life gets a whole heck of a lot harder for Israel.
The two countries have been friendly for decades sure its based on the real polatic of them both being hated and dispised by their arab neighbors but having at least one friendly middle eastern power has always been a big boon to Israel. The two share inteligence, they trade, and they help with each others counter terrorism.
If the shah fell we would likely get rebels who deal with geo politics emotionally rather then the cold pragmatism that defines modern day Iran.
It probably helps, too, that the Likudniks never got to have power more than once.....and Yitzhak Shamir's administration from 1982-86 was so fucking disastrous(to the point where even the most ardently anti-Communist Iranians were considering reducing ties with Israel by the end of it) that he was literally booed out of office after the April '86 elections.....
Well, my plans for my Summer Vacation would be ruined, that's for sure! Any government that would replace the Shah is unlikely to be pro-Western (and I seem to recall there was a pretty strong current of anti-Westernism in the country from the 1950s til about the 1980s or so) and so I doubt I would be traveling to the ruins of Persepolis in a few weeks. Which would be a shame; I've been saving up for this trip for the past two years.
On a side note: Although its not certain that the Ba'athists would even come to power in Iraq in a timeline where the Shah fell, assuming they do, I highly doubt that what ever Iranian government came afterwards would have gotten involved in the dissolution of Iraq. *shudders*
It's a real shame about Iraq; Faisal III wasn't perfect, and was fairly incompetent, but he at least tried to keep his country in decent shape. The dissolution of the monarchy in '76 ended up leading to a lot more trouble than anything good, especially after Saddam Hussein launched the 7 February coup in 1980(and then his March 31, 1983 assassination would pretty much ensure that all hell broke loose).
That was mostly the ulema angry that their traditional sphere of influence was being supplanted by secular institutions. The liberals didn't like him either until he finally stopped being so paranoid about the communists taking over.
Yep. In fact, they actually hated Mossadegh more than any other P.M. of the country, and, as much as they despised the U.S.(and Israel), their most significant enemy was actually the Soviets, especially seeing as that they blamed Nikita Khrushchev for his rise to power(Stalin had died in April '52, three months before Mossadegh took power).
As for Iraq....I agree that any regime that replaces them won't get involved during the chaos. If some regime hostile to the West emerges, the Iranian armament program stalls out. You're definitely not going to see the F-14s they ordered being sent, let alone the aircraft they have now, or the Abrams. He did go overboard on the military spending for a while.
Also, do you think Iran would still pursue nuclear power? If so, who would aid them instead of the United States?
India might be a good alternative, as they've had great relations since the '70s.(but, IOTL, that came at the cost of eventually alienating Pakistan)
Christ, can you imagine having to rely on those zealots for Middle Eastern stability? After the mess they made in post-Baathist Iraq, I wouldn't trust them to run security for a kindergarten. Thirty years later and we're still dealing with the aftermath.
Frankly, the Shah would have done us all a favour if he'd followed through on his advisors' recommendation to liberate the Eastern province back in '94. Cut those savages off from their oil and let them regress to the seventh century, then maybe the rest of us can live peacefully.
Yeah, it's a good thing that this didn't happen to the U.S.S.R. when it finally dissolved in February, 1992.....
