DBWI: Iranian monarchy falls

What if, at some point during the Cold War, the Shahs government fell, instead of surviving to the present day? The Iranian monarchy was historically a force for unity in the region, as well as monarchism, for example when they restored the Iraqi monarchy. How would the fall of the monarchy affect Middle Eastern politics, as well as the Cold War?
 
If you want to have the Iranian monarchy fall, you could start with Mohammad Reza not siding with Prime Minister Mosaddegh. IOTL, the Shah told the West to shove it when they demanded he get rid of the leftist Mosaddegh, putting Iran into the non-aligned camp. Reza's decision to throw his lot in with Mosaddegh helped cement the throne's popularity with the Iranian people. Having the Shah turn against the popular Prime Minister will prevent that.
 
If you want to have the Iranian monarchy fall, you could start with Mohammad Reza not siding with Prime Minister Mosaddegh.

That would have huge consequences in the wider Middle East. Would Farouk have had the nerve to face down Britain to keep Sudan and then take control of the Suez canal?
 
What if, at some point during the Cold War, the Shahs government fell, instead of surviving to the present day? The Iranian monarchy was historically a force for unity in the region, as well as monarchism, for example when they restored the Iraqi monarchy. How would the fall of the monarchy affect Middle Eastern politics, as well as the Cold War?

Well, Iran's a pillar of America's Middle East policy. If they collapsed into a communist, or hostile government in general then that leaves Saudi Arabia. That's an ugly thought, having to rely on the Wahhabi Saudis.

Mohammad Reza's decision to disclose his cancer diagnosis was prudent, as was the regency set up. Bakhtiar came in at the 11th hour to defuse things.
 
If you want to have the Iranian monarchy fall, you could start with Mohammad Reza not siding with Prime Minister Mosaddegh. IOTL, the Shah told the West to shove it when they demanded he get rid of the leftist Mosaddegh, putting Iran into the non-aligned camp. Reza's decision to throw his lot in with Mosaddegh helped cement the throne's popularity with the Iranian people. Having the Shah turn against the popular Prime Minister will prevent that.

OOC: Good one! :cool:

IC: I think so, too. One must wonder how much this had to do with his conversation with President Truman in the summer of 1952-Truman might have been prosecuting the Korean War at the time, but he did come to realize that making sure that checkmating the Soviets would also require lots of skillful diplomatic manuevering-a policy that was later continued by Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy after him.
 
But the biggest problem has been how Republicans since Reagan have invoked the "Israel Lobby", which has helped the Bush administrations as well during elections. Remember how Reagan used the economy and the Israeli concerns about the himan rights violations of SAVAK and the Shah to win the 1980 election..,
 
But the biggest problem has been how Republicans since Reagan have invoked the "Israel Lobby", which has helped the Bush administrations as well during elections. Remember how Reagan used the economy and the Israeli concerns about the himan rights violations of SAVAK and the Shah to win the 1980 election..,

OCC: I don't think this would be realistic given Imperial Iran's tacit support for Israel. They even worked together on military projects. Israel doesn't have anyone else really in the area to count on (even if Iran's support is by not helping the Arab states), so the last thing they're likely to do is complain about SAVAK.
 
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.
 
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*
 
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*

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.

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?
 
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.

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?

Soviets, or Pakastan.

Personally I would put my money on Pakastan, they did help the norks and the saudis with their respective programs.
 
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.

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?

I could see China helping them and maybe Russia?
 
If there was an economic crisis deep enough, a populist movement could quickly become anti-monarchist. Especially when you compare the luxurious lifestyle of the Shah with the now rampant poverty of his subjects. It would however only happen during the economic downturn of 92-94 or 2000-2004. During the economic crisis of the late 70's, the country was still too agrarian and not interconnected enough for an uprising in one city to spread to the next, all the high-tech oil infrastructure notwithstanding.
 
Well, Iran's a pillar of America's Middle East policy. If they collapsed into a communist, or hostile government in general then that leaves Saudi Arabia. That's an ugly thought, having to rely on the Wahhabi Saudis.
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.
 
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.....:eek:
 
Another big difference that I spotted.

The camp David accords would be changed drastically.

Originally the egyptians went in wanting the whole of the Sinai pensular back, it was the shah that convinced them that it would be better for egypt to have a buffer state between them and Israel. This would completely butterfly away the existance of modern day palastine!
 
But the biggest problem has been how Republicans since Reagan have invoked the "Israel Lobby", which has helped the Bush administrations as well during elections. Remember how Reagan used the economy and the Israeli concerns about the himan rights violations of SAVAK and the Shah to win the 1980 election..,

Thankfully, Iran's human rights record has improved tremendously under Reza Pahlavi.
 
The old Shah was always a pretty weak-willed man, all bluff and bluster, very proud but insecure. I could see him being convinced to oppose Mossadegh on the grounds of his authority as Shah being undermined. I could also see him fleeing the country at the first sign of his opposition faltering. He did love to fly his planes! That could be a pretty good opportunity for the monarchy to fall.
 
Top