Iran without the revolution
- Thread starter Hades
- Start date
The Shah wouldn't need to call in the Americans - the Iranian military was large and he'd been spending heavily to improve both its training and equipment, with an eye especially for the creation of a domestic defence industry so that they could manufacture their own weapons. IIRC the only reason Saddam went ahead with things was a combination of the Iranian military heavily weakened thanks to large numbers of their officers being considered unreliable by the ayatollahs and under arrest, feeling that the new regime was shaky enough to not be able to rally the public, and the US giving him the nod as a way of containing Iranian expansionistic goals.
The biggest reason for him attacking was that Iran was perceived as being in such a state of disarray that the Iraqis could punch out of their weight and defeat her. Obviously this was misguided, but an Iran without the revolution is IIRC in the top 10 largest militaries, and it's well equipped with US kit and most importantly, a deadly air force.
If for some reason, Saddam does go ahead, he gets his ass royally handed to him and Iraq is likely carved up along sectarian lines. Interesting to think of what the resolution to the Kurdish situation would be, as Iran has a sizeable population itself.
I don't see any reason, why Iran would want sizeable Arab minority (that's right, Iranians not be Arabs). Iran might take some areas but not all about half of Iraq.
They do have an Arab minority there already, which there's issues with, to say the least...
And yes, Iranians really don't like being considered as Arabs...it's like calling a Chinese a Japanese...
PhilippeO
Banned
I don't think this going to happen, in fact its in Iran interest to have friendly and unified Iraq next door. Iran already friendly with Kurds and Shi'ite in Iraq, if Saddam get overthrown, a friendly regime would be installed in Iraq. Sunni might make problem, but since Saddam is still new, and no post Gulf War atrocity, they might be appeased with local autonomy.
If Saddam did go ahead and invade, he would get his ass kicked. The Iraqi army is pretty typical of the various Arab armies: large and impressively equipped for a country of it's size but cripplingly incompetent. IOTL the purged and radically depleted Iranian military actually managed to stalemate the Iraqis, who possessed every conceivable on-paper advantage, for a solid 9 years. If Saddam is stupid enough to attack an Iran which avoids the revolution, he is in for an ass-kicking.
Of course, as others noted, the whole point of the attack was an attempt to capitalize on the chaos of the Iranian revolution. So no, he probably wouldn't attack ITTL.
The big thing to ask about ATL Iraq war is how do the Saudis react to an Iraqi victory? Even without the Iranian revolution, the Saudis were not keen on having the Shi'ia Persians get too powerful...
Of course, as others noted, the whole point of the attack was an attempt to capitalize on the chaos of the Iranian revolution. So no, he probably wouldn't attack ITTL.
The big thing to ask about ATL Iraq war is how do the Saudis react to an Iraqi victory? Even without the Iranian revolution, the Saudis were not keen on having the Shi'ia Persians get too powerful...
In pre-revolutionary Iran, there was a joke that if the Shah expressed a desire at breakfast time to dine in Baghdad that night, the Army could easily arrange it. If Saddam had been foolish enough to attack, the Iranian response would probably be a counteroffensive into southern Iraq, cutting Saddam off from the Persian Gulf. The Ba'athist government would fall.
With the lid knocked off the can, the Iranians will probably put a Shia Arab strongman in charge. They may hive off Kurdistan as an independent state, but probably not. Saudi Arabia will be looking very worried, Iran was already a powerful rival for control of the Persian Gulf and has just demonstrated its' superiority. They'll be cracking down heavily on any dissent in the Shia-majority Eastern Province. The Kuwaitis are probably looking scared too, as is the Emir of Bahrain. Him especially, since it's only a decade or so since the Shah stopped pushing a claim to the entire island. Syria probably doesn't do anything, their only real overlap in interests with Iran is a mutual distaste for Saddam and the Iraqi Baath Party. They may even join in on the Iranian side once it's clear who's going to win.
An Iran that's achieving that kind of results is likely to find American military aid drying up. It isn't in the interests of the US to have a single state that controls the Middle East to that extent. If they don't withdraw from Iraq in good time, Desert Shield gets pulled ten years early; with the Iranian strength in 1981, even a Desert Storm analogue would be feasible, though ugly. The enormous Iraqi army in 1991 was largely a consequence of the Iran-Iraq war.
Of course, if the Soviets decide to prop up Saddam, all bets are off. WW3 is a strong possibility.
With the lid knocked off the can, the Iranians will probably put a Shia Arab strongman in charge. They may hive off Kurdistan as an independent state, but probably not. Saudi Arabia will be looking very worried, Iran was already a powerful rival for control of the Persian Gulf and has just demonstrated its' superiority. They'll be cracking down heavily on any dissent in the Shia-majority Eastern Province. The Kuwaitis are probably looking scared too, as is the Emir of Bahrain. Him especially, since it's only a decade or so since the Shah stopped pushing a claim to the entire island. Syria probably doesn't do anything, their only real overlap in interests with Iran is a mutual distaste for Saddam and the Iraqi Baath Party. They may even join in on the Iranian side once it's clear who's going to win.
An Iran that's achieving that kind of results is likely to find American military aid drying up. It isn't in the interests of the US to have a single state that controls the Middle East to that extent. If they don't withdraw from Iraq in good time, Desert Shield gets pulled ten years early; with the Iranian strength in 1981, even a Desert Storm analogue would be feasible, though ugly. The enormous Iraqi army in 1991 was largely a consequence of the Iran-Iraq war.
Of course, if the Soviets decide to prop up Saddam, all bets are off. WW3 is a strong possibility.
Wasn't the revolution basically a grassroots movement against the Shah's censorship and overall Westernization? At some point, the Shah's military would have to silence underground communication that largely traveled through mosques, not an easy task. As early as 1974, many American businessmen began to leave under anti-Western tension.
Hmm, if Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi was more politically savvy? Well, in order to do that, he'd have to be not as megalomaniac as he was. In a sense, he'd have to do a balancing act like Faisal in Saudi Arabia (thus making the reform more gradual than OTL) and letting the Americans and Brits let him have some breathing space to be independent - and at the same time allowing democracy to flourish in Iran, so pretty much with or without Mossadegh he'd have to let the government, well, govern. I don't know how hard that would be, but compared to OTL it would have to require a lot of personality change on the part of Mohammed, who IIRC always felt like he had an inferiority complex due to being in Reza Shah's shadow and people being like "oh, when your father was Shah, . . ." in front of him.
British Republic
Banned
Iran's Air Force was to get hundreds of F-15s/F-16s/F18s during 1980-1985 had the revolution not had happened as well.
Not necessarily. The Iranian appetite for military equipment is often overstated. They were actually looking at
- 160 F-16s on order, with another 140 planned to follow them. The Carter administration wouldn't approve the second batch, but Reagan almost certainly would.
- An intention to order 250 of something - either F-18s, F-15s or more F-16s - to replace the F-4 from the mid-1980s.
- A desire to replace their F-5s with another 160 F-16s from the late 1980s.
- Rumours, though I've not seen them documented, that they were after another 70 F-14s.
To take the wind out of the sails of the Islamic Revolution, you really need to go back to the White Revolution. When the Shah reformed land tenure, he dispossessed the Islamic leadership who had depended on income from 'church' lands (I don't know the correct terminology for Islam here), as well as setting up industrial oligarchies. This set up the ayatollahs in opposition to him and created a disjointed, cronyist economy.
A bit more political savviness with the land reform - Pakistan basically paid off their imams which worked well, it's not hard to see the Shah doing the same - and organising the new industries better would set Iran up for more stable democratisation. Invest the income from the 1973 oil boom sensibly, as his advisors recommended, rather than going on a spending spree, and Robert's your father's brother.
That sounds like a very reasonable way to avoid the revolution during the lifetime of the Shah. No revolution as in OTL and no hostage crisis in 1979. The problem is, the Shah is will die at age 60 in 1980. Do we simply delay a revolution for a year or two, or can we have lasting stability?
British Republic
Banned
That is still hundreds of fighter jets however and considering their relations with America, I doubt they would have been denied them, if they have then they would have gone for the UK possibly like the Saudis did in OTL.
So basically the Shah bribes the Islamic Establishment in giving up their land and spends the oil money in a more wise manner then?
If that works, it keeps Western businessmen in Iran through the seventies. But who succeeds the Shah? He will not make it through 1980.
His son seems to be more liberal-minded (actually so was Mohammed Reza Shah, but he had some serious father issues), so would probably build upon his father's work. Interestingly though, he's still alive (only born in 1960) and still hopes to regain his father's crown. Crucially, if the Shah died on schedule, his son wouldn't come of age for another eighteen months or so, so there would be a regency. There's something you don't often say in the modern world.
Apparently his daughter from his first marriage, HIH Shahnaz Pahlavi, was the intended regent; her political views might inform the likely line of such a regency. Unfortunately I can't find anything on the subject.
Apparently his daughter from his first marriage, HIH Shahnaz Pahlavi, was the intended regent; her political views might inform the likely line of such a regency. Unfortunately I can't find anything on the subject.
Delta Force
Banned
There is some relevant information on the Imperial Iranian military and likely economic trends here.
