DBWI: Ford defeated?

In 1976, President Gerald Ford defeats former Governor Jimmy Carter of Georgia by a narrow 50-48 margin, though Ford's victory in Ohio, Wisconsin and Mississippi were all within 1%. Would Iran still fall into a Communist revolution? If so, how would Carter react? How different would the 1980s be, without President Udall?
 
Iran is too late to change by this time, so the Revolution and Iran War are going to kill Carter's chances of reelection, even against Reagan. This is easy enough to imagine since '76 was a poisoned chalice and Carter blew a 62-29 lead away after Watergate.
Since Hinckley is the reason we got President Udall, whoever Reagan picks as VP will rule during the '80s. Now, it's possible Reagan lives, but the Curse hasn't been broken yet and I'm rather fond of it. Then again, perhaps the fact that he isn't from the lucky Kennedys will save him (Hinckley's insanity and the fact that he killed the last Kennedy was too tempting for the nutjob). But hopefully not. I don't want to think about how Reagan would handle Gorby. Then again, Udall only became President because of Hinckley, so whoever Reagan picks as VP is important.
 
Then again, Udall only became President because of Hinckley, so whoever Reagan picks as VP is important.

Considering that the national Republican convention in 1980 was a mess, it was fortunate that Reagan was never elected President or we might have gotten a Vice President Trent Lott.

That is after Lott open his mouth during the campaign and praised Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat campaign in 1948 and called civil rights activist John Lewis "Boy."

Lott was forced to resign from the ticket 4 weeks before that election and was replaced by Howard Baker, which Reagan should have picked in the first place.
 
Given that political tensions in Iran had been escalating many years before 1979, it's likely that the Iranian Revolution would have taken place no matter who won in 1976. However, had Carter been elected, Iran probably would have had an Islamist rather than a Communist revolution. The reason is that Carter's plans to make promoting democracy and human rights the centerpiece of America's foreign policy meant that he would have been far less willing to lend the Shah the same kind of unconditional support that Ford lent. Without this kind of support, it's highly unlikely that the CIA would have assassinated the Islamist's most prominent leader, Ayatollah Khomeini (nor would Savak have been emboldened into assassinating Ayatollah Montazeri, who was Khomeini's designated successor).

As we all know, these assassinations allowed for the left-wing cleric, Mahmoud Talghani, to become the revolution's de facto leader and to later go on to form the Islamic People's Republic of Iran. However, had neither of these assassinations taken place, Ayatollah Khomeini probably would turned Iran into a repressive Islamic Theocracy rather than a republic based upon a fusion of Islamic and Marxist principles. Had Iran become an Islamic theocracy, it's likely that Islamism would have become a major political force in the Middle-East rather than a marginalized ideology. Perhaps this could have prevented Bachir Gemayel from fully consolidating his hold on power in Lebanon in 1982?

Another interesting case to consider would be Afghanistan. Without Talghani's advice, guidance, and support, it's likely that tensions in Afghanistan between Islamists and Communists would have continued to escalate. An Iran under Khomeini probably would have lent full support to the various Islamist factions in the late-70s and early-80s, which likely would have destabilized Afghanistan. I know I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm willing to bet that the Soviets would have responded to this by invading Iran and Afghanistan because Iran clearly would have presented itself as a threat to the Soviet's hold on Central Asia. However, Iran and Afghanistan's terrains would have been ideal for guerrilla warfare, so this likely would have turned into the Soviet's Vietnam. Going out on another limb, I'm willing to bet that had this war gone on long enough, it would have incited an Islamist rebellion in Central Asia that in turn would have sparked a civil war in the Soviet Union along ethnic lines sometime around the mid-to-late 80s.

As for domestic matters, assuming that Reagan is elected President in 1980, America would have likely been in a much weaker position than it is today. For one thing, Reagan would never have implemented President Udall's "Green-Green Solution," which revitalized America's economy and made us far less dependent on oil for energy by heavily investing in high-speed rail, public transportation, renewable energy, and the manufacturing of electric cars. Given how unstable the Middle-East would have been in this scenario, America would likely have suffered from reoccurring energy shortages and/or gotten bogged down in frequent military ventures in the Middle-East in order to stabilize the region and secure its oil interests. Since Reagan would not have taken on big oil in the same way Udall did (which, as we all know, led to Congress passing legislation in 1987 that created a system of public finance for all election campaigns), the latter would have been a very likely outcome in TTL.
 
OOC: I keep forgetting what DBWI stand for.
IC:
At least Udall's doing well in summets with soviet leader Fyodor Kulakov. It's about time they had a younger man at the helm of their government there.
 
Well, I reckon it was too late for Iran anyhow. They were either going Marxist or taken over by a radical Islamist fascist dictatorship.
Although we might not have had the disastrous admins of TWO idiot Repub Presidents, possibly, Udall in '80 and Reagan in '84. (Still grateful Dukakis won in '88, btw.....not to mention the two terms of Clinton that followed.)

On the other hand, the USSR's collapse in 1991 probably wouldn't have been butterflied either.

@P.P.: Yeah, VP Baker wasn't so bad. Interesting, BTW, that he's the only man to date, that has served as VP under two Presidents......(also, the CIA didn't assassinate Khomeini. In fact, they loved the SOB. You must be thinking of the KGB under Andropov, that was their hit.)
 
Top