a Ford Administration in 1977-81?

deanna

Banned
Assuming the POD is Ford squeaks a win and is President in the late nineteen seventies, what does he do different or the same as Carter?

What things go better?

What things are neutral?

What things are worse
 
A well explored topic on this board.

It very much depends on who wins the internal staff politics as well as external events. You could easily see the neoconservatives victorious or you could see Ford decide to put down the new idiot staff and replace them with his old staff that lost out in 1975-76 power struggles and Ford’s rapprochement with the far right to win re-election. That in turn will reflect Ford Administration responses to things like the new Fed Chair in ‘78 (Volcker is not magic lol), Iran, Saudi Arabia losing control of OPEC, Afghanistan, and so on.
 
Assuming the POD is Ford squeaks a win and is President in the late nineteen seventies, what does he do different or the same as Carter?

What things go better?

What things are neutral?

What things are worse

Things might go a bit better since Ford was more experienced than Carter, and generally had a better relationship with Congress. But overall the economy would still be bad in 1979-80 and the situation in Iran wouldn't be good. (It was Kissinger, Ford's SecState, who persuaded Carter to allow the Shah into the US for cancer treatment). 1980 is still going to be a change election, only with the Democrats victorious instead of the GOP.
 
Things might go a bit better since Ford was more experienced than Carter, and generally had a better relationship with Congress. But overall the economy would still be bad in 1979-80 and the situation in Iran wouldn't be good. (It was Kissinger, Ford's SecState, who persuaded Carter to allow the Shah into the US for cancer treatment). 1980 is still going to be a change election, only with the Democrats victorious instead of the GOP.

Regarding Iran, I'm sure the hostage crisis either wouldn't have happened or would have ended much quicker. IMO, if it still happened, Ford would have taken a military solution against Iran much sooner, than Carter, instead of wasting time negotiating.
 
Regarding Iran, I'm sure the hostage crisis either wouldn't have happened or would have ended much quicker. IMO, if it still happened, Ford would have taken a military solution against Iran much sooner, than Carter, instead of wasting time negotiating.

Yes, because that worked out so well for Carter....
 
Yes, because that worked out so well for Carter....

I forgot to say that the hostage crisis may not happen, in the first place, because the revolution may take a different path or the Iranians may fear Ford more than Carter.
Regardless, even if it still happened, I'm not refering to something similar to the Eagle Claw mess, I'm refering to a much more complex operation, maybe, even, with bombings and a naval blockade.
 
]
shah_ford2.jpg


https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb268/

Best case scenario, Ford convinces the Shah he needs to step down.
 
You’ve just summarized post-WWII U.S. foreign policy in a nutshell! :openedeyewink:

It always seemed “safer” to support a coup with supposedly predictable results, than to advocate for genuine democracy the outcome and way it plays out being largely unknown.

And, 1979's Iran would be a place where the USA would be correct, because Khomeini would not create any democracy.
 
. . . because Khomeini would not create any democracy.
Well, we certainly have our religious conservatives, too, right?

That said, I think many Iranians would say that Khomeini and the clerics overshot the mark in many ways. And plus, that they didn’t deliver on jobs and middle-class economics like early hopes had been.
 
Well, we certainly have our religious conservatives, too, right?

That said, I think many Iranians would say that Khomeini and the clerics overshot the mark in many ways. And plus, that they didn’t deliver on jobs and middle-class economics like early hopes had been.

First, I don't know why you wrote "we", I'm not American.
Second, there's a very big difference between a country having religious conservatives and clericals running a country.
 
No Camp David Accords, no Humphrey Hawkins, and I doubt there'd be a Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. An Iranian Revolution of sorts still happens, whether there's a Hostage crisis or not is debatable. 1980 is won by the Democrats as Ford is gonna be saddled with at least some of the issues Carter was OTL. 1984 also likely sees an incumbent Democrat re elected.
 
. . . and I doubt there'd be a Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. . .
I just don’t accept the premise that the Republicans are “strong” in some unspecified way that Democrats are “weak.”

A lot of foreign policy flare-ups are of the nature of system accidents, at least as far as timing.

Now, regarding Afghanistan . . .

http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/
.
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid . . .
That is, my U.S. may have successfully played the Soviets to give them their own Vietnam.

Corollary: Be careful what you wish for!
 
Top