What if an Iranian invasion of Afghanistan?

[Euroman26]

If I remember correctly in the late 1990s Iran threatened to Invade Afghanistan do (according to Iran) the drugs coming over from Afghanistan to Iran.

So what if this invasion had taken place and resulted in an Iranian occupation of Afghanistan in 2000?

So what about 9.11 and the war in terror?

[MacCaulay]

Iran wouldn't be able to hold it down, but they always disliked the Taliban.

There were reports from both the Northern Alliance and Iran that IRIAF pilots were being sent to the north to assist in air strikes against Taliban targets. Air Forces Monthly reported in the mid-90s that Su-22s (presumable ones flown from Iraq in '91) were flown to the Northern Alliance complete with pilots to assist them in the war.

Any attack against Afghanistan wouldn't be an invasion. It would probably be an air raid, which is well within their capabilities against the air defenses that the Taliban had, especially if it's launched from the north without Iranian markings.

The chances of IRIAF pilots, planes and helicopters being involved in an upgraded air war against the Taliban is a bit more realistic, and could help the Iranians hone their air skills. They've got a fair amount of experience planning air ops during the '80s, but not with the Soviet stuff that they got in the '90s.

[Joseph K.]

They would have a hard time holding anything. The better army units are more than capable of handeling anything they would face. Lesser units that would be needed for occupation duty would not be up to facing the Taliban and Drug lords IMO. During the 1980s, Iranian troops on that border were actually under orders not to challange any crossings, because they were seriously outgunned. Also, Iranian ememies such as USA and Arab states would see this as a good oppertunity to chew up the Iranian military, and would organize resistance. Likely, Iranians would back certian afghan political figures, and supply them with troops and air support rathar than all out invade.

[Uber_Amoeba]

By the late '90s it would be well within Iran's power to invade Afghanistan. For purely pragmatic reasons, they'll probably support Northern Alliance warlords, but I wonder if some nascent Revanchism may lead to them annexing the city of Herat as they've so often desired.

[woah]

I rember reading a TL on this subject not to long ago

[Anaxagoras]

Aside from air raids and shooting up some Taliban positions right across the border, the Iranians wouldn't do much. First of all, they would lack the capability. Secondly, why on Earth would they want to?

[Berra]

This TL is a good read
http://www.alternatehistory.net/disc...p?t=3959&pp=20

[The Kiat]

Good. Then the taliban would be their problem.

[MacCaulay]

Originally Posted by Anaxagoras

Aside from air raids and shooting up some Taliban positions right across the border, the Iranians wouldn't do much. First of all, they would lack the capability. Secondly, why on Earth would they want to?

Originally Posted by The Kiat

Good. Then the taliban would be their problem.

Well, the Shi'ite regime in Iran and the Taliban were enemies. As I said earlier, they contributed small numbers of pilots, jets, and forward air controllers to the Northern Alliance cause.
The Taliban belief was that the Shi'ites were more or less subhuman, and that they were worse than heretics. So the Iranians had no problem dropping bombs on them.
I'm still going to have to go with an increased air power contingent sent to the Northern Alliance forces. Su-22s and other ground attack aircraft would help hone the IRIAF's attack capability and give the Northern Alliance a fair hand.

[Thande]

Iran does have historic claims to parts of western Afghanistan, but (a) I don't know if the Islamic Republic would recognise the continuity, and (b) in any case, Iran's not going to go around annexing places; like most countries, they have their own reasons not to upset the Westphalian static-borders consensus (Azeris, Kurds, Balochis, etc.)

[Orville_third]

I'm not sure on whose side the US would be on. We hate Iran- but the Taliban is the new bad guy on the block, and the backer of Osama Bin Laden, the US's number one terrorist.
In OTL, while Iran is considered to be lax on drug enforcement by the USA, they do accomplish a large number of drug seizures with their resources- and those that get caught are sentenced to death by hanging.
In OTL, after 9/11 Iran actually told the uS they would guarantee return of any US personnel who made an emergency landing in Iran, and that they would also be willing to provide fuel and any repairs they were capable of to US aircraft damaged fighting in afghanistan that landed in Iran.

[wiking]

Originally Posted by Orville_third

I'm not sure on whose side the US would be on. We hate Iran- but the Taliban is the new bad guy on the block, and the backer of Osama Bin Laden, the US's number one terrorist.
In OTL, while Iran is considered to be lax on drug enforcement by the USA, they do accomplish a large number of drug seizures with their resources- and those that get caught are sentenced to death by hanging.
In OTL, after 9/11 Iran actually told the uS they would guarantee return of any US personnel who made an emergency landing in Iran, and that they would also be willing to provide fuel and any repairs they were capable of to US aircraft damaged fighting in afghanistan that landed in Iran.

I've also read that they provided intelligence for assassinations and air strikes while also providing supplies or at least allowing clandestine routing of air supplies through their bases. Of course, they provided information about their enemies in Afghanistan which allowed us to remove these men for them. Too bad we threw away that good will.

[MacCaulay]

Originally Posted by Orville_third

I'm not sure on whose side the US would be on. We hate Iran- but the Taliban is the new bad guy on the block, and the backer of Osama Bin Laden, the US's number one terrorist.
In OTL, while Iran is considered to be lax on drug enforcement by the USA, they do accomplish a large number of drug seizures with their resources- and those that get caught are sentenced to death by hanging.
In OTL, after 9/11 Iran actually told the uS they would guarantee return of any US personnel who made an emergency landing in Iran, and that they would also be willing to provide fuel and any repairs they were capable of to US aircraft damaged fighting in afghanistan that landed in Iran.

Well, if this happened in the 90s, I don't know as the public at large would care that much. As much as we would care, then we'd be lobbing ordnance into Afghanistan at around the same time the IRIAF would be. I don't think we'd be talking to the Iranians or anything, since they don't need anyone's help to launch ground attack missions or a limited air war (we're talking ten to fourteen sorties a week).

And I'm willing to bet that the Iranians would've just loved to have a USN F-14 Tomcat land at one of their bases. Jesus God, I bet they were salivating about that...

[Ak-84]

Would have been a war with Pakistan. In about 5 minutes. And the Pakistanis would be able to move two additional corps to Quetta pretty quickly. Plus, Iran is at adistict diadvantage, to attack South, the only road goes through Zahedan, where they are exposed to an attack, while Pakistan can pretty much drive along the Kandahar-Quetta road. Plus no doubt Pakistani subs and aircraft based out fo Gwader would be ordered to attack Iranian shipping.

Which is why the TL was highly unrealistic.

[MerryPrankster]

Originally Posted by MacCaulay

And I'm willing to bet that the Iranians would've just loved to have a USN F-14 Tomcat land at one of their bases. Jesus God, I bet they were salivating about that...

I'm imagining the F-14 being taken completely apart within fifteen minutes, with an ancient Iranian officer holding up some random spring and saying "This is the only part of the F-14 we don't use."