I have just watched a programme on TV about the state of Iran and how it is today. The programme also mentioned the Iran-Iraq War, The Gulf wars and ultimately the tensions between Iran and the Western World which we are experiencing today. This, however, caused me to ask the question; The Iranian Revolution against the government of the Shah was a success in our timeline, what if, for some reason, it wasn't, what if for some reason, the revolution failed; (i.e Ayatollah Khomeini was killed before he led the revolution or in France). If the Shah had maintained control in Iran, how would this effect our world today, would the Iraq War have taken place? What would the present day situation in the gulf be? Moreover, how could this take place?
Iran: America's closest ally in the Middle East
- Thread starter Overlord
- Start date
Well Saddam probably decided to invade Iran because it was so weakened by the chaos of the revolution and the lack of supply from America for Iran's westernized military.
So if that does not occurr, and Iran is still a close ally of the US, not a very attractive target for Saddam. So no Iran/Iraq war, this thus eliminates the whole debt issue which was a contributer to the Invasion of Kuwait and you would have the invasion take place next door to a powerfull neighbor...
Still a lot of the same problems are still in place.
Saddam is still there.
Islamic frustration is still there. Islamic extremism is still there.
Hmm, would a strong US ally bordering Afganistan have discouraged the SOviets when it came to invasion? Probably not.
Would the aid have gone though Iran instead of Pakistan? Would that have made a differance? Of course.
But how much of one? Would the SOvs been as willing to accept weapons flowing through Iran as they were Pakistan?
Probably. Invasion would have been the Big One, which no one wanted.
Would Iran have influence over Afganistan after a soviet pullout?
So if that does not occurr, and Iran is still a close ally of the US, not a very attractive target for Saddam. So no Iran/Iraq war, this thus eliminates the whole debt issue which was a contributer to the Invasion of Kuwait and you would have the invasion take place next door to a powerfull neighbor...
Still a lot of the same problems are still in place.
Saddam is still there.
Islamic frustration is still there. Islamic extremism is still there.
Hmm, would a strong US ally bordering Afganistan have discouraged the SOviets when it came to invasion? Probably not.
Would the aid have gone though Iran instead of Pakistan? Would that have made a differance? Of course.
But how much of one? Would the SOvs been as willing to accept weapons flowing through Iran as they were Pakistan?
Probably. Invasion would have been the Big One, which no one wanted.
Would Iran have influence over Afganistan after a soviet pullout?
Exactly how many badly made helicopters is he going to send this time?
You don't stop a major popular revolution by "standing firmly", you need an army. Which we weren't ready to send. The only result of Carter taking a stand on the Shah with no military force to back it up is to make the Iranians dislike us more, if possible.Anyhoo, the US was an ally of convenience to the Shah: being an ally didn't prevent him from jumping in right away on the oil embargo. And he was, after all, dying of cancer. There's no guarantee that his heir would be able to hold onto the throne in the long run, even if his dad was able to temporarily squash rebellion - the Shah's regime was _quite_ unpopular, and killing Khomeini would not change that- indeed, he would ironically have a much better reputation than OTL, as a martyr to the evil of the Shah. (Heck, the Shah's heir might take up an anti-US, anti-Israel populist line to help keep himself on the throne).
(Heh. There were some strong leftist elements in the Revolution - without Khomeini to rally the theocrats, perhaps the failure of the 1979 revolution just means the 1985 one, the one where Iran ends up a left-wing dictatorship, succeeds. What will this do to Gorbachev's efforts to patch things up with the US?)
If you want the Iranian-in-the-street as being pro-US, make Mossadeq a more plausible anti-Communist and have the US support him vs. the UK when he tries to nationalize the oil industry. The Iranians had no beef with the US before then, and will be gratreful for the support.
Of course, US support for Israel will still annoy the more Islamicist Iranians, but as they're neither Sunnis or Arabs (there's a certain still-existing animosity between Iranians and Arabs: when the Iran-Iraq war got started, Saddam invoked the battle in which the early Arab armies crushed the Zoroastran Persian army, and the Iranians haven't forgot the incident that eliminated them as an independent political entity for centuries), it will annoy Iranians less (Turkey, OTL, doesn't get along too badly with Israel despite being a Muslim country).
So, Iran 1980-something: a fairly corrupt country (oil wealth always seems to do that), but with a better distribution of wealth, a semi-democratic government (think Mexico at the time) and an annoyingly powerful Islamic movement, but with a less autocratic government which makes the right Islamic noises and has historical legitimacy, they have fewer prospects for taking over the government, no matter how annoyed some people are by such horrors as land reform and education for women. They don't like Israel, but they have diplomatic relations with it, and even engage in some commercial relations with it (the Protocols still does a fair business in Tehran bookstores, however). They are historically friendly with the US, (although there was a bit of a bad patch over Vietnam - the Iranians don't like anything that looks like colonialism) and become a lot more so after the USSR invades Afganistan.
(Hm. Saddam OTL sometimes tilted pro-USSR to counterbalance US support for the Iranian regime. This will continue in this TL, and the Scary Maps we will be shown on TV won't show the USSR continuing south through Pakistan, but rather catching Iran in a pincers movement...)
Bruce
Probably both- IIRC, the Pakistani border is more mountainous, and therefor harder to patrol, and they don't want the Soviets in Afghanistan either. Of course, that may just prolong the post-pullout mess as Iranian-backed and Pakistani-backed factions struggle for control...
Bruce
If we want to stop the Shah from falling, how would we do that?
I read somewhere that Iran was a case of a dictatorshp falling when it was trying to reform itself. They let a bunch of imprisoned dissidents out of jail, for example, and said dissidents took advantage of the popular discontent due to the economy and other issues.
Also, I think the Shah's problem was that he had too many advisors telling him what he wanted to hear and not enough telling him what he needed to hear, something he realized at the end.
Perhaps during his Persian-nationalist phase, he adopts the old habit of going about the city in disguise? This way, he picks up on things he might not be hearing from his officials.
I'm not convinced of the holiness of Mossadegh--he violated the Iranian Constitution in certain ways (ask Grimm_Reaper--he had a list), for example, plus he had some demonstrators shot.
I read somewhere that Iran was a case of a dictatorshp falling when it was trying to reform itself. They let a bunch of imprisoned dissidents out of jail, for example, and said dissidents took advantage of the popular discontent due to the economy and other issues.
Also, I think the Shah's problem was that he had too many advisors telling him what he wanted to hear and not enough telling him what he needed to hear, something he realized at the end.
Perhaps during his Persian-nationalist phase, he adopts the old habit of going about the city in disguise? This way, he picks up on things he might not be hearing from his officials.
I'm not convinced of the holiness of Mossadegh--he violated the Iranian Constitution in certain ways (ask Grimm_Reaper--he had a list), for example, plus he had some demonstrators shot.
I don't see how this makes much of a difference.
Yes, he probably did violate the Iranian constitution (can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but it's been a while). But he was elected prime Minister, and he stayed roughly within the rule of law. More than many Middle Eastern regimes have, anyways.
Now, Mossadegh was not universally popular. And here is the sticking point. By the time the coup came around, he was unpopular with the clerics and the middle class. But if he makes it clear that he is not a communist somehow, despite the nationalizations, he can easily repair relations with most of that opposition; and, not so coincidently, with the United States. Now, if you have both iran and the US make a show of solidarity at this point, with minor concessions from both parties, this strengthens relations while keeping Mossadegh in power. And while this does not remove the Iranian communists or the radical shias from the equation, it does keep democracy in iran somewhat intact. Given that outlet, it is possible to see Iran drift into the American sphere of influence over the years.
I'm not going to discuss the ramifications this could have on Israeli-American relations. However, it seems likely that they will stay similar to OTL. A likely side effect is that Arab-American relations are worse this time around, because of the US's primary support of Israel and Iran (although a more saavy American foreign policy will never let relations deteriorate to the point that they did in the first place). At the same time, however, iran could limit the use of oil embargos against the US in the future. Expect a greater Arab nationalism movement in Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and other such countries, and a general decrease in radical Islam (at least, the shia strains; but no Iranian revolution might remove some of the building blocks). Iran, Israel, Turkey, and maybe egypt (basically, peripheral nations with something distingusing them from the rest of the middle east) will be America's best allies in this scenario.
Middle ground
How did Mossy, violate the consitution.
1 He dissolved the Senate
2 He tried to restore higher tax rates for Zoroastrians, and Bahai
3 He prevented 15 Majis members from taking their seats, including the only Jewish deputy
4 He tried to bring A Druse, Governor to trial for corruption on Wed, which is their sabbath
There is a possiblity for democratization if the Minister of Court, prevents the one party system being adopted in 1971,
HIM gave serious thought to normalising relations with Israel, in 1973, even before sadat, but the oil embargo stoped him.
Many possiblities here
How did Mossy, violate the consitution.
1 He dissolved the Senate
2 He tried to restore higher tax rates for Zoroastrians, and Bahai
3 He prevented 15 Majis members from taking their seats, including the only Jewish deputy
4 He tried to bring A Druse, Governor to trial for corruption on Wed, which is their sabbath
There is a possiblity for democratization if the Minister of Court, prevents the one party system being adopted in 1971,
HIM gave serious thought to normalising relations with Israel, in 1973, even before sadat, but the oil embargo stoped him.
Many possiblities here
General Mung Beans
Banned
Why would a Sunni/Shia split happen in TTL it didn't happen OTL and with a more moderate Iran it would be even less likely. However if the Iran-Iraq War happens we might see Iran with American support and weapons steamrolling Iraq.
More likely no truly recognizable Iran-Iraq war at all. A conflict of some sort, particularly over the Shatt al-arab, is easy to imagine, but no Islamic revolution in Iran means that Saddam loses his target of opprotunity. IOTL one of the main reasons was that the armed forces had been weakened in the wake of the revolution. The generals were out of favor, a ton of pilots were under arrest, the Ayatollah and company did not trust the military (a fair bit of support for the Shah remained), and Saddam believed that he could win a short victorious war while the Iranians were divided.
ITTL, the circumstances are very different. QUite possibly butterflies keep Saddam from even coming to power in the first place. now, keeping Baath away from power is harder, and a conflict over water or oil or religion or simply the gulf is still possible. The shape of said conflict may even be similar. But the situation surrounding the war will not be very close to what we saw IOTL.
Mmm, in effect thats also why Iran backed down, with nato on it's doorstep
CanadianGoose
Banned
I don't know how aware you guys are, but Israel was really quite chummy with Shah. To a point that Iranian internal security services (guilty of numerous violations) were trained and guided by Israelis. Jews were pretty powerful in Iranian ruling elite at this point (I believe that either Central Bank head or his 1st veep was Jewish, plus several infuential figures in ministry of economy and oil export business). So would Shah regime remain more-or-less intact (without "revolution in anything but name to get support of Islamists"), it would likely be not unlike Turkey (where majority of population isn't too happy with Israel, but ruling regime is OK).
It depend on the PoD of course but shia and sunnis are different *tribes* for lack of a better word. And *tribal* differences seems to have been a source of conflict troughout history, especially late cold war and early post cold war so it is a possibility.
yourworstnightmare
Banned
Acctually a BBC documentary has revealed that President Khatami suggested a alliance with the US both before the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. My feeling is that if the US had accepted an alliance with Iran, Mahmud Ahmadinjerad would never have been elected president. This would keep Iran outside the "Axis of Evil", and give the US a stable ally in the Middle East, it would prevent a Iranian understanding with Syria (which today is more in the line with "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".) A allied Iran could be crucial in stabilizing both Afghanistan and Iraq.
I think that if the US had invaded after the hostage crisis and ended up installing a pro-West Democratic government, the government would be more friendly.
Whether the Iranian people would also be friendly is more doubtful.
Whether the Iranian people would also be friendly is more doubtful.
But the US at the time did not have the ability to invade Iran unless they were able to use Iraq or Pakistan as a base, which is ASB. That fact got Carter a mountain of flak from Reagan in 1980.
Khatami bit into a possibility that existed after 9/11. Iran was sickened by the events of 9/11, as Islam to the overwhelming majority of its adherents considers such murders to be a crime before God. Khatami offered to assist the US in taking down the Taliban. Bush didn't go for it - a decision that they absolutely now regret. That fact would have ended the Axis of Evil designation for Iran, as they would now be getting US money for their oil - a fact which would do wonder for Iran and its economic situation.
Result by 2009 would probably be the US avoiding the Saudis as much as possible, and instead basing assets for the war in Iraq out of Iran, and using Iran as a transit route to supply soldiers in Afghanistan. That works wonders for everybody there.
For Iran, they will now be able to much cheaper fix its military, too. They will now be able to get parts for their F-14 Tomcat fighters, and perhaps they also get the destroyers the Shah ordered, as the four of them had been decommissioned from the USN by then.