choices, and the long-term consequences for the Middle East.

From Iran-Iraq war to Kuwait invasion

Saddam Hussein's actions in 1991 were shaped by the events of the preceding decade. After assuming power in Iraq in 1979, he launched a long and costly war against Iran in 1980, hoping to take advantage of the Iranian Revolution’s aftermath. The conflict drained both nations, costing over a million lives and more than a trillion dollars. When it ended in 1988, Iraq faced significant debts to Gulf States like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, which had helped finance the war.

But rather than repay those debts, Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, aiming to seize its resources. The international community reacted swiftly, with a U.S.-led coalition demanding that Iraq withdraw. Economic sanctions and military pressure mounted, but Saddam refused to budge. As tensions escalated, he made the surprising decision to launch missiles at Israel, a country that had not joined the coalition.

Why did Saddam attack Israel?

Saddam's decision to strike Israel was puzzling, but three main factors help explain it:

1. Historical resentment: Iraq’s relationship with its Jewish population had deteriorated sharply during the 20th century. After the Farhud pogrom in 1941, Iraq’s once-thriving Jewish community faced increasing persecution, leading most to flee by the 1950s. Saddam’s rhetoric against Israel tapped into this history, and he portrayed himself as a defender of the Arab world against Zionism.

2. Aiming for regional influence: Historically, Iraq had positioned itself as a leader in Arab opposition to Israel, participating in wars against the Zionist state in 1948, 1967, and 1973. By attacking Israel, Saddam hoped to reestablish his image as a regional champion. His hope was that an Israeli retaliation would drive Arab states out of the coalition, or even bring them over to his side.

3. Strategic move to break the alliance: The most pragmatic reason for targeting Israel was to disrupt the coalition arrayed against him. Saddam believed that if Israel struck back, the coalition’s Arab members would be forced into a difficult position. They might abandon their alliance with the U.S. rather than fight alongside Israel against a fellow Arab country.

Iraq’s missiles - The Al-Husayn and Al-Abbas

Saddam’s missile attacks on Israel introduced a new technological element into the conflict. While the missiles used are often referred to as "Scuds," Iraq had developed modified versions called the al-Husayn and al-Abbas. These missiles were based on the Soviet Scud-B but featured significant changes.

1. Modifications for extended range: Iraq’s al-Husayn missile, first tested in 1987, was capable of reaching 372 miles—more than double the original Scud’s range. However, the modifications came at a cost: the missile’s warhead size was halved, reducing its destructive power but allowing it to reach Israeli cities like Tel Aviv.

2. Saddam’s insistence on distinction: Saddam took issue with the Western media's habit of calling his modified missiles "Scuds." In an interview, he emphasized that the al-Husayn was Iraq’s creation, not a Soviet import, reflecting his desire for recognition of Iraq’s military capabilities. His government highlighted this point, stressing that the al-Husayn was "born in the steadfast land of Iraq".

3. Challenges of accuracy: Despite their extended range, the Iraqi missiles lacked precision. The al-Husayn had an estimated accuracy of 1,000 meters CEP (circular error probable), far less precise than the original Soviet Scud-B. This meant that the missiles could cause damage over a broader area but were less likely to hit specific targets directly.

Israel's dilemma: To retaliate or not?

The missile attacks put Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir in a difficult position. The strikes forced Israelis into bomb shelters, and fear of chemical warheads loomed large. Yet Shamir knew that retaliating against Iraq could fracture the U.S.-led coalition, which depended on maintaining the support of its Arab members. Despite public pressure and the deep psychological toll on Israeli citizens, Shamir chose to hold back.

Israel’s restraint allowed the coalition to stay united, but the decision came at a cost. Night after night, Israelis braced for further attacks, sealing their homes with plastic sheeting and keeping gas masks within reach. The U.S. deployed Patriot missile batteries in Israel to intercept the incoming missiles, but these defenses had mixed results.

Patriot missile systems

The Patriot missile defense system, supplied by the United States, played a key role in defending Israeli cities. Designed to intercept incoming missiles, the Patriots targeted Iraq’s al-Husayn missiles mid-air. However, their effectiveness was a subject of debate:

1. Interception and impact: The Patriot missiles often intercepted the Iraqi missiles close to the ground, breaking them into pieces. While this prevented direct hits, it also meant that debris rained down over populated areas, sometimes causing significant damage. An intercepted missile could result in multiple impact sites, creating new risks for civilians on the ground.

2. Psychological boost vs. physical damage: The presence of Patriot batteries helped boost civilian morale in Israel and Saudi Arabia, reducing the sense of helplessness. However, their limitations became evident. As one U.S. official noted, the Patriots were originally designed for point defense, not for protecting entire cities from long-range ballistic missiles.

Aftermath and long-term consequences

The Gulf War ended in early 1991 with a coalition victory, but the region’s dynamics were forever altered. Saddam’s attacks on Israel had significant political fallout:

1. Palestinian isolation: The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), led by Yasser Arafat, had aligned with Iraq during the war, a decision that backfired. After the war, Gulf States cut off financial support to the PLO, and many Palestinians faced expulsion from countries like Kuwait. The PLO’s standing weakened, and Israel gained leverage in subsequent peace negotiations.

2. Israel’s military evolution: Saddam’s missiles exposed vulnerabilities in Israel’s defense systems, leading to rapid changes. The government mandated the construction of secure rooms in all new buildings and later developed the Iron Dome, a mobile air defense system designed to intercept short-range rockets more effectively.

3. Regional tensions: The experience of 1991 shaped Israel’s approach to future threats, including concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The restraint shown by Israel during the Gulf War is often cited as an example of strategic patience, but it also highlighted the importance of maintaining military readiness for any future confrontations.

A gamble with lasting effects

Saddam Hussein’s decision to target Israel in 1991 was a risky maneuver that failed to achieve its political goals. Yet, it reshaped the strategic landscape of the Middle East, revealing both the limitations of military technology and the complexities of regional alliances. For Israel, the conflict prompted a reevaluation of its defense strategies, while for Iraq, it marked a step toward further isolation and eventual decline.