A 9/11-level terrorist attack on the USA at the height of the Cold War

In 1982? That's a tall order.

It would take longer than that.

Wonder if Saddam would let the US attack out of his territory?

And yes it would be a very tall order.

This will greatly impact Reagan's agenda because of budget concerns more than anything else.

Much less to spend on new equipment that is not directly related to the fighting. No SDI, for sure. Maybe no B-2s. Less money for ships.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Wonder if Saddam would let the US attack out of his territory?

The Soviets wouldn't want him to. Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat and Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units In Combat by Cooper and The Iran-Iraq War by Karsh all mention Soviet and East German-piloted MiG-25s operating in squadron strength. Just about every Foxbat in Iraq was flown by a Warsaw Pact pilot until at least 1987.
 

Thande

Donor
This is my point here. Say Iranians (not "Iran" as in the government, as MacCaulay rightly says) are behind such an attack. Now the USA wants any excuse to topple the Islamic Republic. But the USSR also wants any excuse to topple the Islamic Republic. The question is, even though the Soviets would be happy to see Khomeini gone, would they really be so blasé about America bombing or trying to invade Iran at this stage?
 
I'm going to have to agree with some of the posts above, and say that the Soviets would probably be the victims. And, since the Soviets are indifferent to collateral damage, their retribution would be rather brutal. Afganistan? What Afganistan? Since 1981 was only the birth of global news, the Soviets could easily cover up their bloody mess. And since America was supporting Iraq in their war against Iran, how likely would it be for Arabs to target the U.S. of A.?
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Actually, I could be wrong about this, but in OTL, didn't America support both Iran and Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War?

Yes, they did. At different times they provided satellite imagery to both sides, sold chemical weapon components to Iraq, and made spare parts shipments through numerous other countries to Iran.

The big difference was that they sold directly to Iraq and not directly to Iran, so alot of people don't want to believe that we didn't play both sides of the street.
 
THe rest of Iran.

If they actually went through with this (I'm somewhat doubtful) then either the Soviets and their client in Kabul just got a massive windfall, or some enterprising reporter is probably going to write up a story about a US helicopter destroyed by a stinger given to the Afghans.
 
Remember in OTL the September 11 outrage was achieved with surprisingly limited resources. A group of crazies who feel that the US is acting unjustly to Palestine and therefore murders of large numbers of Americans might conceivably have done what was done in 2001 any time from the 1970s.

However if Iran were the state sponsor of such terrorism and it happened after the Iran Contra deal I wonder whether that does huge damage to Reagan and Daddy Bush- conceivably leading to impeachments.
 
This is my point here. Say Iranians (not "Iran" as in the government, as MacCaulay rightly says) are behind such an attack. Now the USA wants any excuse to topple the Islamic Republic. But the USSR also wants any excuse to topple the Islamic Republic. The question is, even though the Soviets would be happy to see Khomeini gone, would they really be so blasé about America bombing or trying to invade Iran at this stage?

As in OTL, I would expect that the intial demand would be for Iran to turn over the terroritst to face justice in the US. If this is done, and assumeing that the investigation does not implicate the Iranian goverment, then I doubt that an invasion takes place.

But if the Iranian goverment protects the terrorists, then war is certain.

No, the USSR would not be blase about it. I certainly see them coming up with some excuse to block UN action in Reagan would try that. Certainly as McCauley suggests they would use diplomatic means to undermine the US effort. And eventually I could certainly see them supporting Iranian guerillas or terrorists with arms after the invasion.

You're not thinking WWIII as reaction to an US invasion of Iran are you?

I don't see that as a policy, perhaps as an accident.
 
I'm going to have to agree with some of the posts above, and say that the Soviets would probably be the victims. And, since the Soviets are indifferent to collateral damage, their retribution would be rather brutal. Afganistan? What Afganistan? Since 1981 was only the birth of global news, the Soviets could easily cover up their bloody mess. And since America was supporting Iraq in their war against Iran, how likely would it be for Arabs to target the U.S. of A.?

American support for Iraq was very minor, and occurred mostly once the Iranians went on the counteroffensive, which is after the POD.

Easily outweighted in the minds of certain wackjobs by... whatever excuse they come up with.

Also the know relative ruthlessness of the Soviets could act as an deterant, especially to a nation with a land border with them!
 
If they actually went through with this (I'm somewhat doubtful) then either the Soviets and their client in Kabul just got a massive windfall, or some enterprising reporter is probably going to write up a story about a US helicopter destroyed by a stinger given to the Afghans.

Well, the first is sort of true. Basically the Afganistan war now has a competitor for the foriegn fighters who went to help the mujaheen. Of course if having more arab nations occupied by foriegn powers in somehow more upsetting to the Arab world you could see an increase in the numbers of such fighters, perhaps to the point that they don't see a decrease.

NOw the possiblity of a stinger being used against an American craft is a real one, that was discussed OTL.

Much more likely here of course.

Such an event could likley lead to a shut off of stingers being sent to the Afganis, but if the Sovs are heavily funding the anti-americans in Iran, it might be more cost effective to hurt the Soviets as much as possible despite the occasional backflow.

Indeed this senerio is a mess. Very dangerous.


There's been no consideration of what impact this would have on the region.
 
Remember in OTL the September 11 outrage was achieved with surprisingly limited resources. A group of crazies who feel that the US is acting unjustly to Palestine and therefore murders of large numbers of Americans might conceivably have done what was done in 2001 any time from the 1970s.

However if Iran were the state sponsor of such terrorism and it happened after the Iran Contra deal I wonder whether that does huge damage to Reagan and Daddy Bush- conceivably leading to impeachments.

The 9-11 terrorists were murderous, but they were rational. They fully understood the attack would bring about American invasion of Afghanistan. This was what they wanted to achieve, to bog the US down in a war they think they could win.

It's highly unlikely Palestinian terrorists would desire an US invasion of Palestine. Certainly no state could be irrational enough to sponsor terrorism of this kind.

So who want actually welcome an American invasion in the 80s?
 
Remember in OTL the September 11 outrage was achieved with surprisingly limited resources. A group of crazies who feel that the US is acting unjustly to Palestine and therefore murders of large numbers of Americans might conceivably have done what was done in 2001 any time from the 1970s.

However if Iran were the state sponsor of such terrorism and it happened after the Iran Contra deal I wonder whether that does huge damage to Reagan and Daddy Bush- conceivably leading to impeachments.

Didn't happen until 85. NOt happening now, TTL.:)
 
Top