Strangely, in the 1930s the Soviet Union had an envoy, of Muslim Central Asian background (I forget if he abjured the Islamic faith or not) to the Saudi kingdom in the 1930s who got along quite well with the monarchy; I've seen and posted in TLs recently asking WI this guy were not purged by Stalin as OTL.That is not happening, they would rather talk to the US, even the Israelis before the Iranians.
So, what happened to Jesse Jackson? OTL he campaigned in '84 and '88, the second time performing quite well, getting more delegates and popular vote than Sanders did in 2016. Why would he sit it out in this ATL?November 1988 saw Presidential elections in the United States. The primaries saw several candidates seeking nomination, but ultimately two frontrunners emerged while the rest quit or got marginalized. Either US Senator from Colorado Gary Hart or Governor of Massachusetts Michael Dukakis would be the Democratic nominee.
Any specific reason you think this form of flip is likely in ATL-88? This version is weird and exists only in made up far fetched scenarios; more reasonably speaking the way to get more EV in the face of a PV shortfall is to win more states, leveraging the small state edge in voting power.On election day, November 8th 1988, the Democratic Hart/Dukakis ticket carried 22 states plus DC, got 279 electoral votes and got 47.8% of the popular vote. The Republican Bush/Quayle ticket carried 28 states, obtained 259 electoral votes and received 48.5% of the popular vote. Despite not getting a majority of the popular vote, Gary Hart was the winner. That made this Presidential election the fourth one in US history in which the winner of the popular vote didn’t get the presidency, which hadn’t happened in one hundred years (this had previously occurred in 1824, 1876 and 1888).
Perhaps I should've mentioned him as the second runner up, or do you think he'd solidly beat Dukakis and end up on the ticket as Hart's running mate?Before I even read further I felt I had to ask these questions.
So, what happened to Jesse Jackson? OTL he campaigned in '84 and '88, the second time performing quite well, getting more delegates and popular vote than Sanders did in 2016. Why would he sit it out in this ATL?
If anything I think the contrasts with OTL would increase the salience of the issues he pushed. So where's Jesse? Which of his issues do you think would have been more pressing ITTL compared to OTL?
Obviously you've butterflied away Hart's 1984 implosion, but I think the scandal is still there lurking.
What I did was to flip the 'close states' that only went Republican by a small margin IOTL in 1988, adding them to the states the Democrats historically won. That seemed more logical than flipping solidly Republican states. Oh, and the Democrats didn't win fewer states like you say: they won 22 plus DC compared to 10+DC IOTL.Any specific reason you think this form of flip is likely in ATL-88? This version is weird and exists only in made up far fetched scenarios; more reasonably speaking the way to get more EV in the face of a PV shortfall is to win more states, leveraging the small state edge in voting power.
That's what a Jackson campaigner in the TL will want, but that's not what I expect the party or Hart to do.Perhaps I should've mentioned him as the second runner up, or do you think he'd solidly beat Dukakis and end up on the ticket as Hart's running mate?
That makes excellent sense as far as it goes--I think though that if you were to flip the PV in all states, including those Dukakis won solidly OTL and those Bush wins ITTL, by comparable percentages to what it takes to flip just those necessary states, then as usual when no plainly illegal or outrageously immoral (and questionably legal) shenanigans are involved, we'd find the popular vote on Hart's side.
I must have been unclear then--of course not fewer states than OTL, rather, I'm saying whoever gets more PV always (not because a rule requires it but because this is the way it sensibly works in likely cases) gets more EV than the other guy, unless the other guy is backed by lots of crooks, and typically this involves the PV & EV winner also winning more states.Oh, and the Democrats didn't win fewer states like you say: they won 22 plus DC compared to 10+DC IOTL.
Sorry, I didn't see this. Now I see how you got 279 votes.What I did was to flip the 'close states' that only went Republican by a small margin IOTL in 1988, adding them to the states the Democrats historically won. That seemed more logical than flipping solidly Republican states. Oh, and the Democrats didn't win fewer states like you say: they won 22 plus DC compared to 10+DC IOTL.
It's was a choice that could have gone either way IIRC. There were hostage takers who wanted to go after the Soviets. You could argue they'd have less reason ITTL, but there's butterflies to take into account.OK. I enjoyed reading through the timleine, but I'm puzzled by some things here.
1) I'm not quite clear on just what it is that causes Khomeini and the RG's to switch to an attack on the Soviets instead of the Americans - especially in light of the fact that the Soviets have a more modest military profile in Afghanistan (thus, killing fewer Muslims, be they apostates or not) in this timeline.
Flip one vote and you're there. LinkWikipedia said:Asgharzadeh later said there were five students at the first meeting, two of whom wanted to target the Soviet Embassy because the USSR was "a Marxist and anti-God regime". Two others, Mohsen Mirdamadi and Habibolah Bitaraf, supported Asgharzadeh's chosen target: the United States.
Well, it's tough terrain with not so great infrastructure.2) Surprised to see the Soviet Fourth Army take a full month to take Tabriz. The Iranians would have put up a good fight, but its hard to see them holding them off for anything like this long.
Did that antipathy extend to the man's son? It's him who goes there.3) Given Carter's antipathy to Pahlavi, it's strange to see him allowing him to return to the country in the baggage train of the U.S. Army.
So soon after 'Nam?4) I can see a mutual climbdown over Iran to prevent everything going nuclear, but it's hard to see Carter agreeing to a withdrawal that puts a Soviet-backed communist regime in control of all the southern ports the U.S. just steamrolled. It's too big a concession from the man behind the Carter Doctrine; and there's an election coming. I think, more to the point, that whole development needs to be expanded on a good deal. I think the odds favor a much messier long-term resolution of an Iran Crisis like this, almost certainly involving a longer-term presence of U.S. troops.
I believe I pointed out how the economy was shakier during Reagan's first term compared to OTL.5) How exactly does Mondale do a full seven points better in this ATL? Is the U.S. economy that much worse? If so, why? I think you need something like recession-conditions to make that kind of dent in the Gipper's vote totals, given just how big the charisma deficit there was between the two and the horrible advertising and ground campaign Fritz had OTL.
Won't be seeing him in power, indeed.I also strongly tend to think that Kirilenko would lose little time in putting Andropov out to pasture.
Suffice to say, the Middle East will receive plenty of attention once we arrive in the 21st century and a certain Iraqi dictator starts getting a bit demented . I'll try to provide plenty of information on the events since the 80s.First I aside that it's a very interesting TL I think that seems a bit underestimate the intensity of religious and nationalist resistance, even after the Khomeini execution and the fall of Tehran to the new regime Soviet aligned, that would be put in the Iran's d rural countryside against all the foreigners.
Resistance that, IMO, given the particular orography of Iran and as it's new government intended to progressively socialized the country, would be to expect that could arisen constantly many local rebellions that would be needed to be put down only, I guess, to resurface later in another region.
Also, aside of the foreseeable harsh repression and for the new regime necessary political and economic reforms enforced not only against the 'Mullas' class political power but if are nationalized/collectivized all or near the lands, then would be against all the traditional rural economic structure, that would be needed to be done and keep through the Army...
I would expect that once the Iran Communist Regime would be enough consolidated, to probably would take a more proactive stance in foreign affairs e. g. to has bigger interest, both ideological and strategic, in show socialist solidarity 'helping' the, until now only Soviet backed, Afghanistan's Socialist government to recover control over all the country... Of course this could lead to conflict with Pakistan but specially to cause the possible Chinese worries o increase given the permanent presence from Soviet backed Socialists republics in her far western border plus (at least in OTL) the border tensions and disputes with the India...
About the Middle East I think that given that OTL, conflicts and that the big powers' power game was altered with, far-reaching consequences, and especially with Saddam's Iraq becoming in the Regional dominant Power would have for Syria, Israel, and especially for the Lebanon... Because I'm assuming that even if the first Israeli invasion to the Lebanon still could have happened though given the, mentioned, American intervention there, I would think that the second in the '82 would be butterflied away...
Now that in this scenario besides of the Saudi kingdom the Syrian would be the more dangerous and for more worryingly for Assad that, from his perspective, Syria, would be surrounded by enemies and should probably to feel obliged to follow a very careful foreign politics while trying to not lost the Soviet support while attempting to not antagonizing and/or fought with the Americans or even with the main american allies in the region Turkey and Israel.
Interesting. OK, I'm game.
To some degree, sure. But it's just 115km on the all weather road (Hwy 32) from the Armenian SSR border to the outskirts of Tabriz, which is not all *that* far. And from what I have seen of Soviet plans for Iranian intervention, they were also considering liberal use of airdrops and insertions to speed the penetrations - the passes around Marand, for example. And the Soviets were not too shabby at mountain warfare.Well, it's tough terrain with not so great infrastructure.
Carter's policy really emphasized human rights, and it seemed pretty clear that the objections he had were to the entire regime, not just the incumbent.Did that antipathy extend to the man's son? It's him who goes there.
Hard to see how they have any alternative - and hard to reconcile surrendering that big foothold to a Soviet backed communist regime in light of the Carter Doctrine, something he really seems to havefelt strongly about. I mean, he might as well just gift the presidency to Reagan right then and there.So soon after 'Nam?
Ah, maybe I missed that.I believe I pointed out how the economy was shakier during Reagan's first term compared to OTL.
The first two are affirmative. The Middle East will be covered in future updates .A few questions:
- The PoD is in the middle of the Ogaden War. Did the Ogaden War go as OTL?
- What's the situation in Southeast Asia? Has Vietnam deposed the Pol Pot regime, and did China try to invade Vietnam in retaliation?
- How does Hafez al-Assad feel about the recent developments in the Middle East, particularly the expansion of his hated rival Saddam Hussein's domain and his alignment with the United States? Is he moving even closer to the USSR in response? With the new Iranian regime granting more rights to Kurds, has he done the same, ignored it, or cracked down on the Kurds?
Eagerly looking forward to reading through them this weekend.I edited chapters 4, 5 and 6 to reflect your comments. Hope it's enough. I really don't want to do major rewrites.