Could the Safavids retain Iraq?

[Vinization]

The Safavid empire was the last Persian state to rule Iraq/Mesopotamia, whose history was linked with Iran's for centuries. Their rule over it was relatively short, however, and they lost control of the region to the Ottoman Empire during the 1530s. They briefly reconquered it during the reign of Abbas the Great, before losing the region to the Ottomans for good in 1638.

So, my question is, was there any way the Safavids could've kept Iraq from falling into Ottoman hands? From what I've read (on wikipedia, I admit), Tahmasp I's early reign was a mess because, well, he assumed the throne as a child and was thus powerless to stop people from fighting over who got to be his regent. To make matters worse, when Suleiman the Magnificent began his march on Baghdad, Tahmasp already had his hands full campaigning against the Uzbeks, who were launching raids into Khorasan. Having Suleiman suffer an early death, maybe at the battle of Mohács, should probably buy the Safavids more time to shore up their defenses in Iraq.

Alternatively, is it possible for the Ottomans to ignore Mesopotamia entirely? Perhaps if Suleiman or whoever is sultan in his place is more interested in conquering new territories in the Mediterranean rather than the Middle East? Or were the Safavids seen as a genuine threat to Constantinople's power?

 

[Ogrelord420]

I remember reading Suleiman I was planning on marching on Baghdad after the 1683 Battle of Vienna but some domestic matters distracted him. The Safavids invading at this point would have caught the Ottomans off-guard and would have allowed them to easily take Mesopotamia.

 

[Vinization]

I remember reading Suleiman I was planning on marching on Baghdad after the 1683 Battle of Vienna but some domestic matters distracted him. The Safavids invading at this point would have caught the Ottomans off-guard and would have allowed them to easily take Mesopotamia.

I was briefly confused, but then I remembered you were talking about this guy. Thing is, by this point the Safavids were declining rapidly (Suleiman himself was a pretty bad monarch AFAIK), so I have doubts on whether they'd be able to retain it once the Ottomans inevitably try to retake Baghdad. They still scored a few victories every now and then, after all, even during their decline, and they would definitely be a formidable foe for the Safavids to take on once their troubles with the Habsburgs are dealt with.

 

[Ogrelord420]

I was briefly confused, but then I remembered you were talking about this guy. Thing is, by this point the Safavids were declining rapidly (Suleiman himself was a pretty bad monarch AFAIK), so I have doubts on whether they'd be able to retain it once the Ottomans inevitably try to retake Baghdad. They still scored a few victories every now and then, after all, even during their decline, and they would definitely be a formidable foe for the Safavids to take on once their troubles with the Habsburgs are dealt with.

Yeah, that’s why I said they could probably take it easily. They’d have a very hard time holding onto it when the Great Turkish War ends.

 

[lynxpt]

The Safavid empire was the last Persian state to rule Iraq/Mesopotamia, whose history was linked with Iran's for centuries. Their rule over it was relatively short, however, and they lost control of the region to the Ottoman Empire during the 1530s. They briefly reconquered it during the reign of Abbas the Great, before losing the region to the Ottomans for good in 1638.

So, my question is, was there any way the Safavids could've kept Iraq from falling into Ottoman hands? From what I've read (on wikipedia, I admit), Tahmasp I's early reign was a mess because, well, he assumed the throne as a child and was thus powerless to stop people from fighting over who got to be his regent. To make matters worse, when Suleiman the Magnificent began his march on Baghdad, Tahmasp already had his hands full campaigning against the Uzbeks, who were launching raids into Khorasan. Having Suleiman suffer an early death, maybe at the battle of Mohács, should probably buy the Safavids more time to shore up their defenses in Iraq.

Alternatively, is it possible for the Ottomans to ignore Mesopotamia entirely? Perhaps if Suleiman or whoever is sultan in his place is more interested in conquering new territories in the Mediterranean rather than the Middle East? Or were the Safavids seen as a genuine threat to Constantinople's power?

According to https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ng-the-war-of-1623-1639.500665/#post-21332018, in the Ottoman-Safavid War of 1623-1639, the trick for a Safavid Iraq would be for Shah Abbas to live long enough for a negotiated truce with Iraq in Safavid hands. However, it's unlikely that the Ottomans would have given up on Iraq for good.

 

[JaguarCD]

Maybe promise the Iraqis better living standards? Iraq under the Ottoman Empire often had worse building standards than the 3rd millennium BC.