AHC and WI: Iranians Take Basra in 1982

This is ASB. The Iranian Army as stated was at the time like a chicken with its head cut off. They were undoubtedly brave but lacked the leadership to really take strategic offences like the one needed to take Basra.

Well, that's part of the reason I made this an AHC too -- I'm looking for a PoD (preferably after 1980) that would allow Iran to take the city, preferably still win the Battle begun 1982. Also, the OP asks that Iran takes Basra -- whether and how they hold it is another matter...
 

Ak-84

Banned
The Ayatollah dose not shoot all the generals? If thats the case, well then Saddam dose not invade.
 

Ak-84

Banned
The problem with your senario is that Iran's failure to take Basra was due to institutional weakneses in her own army, and to take Basra it needs to eliminate said weaknesses. Yet sans those weaknesses, Saddam would not have invaded.
 
The problem with your senario is that Iran's failure to take Basra was due to institutional weakneses in her own army, and to take Basra it needs to eliminate said weaknesses. Yet sans those weaknesses, Saddam would not have invaded.

Ah, I see -- my OP's brought down by the old catch-22... :eek:

EDIT CONSOLIDATION: Does anyone have any thoughts on Ak84's C22 takedown of the OP?
 
Last edited:
The Ayatollah dose not shoot all the generals? If thats the case, well then Saddam dose not invade.

Somehow I doubt that a lot of these old regime generals will be the most trustworthy... would you really want them commanding your troops, as the hypothetical leader of this new revolutionary regime?
 
Somehow I doubt that a lot of these old regime generals will be the most trustworthy... would you really want them commanding your troops, as the hypothetical leader of this new revolutionary regime?

Some of the generals might be untrustworthy, but all of them?? And the entire officer corps?? Most of the competent officers were purged, but there was no way that there wasn't a single patriotic Iranian general, or even an entirely apolitical one, who doesn't really care who he's fighting for.
 
Some of the generals might be untrustworthy, but all of them?? And the entire officer corps?? Most of the competent officers were purged, but there was no way that there wasn't a single patriotic Iranian general, or even an entirely apolitical one, who doesn't really care who he's fighting for.

You're asking people who were associated with the previous regime that was of an entirely different bent than the new regime. Khomeini's revolution was of a religious nationalism, not of a pure nationalism, a few generals, but likely not enough to make a serious difference, would have stayed. From a morale perspective, there's a lot of reason to toss out the old guard and replace them with those who are more loyal.

I really don't think there would have been enough of an absolutely assured loyalty to make a difference, chances are most of them will choose to get out of dodge. And they're far too valuable of an asset for the US intelligence apparatus to keep around for the most part.
 
PoD idea: Maybe if the new Defense Minister doesn't die in 81?

Another thought -- what happens if Basra is taken right around the same time a successful assassination of Hussein is carried out (in Dujail)? If nothing else, it's interesting to think who would take over Iraq in the following weeks to years...
 
The problem with your senario is that Iran's failure to take Basra was due to institutional weakneses in her own army, and to take Basra it needs to eliminate said weaknesses. Yet sans those weaknesses, Saddam would not have invaded.

Stalin purged his officer corps and yet the Soviet army produced great generals who ultimately defeated the Nazis.

Why not have a similar situation arise during the Iran-Iraq War?
 
Top