Could the Soviet Union have checkmated the West and won the Cold War in 1979-1980?

[stewacide]

Here’s the scenario:

Step 1. The Afghan communist government (backed militarily by the Soviets) and India hatch a plan to invade and partition Pakistan. After a quick campaign Pakistan bows to reality and cedes all of Kashmir to India, Pashtu speaking areas to Afghanistan, and grants independence to Pakistani Baluchistan.

Assumptions:
- A casus belli wouldn’t be hard to find or concoct with Pakistan actively aiding insurgents in Afghanistan and Kashmir.
- The benefits to India are obvious: elimination of the Kashmir problem, Pakistan reduced to a cowed rump, and independent Soviet-backed Afghanistan and Baluchistan as regional allies.
- The benefits to Afghanistan are also overwhelming: stop Pakistani/Western aid to insurgents and gain legitimacy by uniting Pashtunistan.
- The Soviets could provide much aid to the Afghan war effort in Pakistan (equipment, logistics, air support, taking up the slack against the mujahedeen) without being directly implicated as a co-belligerent. They’d solve the Afghan problem, gain an additional client in Baluchistan, and set up the coup de grace in Step 2.
- The United States would be mightily displeased but as with previous Indian invasions and partitions of Pakistan, and the recent Soviet ‘invasion’ of Afghanistan, it wouldn’t and couldn’t do anything about it.
- China would be extremely worried about Soviet and Indian power, but isn’t crazy enough to start a war with either/both for the sake of Pakistan.

Step 2. As the Iranian Revolution turns radical, the Soviets, Iraqis, Afghans, and Baluchs invade and partition Iran. Azeri areas are annexed to Soviet Azerbaijan, Arab areas to Iraq, Baluch areas to Baluchistan, and Sunni northeastern Iran to Afghanistan.

Assumptions:
- Revolutionary Iran would provide ample provocation, real and concocted, to all the parties. Besides it’s general destabilizing impact on the region, ethnic minority uprisings could be provoked by the invaders in the run-up to war, and their suppression by the revolutionaries given as casus belli.
- In the wake of revolution Iran was little able to defend itself from a coordinated invasion along every front.
- In addition to enlarging and aggrandizing its client co-conspirators, the Soviets would be able to set up rump Iran as a puppet regime
- A take-over of Iran and a close alliance with Baathist Iraq would give the Soviet Union the ability to arbitrarily and unilaterally set the world oil price, thus giving it both massive leverage over the capitalist economies, and a huge stream of revenue to prop up its own economy indefinitely.
- While the US (and possibly Britain and France) would rush in forces to defend the Gulf monarchies, the West wouldn’t start a war to defend Islamic Iran in the midst of the hostage crisis. This is the Soviet Union’s unique opportunity to take the Middle East without triggering the Carter Doctrine.
- While the democracies would initially be extremely hostile to Soviet machinations, no ‘red line’ is ever crossed to trigger war or anything close, and realpolitik would eventually force Europe and Japan to adopt a pro-Soviet line in order to ensure reliable and affordable energy supplies.
- As their core interests (in high energy prices) are aligned, and with the Soviets dominating the Middle East and Persian Gulf militarily, the Gulf monarchies would also be drawn into the Soviet sphere (provided the Western powers don’t outright occupy and annex the oil fields).
- A clever Soviet Union and Iraq might also use an anti-Western anti-Israel foreign policy to influence not only the Gulf States but other Arab petro-states like Libya and Sudan.
- Only the United States (alienated from its nominal allies in Western Europe and East Asia by their need for Soviet energy) and China would remain great powers outside the Soviet sphere of influence.

Sooo…. is this plausible?

- Do the Soviets/Afghans/Indians have the military might to force Pakistan to concede defeat before the West/China can respond coherently and effectually?
- Could the Soviets and their allies similarly present the West with an Iranian fait accompli?
- Is there any chance the US would start WW3 to defend the Ayatollahs?
- What is the chance WW3 starts over the Gulf monarchies or Israel, as the Soviets and/or Saddam develop winner’s disease?
- Is there any chance the free world could rapidly reduce its fossil fuel consumption and hence negate the Soviet advantage? (Crash nuclear energy program? Crash oil sands / oil shale development? Fusion?)
- How much time would this buy the Soviet empire? Could it survive indefinitely on high oil prices?

If it is plausible then it’s also pretty frightening. I’ve never heard any other Soviet-world-domination scenario that sounded at all possible.

 

[TheHumblePoet]

Not at all. Pakistan would be no small fry. And US wouldnt take it lying down, and the Soviets at the Arabian Sea will alarm everyone and the West will start WWIII to save Pakistan. This alliance cannot take down Pakistan before Western aid arrives. Invasion routes from the north pass through treacherous mountain passes which can easily be defended, and Pakistan was able to hold its own against India several times (71' not included).

You are also forgetting India was a principle leader of the NAM (Non-Aligned Movement), and it would discredit itself heavily by joining the Soviet camp. And Iraq was not a firm member of the Soviet bloc. The Russians were indifferent to Saddam's regime. Saddam had to buy all his equipment from the Soviets, no allied discounts or any such thing. Iraq and the Soviets did not have the same sattelite relationship that Egypt and the Soviets had under Nasser.

 

[freethinker]

Here’s the scenario:

Step 1. The Afghan communist government (backed militarily by the Soviets) and India hatch a plan to invade and partition Pakistan. After a quick campaign Pakistan bows to reality and cedes all of Kashmir to India, Pashtu speaking areas to Afghanistan, and grants independence to Pakistani Baluchistan.

Assumptions:
- A casus belli wouldn’t be hard to find or concoct with Pakistan actively aiding insurgents in Afghanistan and Kashmir.
- The benefits to India are obvious: elimination of the Kashmir problem, Pakistan reduced to a cowed rump, and independent Soviet-backed Afghanistan and Baluchistan as regional allies.
- The benefits to Afghanistan are also overwhelming: stop Pakistani/Western aid to insurgents and gain legitimacy by uniting Pashtunistan.
- The Soviets could provide much aid to the Afghan war effort in Pakistan (equipment, logistics, air support, taking up the slack against the mujahedeen) without being directly implicated as a co-belligerent. They’d solve the Afghan problem, gain an additional client in Baluchistan, and set up the coup de grace in Step 2.
- The United States would be mightily displeased but as with previous Indian invasions and partitions of Pakistan, and the recent Soviet ‘invasion’ of Afghanistan, it wouldn’t and couldn’t do anything about it.
- China would be extremely worried about Soviet and Indian power, but isn’t crazy enough to start a war with either/both for the sake of Pakistan.

Step 2. As the Iranian Revolution turns radical, the Soviets, Iraqis, Afghans, and Baluchs invade and partition Iran. Azeri areas are annexed to Soviet Azerbaijan, Arab areas to Iraq, Baluch areas to Baluchistan, and Sunni northeastern Iran to Afghanistan.

Assumptions:
- Revolutionary Iran would provide ample provocation, real and concocted, to all the parties. Besides it’s general destabilizing impact on the region, ethnic minority uprisings could be provoked by the invaders in the run-up to war, and their suppression by the revolutionaries given as casus belli.
- In the wake of revolution Iran was little able to defend itself from a coordinated invasion along every front.
- In addition to enlarging and aggrandizing its client co-conspirators, the Soviets would be able to set up rump Iran as a puppet regime
- A take-over of Iran and a close alliance with Baathist Iraq would give the Soviet Union the ability to arbitrarily and unilaterally set the world oil price, thus giving it both massive leverage over the capitalist economies, and a huge stream of revenue to prop up its own economy indefinitely.
- While the US (and possibly Britain and France) would rush in forces to defend the Gulf monarchies, the West wouldn’t start a war to defend Islamic Iran in the midst of the hostage crisis. This is the Soviet Union’s unique opportunity to take the Middle East without triggering the Carter Doctrine.
- While the democracies would initially be extremely hostile to Soviet machinations, no ‘red line’ is ever crossed to trigger war or anything close, and realpolitik would eventually force Europe and Japan to adopt a pro-Soviet line in order to ensure reliable and affordable energy supplies.
- As their core interests (in high energy prices) are aligned, and with the Soviets dominating the Middle East and Persian Gulf militarily, the Gulf monarchies would also be drawn into the Soviet sphere (provided the Western powers don’t outright occupy and annex the oil fields).
- A clever Soviet Union and Iraq might also use an anti-Western anti-Israel foreign policy to influence not only the Gulf States but other Arab petro-states like Libya and Sudan.
- Only the United States (alienated from its nominal allies in Western Europe and East Asia by their need for Soviet energy) and China would remain great powers outside the Soviet sphere of influence.

Sooo…. is this plausible?

- Do the Soviets/Afghans/Indians have the military might to force Pakistan to concede defeat before the West/China can respond coherently and effectually?
- Could the Soviets and their allies similarly present the West with an Iranian fait accompli?
- Is there any chance the US would start WW3 to defend the Ayatollahs?
- What is the chance WW3 starts over the Gulf monarchies or Israel, as the Soviets and/or Saddam develop winner’s disease?
- Is there any chance the free world could rapidly reduce its fossil fuel consumption and hence negate the Soviet advantage? (Crash nuclear energy program? Crash oil sands / oil shale development? Fusion?)
- How much time would this buy the Soviet empire? Could it survive indefinitely on high oil prices?

If it is plausible then it’s also pretty frightening. I’ve never heard any other Soviet-world-domination scenario that sounded at all possible.

I think it is very plausible...
It would be difficult for the West to adjust for the following reasons..
As the Soviet Union grew stronger so would the U.S.S.R thus increasing the effects of the Red Scare and booting any Liberal Government that might attempt to solve the situation

I could see under Regan/Thatcher NATO turning fascitod

 

[Grimm Reaper]

China joins forces with the US, Western Europe, Japan...over the invasion of their ally Pakistan, plus being caught between the USSR and India.

This combined with the massive increase in the Soviet military burden caused by having to occupy Pakistan and Iran, on top of Afghanistan, probably leads the USSR to economic collapse several years sooner than OTL.



Very little of this is remotely plausible, least of all the Soviets invading an entire series of Muslim nations yet somehow being able to get the Arab monarchies on their side through references to Israel.

 

[imperialaquila]

I think that the Soviets are too cautious to pull something off like this; they are directly attacking the West's energy supplies by gaining ports in Baluchistan and puppetizing Iran.

You might be able to pull off Step One, but Iran would be a step too far. After the first part, the US will definitely commit to defending the rest of the Persian Gulf, and will get much closer to China. The world is even more tense as Reagan gains the presidency.

No way will the USSR try to take Iran. It would be a huge blow to the US, far more than Vietnam, and I cannot see any US administration allowing the Soviets to gain any measure of control over it. The Soviets know this, and don't want to risk nuclear annihilation for some desert.

The Iranian Revolution will likely be rather different with Soviet puppet states on all sides. You may see the mullahs adopting more anti-Soviet rhetoric, and trying to get on the US's good side, since the Soviets will not defend them.

 

[Cook]

Sooo…. is this plausible?

No.................

 

[stewacide]

...You might be able to pull off Step One, but Iran would be a step too far. After the first part, the US will definitely commit to defending the rest of the Persian Gulf, and will get much closer to China. The world is even more tense as Reagan gains the presidency...

...The Iranian Revolution will likely be rather different with Soviet puppet states on all sides. You may see the mullahs adopting more anti-Soviet rhetoric, and trying to get on the US's good side, since the Soviets will not defend them.

Remember the hostage crisis went on for 444 days. That's a lot of time for the Soviets to complete both steps. And while it would be strictly rational for the US to come to Irans' defence no matter what, the US is a democracy (approaching a presidential election) and revolutionary Iran has done absolutely everything a country could possibly do to anger the United States: is President Carter (or Reagan) really going to sell the American people on World War 3 to defend DEATH TO AMERICA Islamic Iran from what mostly ordinary Americans would figure they had comin' to 'em?

The point of this scenario isn't that strategic thinkers in the West would see it as an existential threat: because they clearly would. But that the Soviets cleverly take advantage of events and client regimes to avoid crossing any 'red lines', and without these clear violations it's simply not possible for the Western democracies to pre-emptively launch WW3 because they feel they've been strategically snookered (now China is another matter...)

 

[TheHumblePoet]

Remember the hostage crisis went on for 444 days. That's a lot of time for the Soviets to complete both steps. And while it would be strictly rational for the US to come to Irans' defence no matter what, the US is a democracy (approaching a presidential election) and revolutionary Iran has done absolutely everything a country could possibly do to anger the United States: is President Carter (or Reagan) really going to sell the American people on World War 3 to defend DEATH TO AMERICA Islamic Iran from what mostly ordinary Americans would figure they had comin' to 'em?

If not Iran, Reagan would definately start WWIII for Pakistan. Allowing the Soviets access to the Arabian Sea, threatening American assets in the Gulf is too much. This blatant Soviet expansionism will have riled the West.

And if Afghanistan was bad for them, then Iran and Pakistan will be exponentially more bloody.

 

[imperialaquila]

Remember the hostage crisis went on for 444 days. That's a lot of time for the Soviets to complete both steps. And while it would be strictly rational for the US to come to Irans' defence no matter what, the US is a democracy (approaching a presidential election) and revolutionary Iran has done absolutely everything a country could possibly do to anger the United States: is President Carter (or Reagan) really going to sell the American people on World War 3 to defend DEATH TO AMERICA Islamic Iran from what mostly ordinary Americans would figure they had comin' to 'em?

And would the Iranian mullahs be quite so eager to antagonize the US with the Soviets knocking at their door? I suspect that they can end the crisis much earlier in exchange for US military aid. They don't like the US, but the Soviets are a much bigger threat.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

The Soviets are launching unprovoked wars of aggression against a list of nations, menacing others and making a massive effort to provoke the US, China, Japan, Western Europe, the Arab League and any nation which must import oil from the Gulf but only a response from the US could actually start WWIII?

 

[stewacide]

And would the Iranian mullahs be quite so eager to antagonize the US with the Soviets knocking at their door? I suspect that they can end the crisis much earlier in exchange for US military aid. They don't like the US, but the Soviets are a much bigger threat.

I agree it's possible the Iranians could 'wake up' to their dire situation, but in OTL they did what they did (the hostages, anti-American theatrics, etc) against the backdrop of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and Saddam's moves against them.

The Iranian masses were aggrieved at the United States beyond all reason; if an immediate threat in OTL from the Soviet Union and Soviet-occupied Afghanistan and Baathist Iraq wasn't enough to snap them out of it, all this scenario adds is another enemy on the remote Baluchistan front.

I'm no expert on the subject, but I suspect Tehran and the Shia heartland existed in a reality distortion field with the revolution at its height around the turn of the decade.

 

[lukedalton]

Problem with step 1: why India will be so idiot to invade Pakistan and found itself in a situation who will make Vietnam and Afganistan look like a country fair? This if the nuclear option is not used by the Pak or India, or maybe by China, Pakistan is a close ally of the chinese so expect trouble. All this if Washington don't sent a couple of Carrier to give the indian the message: Don't even think about.
Basically for your scenario to suceed India must obtain is objective quickly, probably less of a week otherwise Chinese and America pressure will be too much, i don't know but i think the Soviets will not risk their collective butt for the indians.
Problem with step 2: Everybody in Washington, Tokyo and other european capitals undestand the URSS game and objective and i don't really think that they will stay idle till all the oil is under russian influence otherwise we can begin to learn how to live by Finland so WWIII here we comes.
Your scenario only works if the entire NATO is struck by the stupid virus

 

[f1b0nacc1]

The Iranian 'masses'?

I agree it's possible the Iranians could 'wake up' to their dire situation, but in OTL they did what they did (the hostages, anti-American theatrics, etc) against the backdrop of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and Saddam's moves against them.

The Iranian masses were aggrieved at the United States beyond all reason; if an immediate threat in OTL from the Soviet Union and Soviet-occupied Afghanistan and Baathist Iraq wasn't enough to snap them out of it, all this scenario adds is another enemy on the remote Baluchistan front.

I'm no expert on the subject, but I suspect Tehran and the Shia heartland existed in a reality distortion field with the revolution at its height around the turn of the decade.

You are clearly no expert on the subject. There were definitely some urban elites (very similar to the folks in Egypt who are waking up now to the Muslim Brotherhood with 'wa happened?' looks on their faces) who were furious at the US for the Shah, and there were a substantial number of cadres of Khomenists who had been gearing up for this revolution for decades, but the idea that there was some huge anti-American (or for that matter anti-Western) groundswell is simply untrue. Talk to people who were there, or any of those who have escaped since. Even today, the bulk of the Mullah's support comes from remote villages where conservative farmers are imported as bully-boys for the regime.

As for how plausible the rest of this is, NOT AT ALL. Look, Russia doesn't have the resources to partition Pakistan, and India isn't going to risk an ugly war just to pick up Kashmir (most of which they already have) and acquire a Russian occupation force as a neighbor. The West will absolutely freak out, and has more than sufficient resources to make Russia's life very, very unpleasant. Iran makes even less sense....they might not like the US, but they HATE the USSR, and had hated them for a whole lot longer than they hated us. The Chinese will happily hook up with the US, and delight in providing yet another threat axis along Russia's huge Siberian border.

Why would Russia do anything of this? What do they gain? They have oil/gas/etc. they dont' need more marginal farmland populated by restive populations that hate them, and they certainly don't need the undying emnity of the West, China, and most of the Arab world. What PRECISELY does the USSR stand to gain?

 

[Cockroach]

Long story short: Theoretically possible, logistically difficult and completely nuts.

I mean besides pissing off the west, what does this plan acchieve for the sovs? It swaps one running sore of an insurgency for two.

Likewise, what's in it for India? Is exchange of a few border issues and the occasional skirmish for open war followed by a lengthy insurgency (and that's if things go to plan...) really worth while?

 

[stewacide]

...I mean besides pissing off the west, what does this plan acchieve for the sovs? It swaps one running sore of an insurgency for two.

It gets the Soviet Union control over the Middle East's oil (and therefore control over the capitalist economies) without (hopefully) sparking WW3. The alternative, as we know, is rapid economic and political decline ending in the dissolution of the Soviet Union at the end of the decade, precipitated in large part by a crash in energy prices in OTL.

Contrast this TL with other timelines like Red Storm Rising, which posit that there's no way the Soviets can achieve their traditional national objectives of control over the Middle East, South Asia, and access to the Indian Ocean, without sparking war with NATO (and hence a pre-emptive war in Europe would be necessary to head off this response if the Soviets were ever crazy/desperate enough to make a grab to the South).

Seems to me there may have been an opportunity around this period (not existing before or long thereafter) for the Soviets to achieve all their aims without starting a war with NATO, given Iran's pariah status, the existing intervention force in Afghanistan, Pakistani provocations in Afghanistan, post-Vietnam syndrome, the rise of Saddam, etc.

 

[Blue Max]

The risk, and a likely one, is global thermonuclear war:

The immediate, and unmitigated transformation from a superpower to a series of warlord states led by survivors of a man made holocaust. An entire century of technological effort lost; perhaps even longer to repopulate their own land.

Of course, their own deaths, be them at the hands of nuclear weapons or the lawless bandits that rise to rule the ashes of their homes.

Finally, the end of the ideas they championed. The Far Future will not remember their hopes and dreams, they will remember the death, the dying. The apparent end of the world beyond the intensity of even the fall of Rome, with full knowledge that they themselves had brought on this disaster.

This possible loss, a series of events that may well exemplify loss to a magnitude as to redefine the concept of losing, is the potential price paid for getting it wrong.

The Soviets are too cautious to do this; the prospect of 80%+ of their people dying and the remainder literally left to savagery aren't a desirable outcome, and not worth exploring.

It is entirely inconceivable that this plan would be attempted. The Soviets were prudent chessmasters with no real interest in brinksmanship and every intention of quietly gaining advantages without the threat of imminent destruction. They were not insane gamblers willing to accept the risk of rapid deindustrialization as the price of doing business.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

No, the US would not allow Pakistan to fall, and the Pakistani army was at that time a competent force, not the joke it is today.

 

[stewacide]

Just learned Inkscape so I made a map.

This would actually correspond a lot more closely to the ethnic distribution than current boundaries.

Also occurred to me when making this that Turkey would be very tempted to take part in the dismemberment of Iran. In the map I have the majority Sunni Kurdish areas along it's Eastern border going to Iraq, but Turkey may well move in if Iran is clearly going down if only to buffer itself against Saddam and the Soviets. That'd surely make things more difficult for NATO.

I also wonder if rump-Pakistan would hold together, having lost its raison d'être completely, with the Punjap and Sind increasingly going their own way.

 

[Killer300]

For this to work, an earlier POD is needed, something that makes it where the USA, for whatever reason, can't intervene as much in the Middle East. That, or something similar.

 

[Lord Grattan]

For this to work, an earlier POD is needed, something that makes it where the USA, for whatever reason, can't intervene as much in the Middle East. That, or something similar.

The US + its NATO allies and China.