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?

[Killer300]

Guys, here's an interesting result.

Say the US declares war. Well... it could get Vietnam all over again.

Why? Because can you imagine was an unbelievable pain it would be to even attempt to occupy Iran? The populace will still be hostile to the United States, and can make any occupation HELL for the US military in a similar manner to Vietnam.

Now, what's the counter to this? There's no way for the US to get the populace to support it there, not after the Shah. You could argue the gurriealls wouldn't be as supplied, but on the other hand, getting the US bogged down in another theater for decades all over again would be something the Soviets or Chinese would probably be warmed up to.

[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.

[Know Nothing]

Carter gets re-elected as Iran gets curbstomped. The US can probably even get a UN resolution past the Security Council after a massacre.

[Killer300]

Originally Posted by 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.

Not possible, and you know why?

Do you REALLY think such an occupier state would last any longer than South Vietnam did on its own against gurriellas? Both have populaces that will not tolerate their governments anymore, not just because they're totalitarian, but also because they're incompetent.

[Ace Venom]

The US declaration of war would be easy enough. Despite the recent memory of Vietnam, there would be a rally around the flag effect. The actual war itself could become very painful and have severe long term implications on American relations in the Middle East. It could also have more immediately butterflies in that theater as well, namely since the OTL hostage crisis began a month and a half before the Soviet war in Afghanistan.

Carter had already authorized aid to Afghanistan in 1979, so if the US starts to take a more active role in the region in 1980, what happens there? Could the Cold War possibly turn hot?

[John Farson]

Originally Posted by Killer300

Not possible, and you know why?

Do you REALLY think such an occupier state would last any longer than South Vietnam did on its own against gurriellas? Both have populaces that will not tolerate their governments anymore, not just because they're totalitarian, but also because they're incompetent.

But the war in Vietnam never had the kind of casus belli that a mass murder of Americans in Tehran would have.

Americans will be screaming for Carter to do to Iran what Tamerlane did to Persia (mounds of skulls...).

[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.

[John Farson]

Originally Posted by 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.

I don't think Carter was ever really the wimp his enemies made him out to be.

If, let's say, the Soviets had made a surprise nuclear attack, he would have authorised retaliation, instead of surrendering like that ridiculous short film First Strike in 1979 described him doing. He'd sworn an oath, after all, against all enemies "foreign and domestic."

[Killer300]

Originally Posted by John Farson

But the war in Vietnam never had the kind of casus belli that a mass murder of Americans in Tehran would have.

Americans will be screaming for Carter to do to Iran what Tamerlane did to Persia (mounds of skulls...).

So? That doesn't matter if it devolves into an intractable guerrilla conflict.

After all, Iraq was justified through 9/11, (yes, didn't really have a connection to it, but at the time, that was the justification,) but that rapidly lost support despite it.

While this wouldn't lose support as quickly because it has a much more concrete reason, it would still overtime because this WILL turn into an non-winnable guerrilla conflict.

[Zulufoxtrot]

Well would we even try to go for a full-scale Vietnam-style conflict or would we just bomb the living hell out of them for a while? Also the taking of the hostages had an impact in how the Iranian Government shaped up in later years, what would killing them have done? From what I've learned it didn't exactly have Khomeini's blessing, but he certainly took advantage of it. Could an immediate killing see the more moderate Bazargan stay in power, or at the very least diminish that of Khomeini's? Also something to consider would be possible Iraqi involvement, they weren't exactly BFF's at the time, and Iraq was starting selling us oil as well.

[deathscompanion1]

Originally Posted by Killer300

Not possible, and you know why?

Do you REALLY think such an occupier state would last any longer than South Vietnam did on its own against gurriellas? Both have populaces that will not tolerate their governments anymore, not just because they're totalitarian, but also because they're incompetent.

Look at pre revolution Iran.

The goverment security serivces were at their lowest ebb and still the revolution might have failed.

This isnt vietnam there is a semi credible goverment and the infrastructure and doctirine is all already there.

The Iranian secret police were so good at their jobs that most of them were absorbed into the new regimes secret police another switch wont bother them.