Jesus Walks: A History of the War on Terror, 1979-1992

We at war.
We at war with terrorism, racism, but most of all,
We at war with ourselves.​

-Kanye West

IQ1cEym.png

Act I: The Father​

It will probably never be known what went wrong in Tehran. Our intelligence suggests that the attack had been planned as a hostage taking, but any evidence that would have helped us understand what happened was destroyed when the attackers torched the embassy. We believe that the attackers were only students, barely adults, not prepared for the realities of having a gun pointed at you by a man who intends to use it. We believe that the attack was largely spontaneous, not planned far in advance. The attackers themselves weren’t affiliated with the rebels, only sympathetic to them, though that remains classified information. A rebel attack would have been better planned, and rebel fighters would have been more prepared.

It really doesn’t matter why, in the end. 55 American citizens are dead. There is no possibility of rescue, no second chances, no do-overs. Now is not the time to regret what might have been. Now is the time for action.

Chapter 1​

November 4th, 1979:

“We go now live to Washington, where the President is expected to make a statement on the developing situation in Tehran.”​

The broadcast cuts to a podium, emblazoned with the seal of the President of the United States. A solemn Walter Mondale stands in the background, his hands held in contemplation, his eyes staring off into the distance. The camera quickly pans to the right as President Jimmy Carter enters the room. Like Mondale, he is visibly shaken. He holds a sheet of paper, which he sets on the podium as he takes position behind it. As he speaks, he occasionally looks down, presumably reading from it.

“As you are likely now aware, at around 10 PM last night, or 6:30 this morning in Iran, revolutionary forces in Tehran took the American embassy by force. It is my unfortunate duty to inform you that none of the Americans in the embassy have survived the attack.”​

Several members of the press corps audibly gasp. Mondale winces for a moment, then appears to stiffen his body. Bracing himself for something he knows is coming. Carter looks down to the podium, studying the paper, beginning to fully appreciate the nature of what he is about to say. He looks up, and takes a deep breath.

“My fellow Americans, we cannot abide this travesty. For too long we have turned a blind eye to the actions of a dangerous and radical group, a group for which no means is too heinous to achieve its ends.”​

The rhetoric sounds strange coming from Carter’s mouth. It isn’t how he talks; it’s clearly been prepared for him, possibly on short notice. His delivery is cold. He sounds defeated.

“The 55 Americans in that embassy were not enemy combatants, nor were they agents of the Shah. They were civilians, ordinary people working a job to put food on the table, and for the crime of being American they were killed.”​

He looks down to the podium for a great while before continuing.

“The Government of the United States of America will not tolerate an offense of this grave magnitude. This attack was nothing less than an act of war, and will be responded to as such. Over the coming months, we will be working with the Shah and forces loyal to him in an effort to put an end to the revolution in Iran, and bring the perpetrators of this crime to justice. At this time, our prayers are with the families of the victims. Thank you. I will not be taking any questions.”​
 
Last edited:
Interesting. I wonder how the Soviets will react, being a month away from Afghanistan themselves.

EDIT: And welcome to the site.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. I wonder how the Soviets will react, being a month away from Afghanistan themselves.

EDIT: And welcome to the site.

Thanks! And thanks to everybody else too for the response.

Unfortunately, I probably won't be giving the Soviet Afghanistan war much attention, since it's not something I'm very knowledgeable on. That's not to say I'm not doing research, I've been doing quite a bit, but it's been more to fill the gaps in what I know. I won't be writing much on the Soviet Afganistan war because I don't want to sound like I'm speaking authoritatively on something I have only a superficial knowledge of.

This might be a bit spoiler-ey, but in any event, the Soviets have more of a background role in the events of TTL I'll be depicting. It's the start of the 1980's, so the Soviets are beginning to have serious problems of their own to deal with, and that isn't within the scope of our story. Because the USA is distracted in the middle east, the "Second Cold War" doesn't happen in TTL, and détente continues (for now, at least).
 
Don't think I've seen any other timelines take this route with the Iran Hostage Crisis. Interesting idea and looking forward to the next update.
 
Thanks! And thanks to everybody else too for the response.

Unfortunately, I probably won't be giving the Soviet Afghanistan war much attention, since it's not something I'm very knowledgeable on. That's not to say I'm not doing research, I've been doing quite a bit, but it's been more to fill the gaps in what I know. I won't be writing much on the Soviet Afganistan war because I don't want to sound like I'm speaking authoritatively on something I have only a superficial knowledge of.

This might be a bit spoiler-ey, but in any event, the Soviets have more of a background role in the events of TTL I'll be depicting. It's the start of the 1980's, so the Soviets are beginning to have serious problems of their own to deal with, and that isn't within the scope of our story. Because the USA is distracted in the middle east, the "Second Cold War" doesn't happen in TTL, and détente continues (for now, at least).

Interesting. Is it possible that a sort of tacit American-Soviet alliance might even come to pass, starting from circa 1980, to combat Islamist terrorism, and that the U.S. might react somewhat differently to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan TTL than it did IOTL? (I feel pretty sure that you'll be able to get help here if you want/need to delve more deeply into the Soviet side of things.)

It's also plain that, due to these events, Carter is being forced to do a complete about-face on certain policies - I noticed how reluctant he was to admit that Administration policy now would be to outright support the Shah in putting down the revolution. This is going to lead to a major split between him and human-rights advocates, I think. The Republican reaction will also be worth watching closely.

P.S. Subscribed, too.
 
Hmm interesting, I may end up in this war, I joined the USAF ROTC in 1981. Then ended up leaving being at war probably butterflies my leaving. If the war goes to 1992 then I finish my ROTC by '85, AF pilot training by '86 and am deployed by summer of '87. Hmm, I was aiming for ground attack aircraft - A-10's and the like.:eek:

Oh and welcome to AH.com, I am subscribed to this!
 
Interesting. Is it possible that a sort of tacit American-Soviet alliance might even come to pass, starting from circa 1980, to combat Islamist terrorism, and that the U.S. might react somewhat differently to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan TTL than it did IOTL? (I feel pretty sure that you'll be able to get help here if you want/need to delve more deeply into the Soviet side of things.)

Something of that nature is definitely possible. However, I can't elaborate further without spoilers, since the arguments for/against a US-Soviet alliance involve the outcome of the 1980 Presidential election, which an Iranian occupation throws up into the air.

It's also plain that, due to these events, Carter is being forced to do a complete about-face on certain policies - I noticed how reluctant he was to admit that Administration policy now would be to outright support the Shah in putting down the revolution. This is going to lead to a major split between him and human-rights advocates, I think. The Republican reaction will also be worth watching closely.

Yes, Carter is doing a major about-face here, and Chapter 2 is going to be the explanation. I was honestly expecting a bit of backlash on "Carter starts a war 4 years after 'Nam?" So the next chapter will help explain why this situation is a possible outcome of a botched embassy attack.

You seem to be pretty knowledgeable about the political situation of the late 70's, is there anything I should know about Carter's policies towards Iran? My understanding is that his administration's position was to recognize the Shah as the legitimate ruler of Iran until he died and it became clear the Islamists were in charge permanently. I'm not certain how the Republicans would likely react, since I'm not very knowledgeable on how the end of the Vietnam war affected both parties, but my intial assumption is that they'd probably support an Iranian occupation on the basis that it could keep the Soviets out of a destabilized country.
 
umm

I hate to pour cold water on this idea, but the shah left Iran in January, and the Iranians voted to become a Republic in April, so this is not about shoring up the Shah, it is about reinstalling the Shah in place of an already successful revolution. The only people who would be in favour of this in Iran would be the small number of Shah loyalists left. This is going to be ugly, especially as the Tudeh was an integral part of the revolutionary front, and the Soviets will have no problem feeding them as many weapons as they need. Maybe Saddam is going to help in return for the whole Shatt al Arab?

The American equivalent would be France invading the US in 1785 to reinstall King George as monarch.
 
Interesting theme, I look forward to more.

I'd emphasise what Deckhand has said, I doubt that a restoration of the Shah is a viable option. There were liberals in Iran who were prepared to compromise with the Shah after he promised free elections in July 1978, but he was deeply unpopular with most of the population. In 1979, Khomeini was leading a multi-party coalition of Islamic, moderate and leftist revolutionaries, if the US is intervening then they will have to contain the Islamic extremists and the left. Perhaps the only option will be a military and authoritarian republic similar to the Shah's government, as brutal coercion will be needed to suppress the forces of the Revolution. Incidentally, the cold-war mentality of the US did lead them to press the Shah's generals for a military coup in late 1978-early 1979, but the generals knew that the game was up. I can't see a pro-Western government in Tehran working in the long-term, plus it doesn't really deal a deathblow to the emergence of radical Islam which had been coming from Saudi Wahhabi propaganda since the early 1970s.

In short, this a terrible strategic move by Carter, although backing down after the killing of the hostages was perhaps politically unavoidable.
 
I hate to pour cold water on this idea, but the shah left Iran in January, and the Iranians voted to become a Republic in April, so this is not about shoring up the Shah, it is about reinstalling the Shah in place of an already successful revolution. The only people who would be in favour of this in Iran would be the small number of Shah loyalists left. This is going to be ugly, especially as the Tudeh was an integral part of the revolutionary front, and the Soviets will have no problem feeding them as many weapons as they need. Maybe Saddam is going to help in return for the whole Shatt al Arab?

You aren't pouring cold water on anything. I'm fully aware that this is the situation, and that "forces loyal to the Shah" don't exist. Nobody in Iran supports the Shah or wants him back, it's the US that wants him to stay in power. Besides, he dies of cancer in July 1980. That's too soon to butterfly away.

The American equivalent would be France invading the US in 1785 to reinstall King George as monarch.

King George wasn't a French puppet.

I can't see a pro-Western government in Tehran working in the long-term, plus it doesn't really deal a deathblow to the emergence of radical Islam which had been coming from Saudi Wahhabi propaganda since the early 1970s.

In short, this a terrible strategic move by Carter, although backing down after the killing of the hostages was perhaps politically unavoidable.

Bingo.

I want one thing to be clear: this is not a story about Jimmy Carter, underrated president and liberal martyr finally getting the appreciation he deserves by saving America from terrorism. This is a story where things go wrong.
 
I want one thing to be clear: this is not a story about Jimmy Carter, underrated president and liberal martyr finally getting the appreciation he deserves by saving America from terrorism. This is a story where things go wrong.

A story of good intentions and unintended consequences, in short. So much the better. :D

Deckhand's analogy is also incorrect in that France actively aided the U.S. in ousting the British, whereas the U.S. tried to support the Shah as long as it could while reaching out to the non-Khomeinite (if I can coin a term) opposition until the Shah was forced to flee. For the analogy to really work, France would, say, have to have basically been backing London while maintaining contacts with more moderate elements in the Continental Congress.

I was in high school throughout Carter's Presidency, when I first started to really seriously follow politics and current affairs, and was a junior when the hostage crisis broke out. It's well over 30 years ago now, but I'll be glad to help however I can. As I said, Carter, under pressure from the left of the Democratic Party and human-rights advocates, as well as post-Vietnam reactions in the U.S. public at large, was basically trying to split the difference on Iran; the Administration was trying to keep the Shah going while putting as much pressure as it could on him to institute political reforms, and trying to establish what contacts it could with the moderate opposition. The bloodbath in Teheran represents the total failure of the post-revolution policy of trying to engage the Iranian regime, and so Carter is faced with an unenviably ugly choice, on top of the very serious domestic political difficulties he's already having due to the weak economy - at the time, the whole stretch of the 1970's since late 1974 was widely seen as being the worst period for the U.S. economy since the Great Depression - and energy prices (IIRC the "Oil Shock" of 1979 happened before the POD), and Carter was already widely seen as being well-intentioned but incompetent (among other things, I believe the "malaise" speech and the widely-mocked "killer rabbit" incident had taken place before the POD). Also, the U.S. military is still in the process of recovering from its post-Vietnam nadir, so I think the same institutional problems that led to the fiasco at Desert One in OTL 1980 will still be there. This means that the U.S.'s initial military moves in this new conflict are likely to be...er, less than wholly successful.

In short, I'd be moderately surprised if Carter can win reelection TTL, even in the changed circumstances. Reagan may have a much narrower victory, though (assuming, of course, that Reagan earns the GOP nod TTL).
 
Top