WI: The Iranian Hostage Situation, was a massacre?

[Enigmajones]

What if, instead of holding the people hostage, the Iranian rebels had slaughtered those they found inside the American embassy? How would the US have responded? What would the effect have been on the 1980 election? Does Carter get re-elected? Does Reagan win by an even bigger landslide?

[Zulufoxtrot]

I think it would depend on whether or not they were killed before Operation Eagle Claw. If it's done before it might help Carter, especially if he promises some sort of military action. From your post though it sounds like they were killed on day one, so I'd assume that it would give Carter an edge, unless he does nothing or it's a complete disaster. I think Carter was still behind Reagan at the time, but it might lead to a more contested election, especially if Carter can get a big PR boost out of whatever he does to the Iranians.

[ANTIcarrot]

Remind me again, how many Iranian citizens were tortured and killed by the US trained SAVAK secret police? Which probably couldn't happen without the knowledge and involvement of the embassy staff. Not that this will matter.

Crippling trade sanctions are probably an immediate consiquence, with no objections on the UN security council. China and Russia might value a new ally, but diplomats and embassies are supposed to be sacrosanct in internetional relations. They will no more want a precident to be set than anyone else. Iraq may get even more support than OTL, perhaps culminating in sales of M1 Abrams in the 1980s.

I can also see strong US military reprisals against Iran, especially if they are not very forthcomming with the criminals and appologies. We might see the complete loss of Iranian costal facilities, and any other asset within bombardment range. Given the uncertain state of Iranian F-14s Air strikes are unlikely.

[John Farson]

If the embassy personnel are slaughtered as soon as the embassy is taken, it gives Carter carte blanche to go after the new Iranian regime by any means necessary. Such a heinous act would be too much even for a country that had been burned by Vietnam.

Depending on how Carter handles it, it may just be enough to help him overcome the bad economy and help him to a second term, if he is perceived as having avenged the murdered embassy personnel somehow. An invasion might not be out of the question, either.

[yourworstnightmare]

Enter the US- Iranian war.

[Ace Venom]

Carter would pretty much have to ask Congress for a declaration of war by that point or else risk political suicide.

[John Farson]

Originally Posted by Ace Venom

Carter would pretty much have to ask Congress for a declaration of war by that point or else risk political suicide.

Gee, there's a tough choice. Ask Congress for a declaration of war (what's the GOP gonna do? Side with Khomeini?) - which he'll be sure to get and virtually ensure his re-election due to the 'rally 'round the flag' effect - or become America's Nevile Chamberlain.

I wonder which he would pick?

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Ace Venom

Carter would pretty much have to ask Congress for a declaration of war by that point or else risk political suicide.

Reality check now. No-one is going to declare war because 52 people are murdered, even murdered on television. There’d certainly be airstrikes, the Iranian navy would probably cease to exist, but that would be it.

[Enigmajones]

Originally Posted by John Farson

If the embassy personnel are slaughtered as soon as the embassy is taken, it gives Carter carte blanche to go after the new Iranian regime by any means necessary. Such a heinous act would be too much even for a country that had been burned by Vietnam.

Depending on how Carter handles it, it may just be enough to help him overcome the bad economy and help him to a second term, if he is perceived as having avenged the murdered embassy personnel somehow. An invasion might not be out of the question, either.

It happens as soon as the embassy is taken. A public execution. And if there is a Iranian-American War, I can't imagine that they would dare reinstate the draft.

[Killer300]

Originally Posted by Enigmajones

It happens as soon as the embassy is taken. A public execution. And if there is a Iranian-American War, I can't imagine that they would dare reinstate the draft.

What choice do they have? There's no way the US has the manpower to occupy Iran without the draft, especially since I doubt it'd have help from Iran.

[deathscompanion1]

Simple.

Let the Iranians do it this is just after the revolution many of the people in the lower and mid level positions worked for the Shah, smash the Iranian army set up a new Shah and rebuild the excellent secret police and security services.

Of course the long term implications of setting up a blatent dictatorship and condoning torture and executions will probably be quite grim.

[oudi14]

I really wonder if Carter would have the balls to go to war, even after something like this, even if he knew that wimping out would cost him the election. I believe that his administration was the only one in modern times where the military never once fired a shot in anger. This is a good thing in one way, but the man would go to any extreme to avoid trouble, like keeping the navy out of the Gulf of Sidra, to avoid risking a confrontation with Gaddafi. The following year,1981, Reagan didn't hesitate to send the ships into the area in contention, which the Libyans claimed as their territorial waters. And 2 Libyan fitters were splashed. America was back.

[Armored Diplomacy]

Originally Posted by Killer300

What choice do they have? There's no way the US has the manpower to occupy Iran without the draft, especially since I doubt it'd have help from Iran.

There doesn't necessarily need to be any long-term occupation of Iran, or even an invasion. And let's not forget that reinstating the draft would likely be political suicide.

The US will stick to obliterating the Iranian military with air and cruise missile strikes, and let the Iraqis do the occupying.

[MacCaulay]

Originally Posted by ANTIcarrot

Remind me again, how many Iranian citizens were tortured and killed by the US trained SAVAK secret police? Which probably couldn't happen without the knowledge and involvement of the embassy staff. Not that this will matter.

*steps in some sort of liquid* God...what's this all over the floor?

Oh...it's your heart. *hands ANTIcarrot a mop* It's bleeding on my floor. FIX IT.


I get what you're saying: like the undersecretary of economics who's in charge of making sure American companies can get through commercial laws quicker in Iran, who in his spare time rapes Iranian babies. Or the janitor who secretly drown homeless people in his bucket, right?

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

Originally Posted by MacCaulay

*steps in some sort of liquid* God...what's this all over the floor?

Oh...it's your heart. *hands ANTIcarrot a mop* It's bleeding on my floor. FIX IT.


I get what you're saying: like the undersecretary of economics who's in charge of making sure American companies can get through commercial laws quicker in Iran, who in his spare time rapes Iranian babies. Or the janitor who secretly drown homeless people in his bucket, right?

Huh, glad I'm not the only person who felt that way, you put it so much more... eloquently than I ever could Sir MacCaulay, I owe you gratitude and jealously in no particular order.

Yeah, the right-hand men of the Shah, whether SAVAK or others like the Imperial Guard, were generally pretty brutal if you were someone the regime perceived as an obstacle.

I don't really see an instance, in a completely innocuous OP speculating the consequences of an outright massacre of US embassy staff as opposed to hostages where the phrase: "I support the Shah in crossing any and all moral boundaries and brutalizing his own people in order to stay in power" shows up.

It strikes me as flinging a false accusation. The OP has not shown himself to be an apologist for the Shah's crimes against the Iranian people, moderation (as in toning down, not calling Ian in ) is definitely in order.

[tallthinkev]

If those in charge knew what was going to happen and didn't stop it that would be one thing, if they didn't the only real choice they would have is a trial and a decent hanging.

[Killer300]

Guys, okay, so what if we support Iranian enemies?

For one, okay, many say just divide and conquer. Well, the CIA were not idiots, but on the other hand, they refused to do that with left factions globally, even when they were against the Soviet Union. Why would this be any different? If anything, the refusal to work with left factions, who are going to be the only options outside of Islamists, will be increased because they fear the Soviet Union.

For Iraq, this is Saddam, who has possibly one of the most incompetent militaries imaginable. Why would he be any more successful than OTL, when Iran with freaking HUMAN WAVE CHARGES was able to beat him? Are you going to give him new generals? Because otherwise, it doesn't matter how much equipment you give his army if it's completely incompetent. Again, same situation with South Vietnam in regards to giving them military equipment, it doesn't matter what you give them if they're incapable of properly utilizing it.

EDIT: I do apologize for the whole US invades Iran thing, that was really stupid on my part in hindsight.

[Enigmajones]

Originally Posted by MacCaulay

*steps in some sort of liquid* God...what's this all over the floor?

Oh...it's your heart. *hands ANTIcarrot a mop* It's bleeding on my floor. FIX IT.


I get what you're saying: like the undersecretary of economics who's in charge of making sure American companies can get through commercial laws quicker in Iran, who in his spare time rapes Iranian babies. Or the janitor who secretly drown homeless people in his bucket, right?

Yeah, I also felt that contributed nothing to the topic.

[Consumerist]

Originally Posted by MacCaulay

*steps in some sort of liquid* God...what's this all over the floor?

Oh...it's your heart. *hands ANTIcarrot a mop* It's bleeding on my floor. FIX IT.


I get what you're saying: like the undersecretary of economics who's in charge of making sure American companies can get through commercial laws quicker in Iran, who in his spare time rapes Iranian babies. Or the janitor who secretly drown homeless people in his bucket, right?

I don't think an institutional decision is the same thing as a guy being a serial killer in a manner completely unrelated to his occupation.