A Soviet Invasion of Iran instead of Afghanistan

IOTL, the Soviets were rather uneasy at the rise of Khomeini in Iran. His ideology, some in the Kremlin felt, could possibly ignite the Muslim nations in the southern Soviet Union. So, could the Soviets attempt an invasion of Iran so as to install an openly Soviet-friendly, socialist government? If necessary for this scenario to come about, let us say that the Soviets don't invade Afghanistan.

Is this situation plausible, and what would its effects be?
 
IOTL, the Soviets were rather uneasy at the rise of Khomeini in Iran. His ideology, some in the Kremlin felt, could possibly ignite the Muslim nations in the southern Soviet Union. So, could the Soviets attempt an invasion of Iran so as to install an openly Soviet-friendly, socialist government? If necessary for this scenario to come about, let us say that the Soviets don't invade Afghanistan.

Is this situation plausible, and what would its effects be?

I'm guessing a far, more disastrous version of the Soviet War in Afghanistan. Assuming that the Soviet Embassy was also sacked or taken over like the American Embassy, the Soviets could invade Iran. But holding Iran together would be even more difficult, given the mountainous regions. It would also give Ayatollah Khomeini a dilemma: where to throw his lot with? The Soviet Lesser Devil or the American Great Devil? Iran wouldn't be the same after the Soviets invade though.
 
The difference between invading Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was that the Soviets were invited into Afghanistan by the Afghan government under a mutual defense treaty.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
IIRC, the U.S. Central Command (82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions, along with the 24th Mechanized Infantry) was organized precisely to counter a potential Soviet invasion of Iran. It seems to me all but certain that a Soviet invasion of Iran would mean war with the United States.

IRAN: "Great Satan"? No, we never called you that. You must have misunderstood. We were actually saying "Great Friend"!
 
The difference between invading Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was that the Soviets were invited into Afghanistan by the Afghan government under a mutual defense treaty.

Oh, then why did a Spetsnatz team go in prior to the Soviet invasion and eliminate the Afghan President, his family,and staff, hmm? The "invitation" only came after the T-72s rolled across the border and the Guards Airborne had landed at Bagram and Kabul. While the new Afghan leader was still in Moscow. Read David Isby's War in a Distant Country (from 1988, when the Soviet war was still ongoing) for the initial Soviet thrust and the war as it unfolded up until 1987-early '88.

CENTCOM wasn't formed until 1980, but there were contingencies for Mideast operations dating from the 1960s, and while no divisions were specifically trained or tasked for such ops, the three divisions mentioned, plus AF tac air, USMC, and USN carrier groups, would've gone in.
 
IRAN: "Great Satan"? No, we never called you that. You must have misunderstood. We were actually saying "Great Fiend"!

Fixed it for you.:mad::rolleyes::p

Khomeini's pathology about the US was precisely that, a pathology. No doubt he would have no problem at all blaming the US for the Soviet's actions, as the mullahs aren't all that big on logic. What that would have meant for the hostages is anybody's guess, but I cannot imagine things ending well for them. Throughout the history of the Islamic Republic of Iran, while they have had trading partners, they have had NO real allies. The ayatollahs have made it perfectly clear that if the shit hits the fan for their country (as it did in the Iran-Iraq War) they are quite happy to have no one's shoulder to cry on but Allah's.

An invasion of Iran really does nothing to forestall the OTL Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. That war only took up about 100,000 troops (the absolute MAX that could be logistically supported in country). Iran could only see a US intervention following not only a Soviet invasion but a total collapse of the Khomeini Regime. Which frankly, I don't see as having been possible.

If the Soviets killed Khomeini, that only makes him a martyr. And Iran has a lot of mullahs to take his place.:mad: More likely the functioning government (such as it was/is) melts away and the true believers fall back into the mountains. Fighting with castoffs from the Shah, and living on goat meat. Considering the actions of the Iranians at this time, they can expect their international sympathy to be zilch. Which is just how they wanted it.:rolleyes:
 
War

My 1st post

Without a doubt the moment the soviets invade they ending up facing not just Iranian troops and miltia , but pretty soon americans as well.

American Policy at that stage was rooted in the fact that soviets could in no way have influence in the straights , its just to vital to the us and they would respond

Wont be fun for either side though , American and Russian fighting in hostile country , if i remember Harold Coyle ( i think ) wrote a book about such a scenario .
 
It is perhaps one of those scenarios where you can have the Americans and Soviets fight each other without the world ending.
 
Iran bearing the brunt of a Soviet invasion in the 1980s means that IRaq will be very nervous about the situation and Afghanistan will see the brunt of Soviet action as well. Remember that Greater Iran will include Iran, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and parts of Kyrgryzstan, Pakistan, Iraq, Armenia, and Kazakhstan. Now you've given ALL of them a common cause to rally against AND a reason to be really friendly to the US. I'm not sure if they unite but I could see a closer trade federation or coalition of states post-USSR downfall. In the interim the US will not like a Soviet Union that close to Saudi oilfields.

Mullahs: "The Great Satan is better than the Great Stalin, we may not like the US but whatever"

Soviets: "Our playground, folks. Keep out"

Locals: "Please don't kill us!!!"

The children suffer the most as their parents largely die, they get mauled by landmines and brutal Soviet occupation forces, and resistance drags up an even greater US response than OTL. I could see a larger Islamic Fundamentalist movement in the face of the Soviet collapse but otherwise the Iran that would emerge would probably be more moderate. I doubt the Russians would be crazy enough to leave nukes or nuclear power plants on Iranian soil but anything is possible. Overall I think it leaves *Iraq* in much better shape and makes Kuwait a crucial buffer state. Dubai would assume a status as a free port and sort of Casablanca for the refugees fleeing Russia and might become a de facto version of India for intelligence purposes - a place where novices go to get their start or experts go to dig up very specific info on neutral ground.
 
Iran bearing the brunt of a Soviet invasion in the 1980s means that IRaq will be very nervous about the situation and Afghanistan will see the brunt of Soviet action as well. Remember that Greater Iran will include Iran, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and parts of Kyrgryzstan, Pakistan, Iraq, Armenia, and Kazakhstan. Now you've given ALL of them a common cause to rally against AND a reason to be really friendly to the US. I'm not sure if they unite but I could see a closer trade federation or coalition of states post-USSR downfall. In the interim the US will not like a Soviet Union that close to Saudi oilfields.

Mullahs: "The Great Satan is better than the Great Stalin, we may not like the US but whatever"

Soviets: "Our playground, folks. Keep out"

Locals: "Please don't kill us!!!"

The children suffer the most as their parents largely die, they get mauled by landmines and brutal Soviet occupation forces, and resistance drags up an even greater US response than OTL. I could see a larger Islamic Fundamentalist movement in the face of the Soviet collapse but otherwise the Iran that would emerge would probably be more moderate. I doubt the Russians would be crazy enough to leave nukes or nuclear power plants on Iranian soil but anything is possible. Overall I think it leaves *Iraq* in much better shape and makes Kuwait a crucial buffer state. Dubai would assume a status as a free port and sort of Casablanca for the refugees fleeing Russia and might become a de facto version of India for intelligence purposes - a place where novices go to get their start or experts go to dig up very specific info on neutral ground.

Agree with all of the above except three points (one of which you didn't mention).

1) Its hard to remember now the national obsession the US had about its hostages at the time, but I don't really see them surviving a Soviet invasion of Iran. Either the mullahs kill them (highly likely), or they are killed in the chaos (possible), or they are killed accidently by the Soviets as the mullahs try to get them out of country as a sweetener to the US (improbable), or the Soviets free them and send them home (highly unlikely that they'd survive the process of "liberation").

NONE of these possibilities mean good news for the mullahs vis-a-vis getting better relations (?) with the US. Even if the Soviets killed the hostages, they could probably say it was an accident, and it was all the mullahs' fault. It wouldn't take a master propagandist to sell THAT idea to the American public in those days.

2) About the mullahs and their dealings with the US. Since the foundation of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the mullahs have had two practicing religions: Anti-Americanism and Islam. One takes precedence over the other depending on the economy and when they have another theocratic election to disavow. When the economy tanks (oil prices drop) and its an election year: "Death To America! Death To America!* Close the Strait of Hormuz!". When times are good (oil over $150 a barrel) and the last election protests have just been crushed, Iran disappears from the news (except for their nuke program).

*-It is a fact that Tehran leads the world in fatal motor vehicle accidents. I'm not surprised. The poor people are lost. Which is to be expected when evey last main thoroughfare, highway, main street, side street, and goat path is called "Death To America" Avenue!:p

3) Has you or anyone else considered the possibility that the US and USSR might just come to a meeting of the minds regarding Iran? As in: You take the north(including all lands bordering the USSR and A-Stan), we'll take the south (coastline), and leave a powerless buffer state between us? Ala WWII Iranian solution? The Soviets stay away from the Persian Gulf, the US stays away from Iran's major population centers.:confused::)
 
Last edited:
No chance of the Soviet offering the Americans a Molotov-Ribbertrop type pact then ("Ve get ze top haf, you can haf ze bottom haf")?
 
1) Its hard to remember now the national obsession the US had about its hostages at the time, but I don't really see them surviving a Soviet invasion of Iran. Either the mullahs kill them (highly likely), or they are killed in the chaos (possible), or they are killed accidently by the Soviets as the mullahs try to get them out of country as a sweetener to the US (improbable), or the Soviets free them and send them home (highly unlikely that they'd survive the p[rocess of "liberation").

Yep. It helped sink Kennedy, it took out Carter (with help from Reagan), it made ABC News Nightline & Ted Koppel huge, etc….

You could however score a pretty huge propaganda coup and make it tough for the USA to mess with if you could pull it off.

Get a bunch of Spetnez and KGB guys together to seize the embassy and just after that operation starts you're busy dropping a bunch of airborne troops over Tehran and wiping out Iranian air defence. I'm not saying it's the most likely scenario but if the Russians could pull it off and promptly send the hostages back to the Americans… yeah, try intervening then President Carter.
 
Yep. It helped sink Kennedy, it took out Carter (with help from Reagan), it made ABC News Nightline & Ted Koppel huge, etc….

You could however score a pretty huge propaganda coup and make it tough for the USA to mess with if you could pull it off.

Get a bunch of Spetnez and KGB guys together to seize the embassy and just after that operation starts you're busy dropping a bunch of airborne troops over Tehran and wiping out Iranian air defence. I'm not saying it's the most likely scenario but if the Russians could pull it off and promptly send the hostages back to the Americans… yeah, try intervening then President Carter.

Agree 100%. Of course, no reason Carter can't "insure the freedom of the seas" by seizing Iranian shore positions in the Persian Gulf. I don't see the 74 year old (two years from death) Brezhnev looking for a DIRECT confrontation with the US if they can work out a deal.
 
Matt Wiser beat me to the proper response regarding the claim that the Soviets were invited into Afghanistan.:eek:

Amazing how cooperative a so-called government existing on Soviet soil can be with the USSR, especially when the USSR has already seized key points in Afghanistan and begun a serious dismantling of Afghanistan's military forces.


Iran would have been five to ten times in terms of wealth, territory, military strength and so forth that Afghanistan ever was so unless the Soviets are willing to make a comparable expansion in their effort...
 
Just a vague memory, but the US tried a rescue operation for the hostages in Tehran, and the abject failure led to the formation of JSOC.

I could imagine that the arms of the Soviet military could have the same problems with interoperabiltiy the US did, so how successful would the hostage rescue be?

As for the soviet invasion, it would just roll on in, but would be bloody and messy....
 
Just a vague memory, but the US tried a rescue operation for the hostages in Tehran, and the abject failure led to the formation of JSOC.

I could imagine that the arms of the Soviet military could have the same problems with interoperabiltiy the US did, so how successful would the hostage rescue be?

As for the soviet invasion, it would just roll on in, but would be bloody and messy....

Total disaster it was, as the troops and helicopters were completely unequipped for desert environments.
 
Matt Wiser beat me to the proper response regarding the claim that the Soviets were invited into Afghanistan.:eek:

Amazing how cooperative a so-called government existing on Soviet soil can be with the USSR, especially when the USSR has already seized key points in Afghanistan and begun a serious dismantling of Afghanistan's military forces.


Iran would have been five to ten times in terms of wealth, territory, military strength and so forth that Afghanistan ever was so unless the Soviets are willing to make a comparable expansion in their effort...

A-Stan had logistical limitations preventing any "surges" by the Soviets. 100,000 troops was the absolute maximum forces that could be supported by limited airfields and the 1960s US-built highway system.

Iran had a road and rail network (but not everywhere) that made it far more accessible for the Soviet military. They just would have had to send in a million man army, at the cost of a serious degrading of their military deterrent against NATO and China. If this happens and then Poland goes up in flames too...:eek:
 
Last edited:

Cook

Banned
Russians, it has to be said, do not make the best house guests – at least not the ones inhabiting the Kremlin anyway. They get ready for the party before they have received an invitation and their first action upon arriving is to shoot the host; such behaviour is not conducive to a convivial social atmosphere. Recent history in South Ossetia and Dagestan suggest that regardless of whatever else may have changed, the Kremlin is still using the same book of etiquette.

Following the Soviet armed intervention in Afghanistan in December of 1979, the neighbouring countries of Pakistan and Iran saw an influx of displaced people into their border regions. While it is well known that the Pakistani government aided and equipped elements amongst the refugees to fight against the Kabul regime and its Soviet backers, what is less well known is that the Tehran regime was doing likewise; establishing guerrilla training bases amongst the refugee camps in its eastern provinces and supplying the rebels with equipment. The Pakistani’s provided aid out of a sense of kindred spirit and out of self-interest, the Iranians provided aid for both these reasons and more, they were fired with a sense of revolutionary religious fervour.

For the Soviets there was nothing they could do about Pakistan; the Pakistanis were close American allies, with access to advanced American military equipment and, no-doubt, they could be confident that America would intervene directly if the Soviets attacked Pakistan. Add to that was the difficulty of operating at the southern end of a supply line that had to cross the mountains and deserts of Afghanistan. No, there was nothing to be done about Pakistan except to clear the Afghan regions close to the border of anything that might aid the rebels, all villages, animals and crops would be exterminated and the border quarantined as best it could so that the Socialist government in Kabul could be given time to overcome the resistance from reactionary elements driven by extreme superstition who didn’t want Afghanistan to take advantage of the opportunities Socialist science offered.

Iran however was a different matter. While Iran had been America’s closest ally in the region, it was now a pariah. Surely the Americans would not rush to aid a regime that held embassy staff hostage and where mobs filled the streets each day chanting ‘death to America’? Here events offered the opportunity to settle the score with this new radical superstitious regime without immediate interference from outside parties. The Soviet Union would be acting justifiably and defensively against a regime that had burnt every bridge it had and that threatened not just the Socialist revolution of Afghanistan and the Soviet Union itself, but that also threatened the reactionary monarchies of The Gulf and Arabia. And the Soviets had an ironclad legal Casus Belli; the Russo-Persian Treaty of Friendship, signed in 1921 specifically bound both parties to:

‘Prohibit the formation or presence within their respective territories, of any organisation or groups of persons…whose object is to engage in acts of hostility against Persia or Russia, or against the Allies of Russia. They will likewise prohibit the formation of troops or armies within their respective territories with the aforementioned object.’

This treaty had maintained peaceful relations between Iran and Russia for sixty years, now the new regime had violated that peace. Military intervention in north and eastern Iran would not be a violation of international law and a change from the Brezhnev Doctrine; it would be to maintain both.

The new regime, while well fired with revolutionary fervour it had to be admitted, had done very much the same as the early Soviet revolutionaries had; they’d gutted the army of officers loyal to the former regime. Not only did the Iranian army suffer from the loss of officers, but they’d been largely confined to barracks following the religious takeover and had conducted almost no training. The Iranian Air Force, once the most powerful in the region, had suffered even more; experienced pilots had either fled or been imprisoned and the aircraft grounded. Not only that but they were also now cut off from the only source of essential spare parts for their aircraft; for once Soviet pilots could confront American built aircraft and be confident of a win.

There was also the possibility of a joint operation with a regional ally; Saddam Hussein, president of the Soviet client state of Iraq had expressed a desire to redress past injustices inflicted upon his country by the Iranians. If he attacked in Iran’s west and Soviet forces attacked simultaneously from their positions in the Trans-Caucasus and Turkmenistan fronts as well as from western Afghanistan, the regime in Tehran would find itself completely overwhelmed by events and unable to determine which front was most important and where they should concentrate their forces. Diplomatically inexperienced and isolated, they’d be unlikely to appeal quickly for help overseas, or know how to try to bridge the chasm they had dug between themselves and the Americans. At the very least the Soviets could be confident of securing the major regional centres of Tabriz, Mashhad and Birjand before pressure from the international community and possible American intervention, forced a cease-fire. This, combined with the Iraqi capture of Ahvaz, Dezful, Khorramabad would strip Tehran of much of its sources of revenue and all of its bases for operations against the Southern Soviet Union, Afghanistan and Iraq and potentially would result in the collapse of the regime, paving the way for a new regime, one more conducive to peaceful relations with the Socialist Sphere. Perhaps even a regime that could be brought over time into the Socialist Sphere, although the Brezhnev Doctrine acknowledged without saying it that the World Wide Revolution was no-longer a prospect for the foreseeable future.

Such was the reasoning within the inner circle of the Politburo that saw forces in the Soviet Southern Command Zones raised to an increased level of readiness in August of 1980…
 
Last edited:
Top