if he Shah had remained in power, how do you think Iran and the world would have look

The Iranian revolution did not start off being Islamist, there was almost an analogue between the February/October revolution in there

True, as in terms of appearances. But at the time, if you simply listened to the people, it was Khomeini! Khomeini! Komeini! On paper, there were various personalities claiming power at one point or another, at some level or another, but behind it all, was the only Supreme Ayatollah that the people listened to (the other 5 were kept under house arrest). I see the analogue, but in the case of Iran, it was more a transition period from post-Shah to full blown Mullah Islamic Rule.
 
As was said on the previous page, had the Shah remained in power it's unlikely that Iraq would have invaded in 1980 which in turn means no Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. That in turn would mean no American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia which was Bin Laden's main justification for launching Al Qaeda's campaign against the West, even if he still had without that emotive issue to exploit it's doubtful he would have been able to gain as much support ad he has from disaffected Muslims and possibly no 9/11 with all it's own ensuing consequences. If the Taliban had seized power in Afghanistan then it's unlikely that the Americans would have intervened to overthrow them.

I think you're vastly underestimating the level of hate possessed by Bin Laden and his crew. Not to mention a whole generation of young men brought up in madrassas learning absolutely nothing on this Earth except the Quran, and how to hate and kill Americans.

I remember reading one of Al-Qaeda's earlier manifestos. Presence in Saudi Arabia was there, true. But as history has shown, even having embassies on "Islamic soil" is too much for them (they can have embassies where ever they want, apparently). My personal favorite? Satellite broadcasts of "Baywatch" reruns.:rolleyes: We exist. So they must hate us. Even if we all converted to Islam, the only way they will stop attacking us according to them, nothing will change. Either we convert to Wahhabist Sunni (in which case the mullahs' minions come after us), or Iran's interpretation of Shia, in which case Bin Laden simply reloads his rhetoric and keeps up his war.

Oh, and America? Now that you've converted to Islam, don't forget while you're at it to nuke Israel.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Some problems don't have solutions.:(
 

MacCaulay

Banned
I wonder if the Soviets would have still bothered to invade Afghanistan. That would of changed a lot if they decided against the invasion. Many policy analysts at the time were convinced putting pressure on Revolutionary Iran was half the reason for the 1979 Invasion.

The Soviets would in all likelihood have invaded Afghanistan no matter what. It was internal Afghan politics playing into some crazy ass Soviet fears that led them to do it, and if Iran had been a stable US satellite it might have even been worse.

They were completely obsessed with this idea that the US was making some Iranian-Pakistani-Afghan Alliance of Doom and Destruction From Hell that we'd put ICBMs in and then basically ring the USSR in missiles.

Which was completely insane and nonsensical, but it was the Cold War and that didn't stop the two sides from thinking crazy thoughts.

The Shah would probably have fallen in the 90s, when it's not in the interest of the US to back a hated tyrannical regime anymore. With a little luck it wouldn't be crazy Islamists replacing him.

Like the Saudis fell in the 90s when it wasn't in the US interest to back a hated tyrannical regime anymore? ;)
 

Typo

Banned
I think you're vastly underestimating the level of hate possessed by Bin Laden and his crew. Not to mention a whole generation of young men brought up in madrassas learning absolutely nothing on this Earth except the Quran, and how to hate and kill Americans.

I remember reading one of Al-Qaeda's earlier manifestos. Presence in Saudi Arabia was there, true. But as history has shown, even having embassies on "Islamic soil" is too much for them (they can have embassies where ever they want, apparently). My personal favorite? Satellite broadcasts of "Baywatch" reruns.:rolleyes: We exist. So they must hate us. Even if we all converted to Islam, the only way they will stop attacking us according to them, nothing will change. Either we convert to Wahhabist Sunni (in which case the mullahs' minions come after us), or Iran's interpretation of Shia, in which case Bin Laden simply reloads his rhetoric and keeps up his war.

Oh, and America? Now that you've converted to Islam, don't forget while you're at it to nuke Israel.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Some problems don't have solutions.:(
Oh god not this shitty meme about muslims all want to kill us again

Al-Qaeda and Muslims don't care about the presence embassy itself except as as a target, it's the stationing of combat troops which are the problem. I could also explain why the nationalist Arab regimes and not America is the primary enemy of even Islamists, and why attacking America was a tactical choice as a response to the failure of Arab Islamism rather than some sort of deep ideological commitment to do it and it was largely caused by American foreign policy, but sure, do let a melding of Islamopohobia, clash of civilization and THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM rhetorics completely blind you to the realities of Islamic militancy.
 
I think you're vastly underestimating the level of hate possessed by Bin Laden and his crew. Not to mention a whole generation of young men brought up in madrassas learning absolutely nothing on this Earth except the Quran, and how to hate and kill Americans.

I remember reading one of Al-Qaeda's earlier manifestos. Presence in Saudi Arabia was there, true. But as history has shown, even having embassies on "Islamic soil" is too much for them (they can have embassies where ever they want, apparently). My personal favorite? Satellite broadcasts of "Baywatch" reruns.:rolleyes: We exist. So they must hate us. Even if we all converted to Islam, the only way they will stop attacking us according to them, nothing will change. Either we convert to Wahhabist Sunni (in which case the mullahs' minions come after us), or Iran's interpretation of Shia, in which case Bin Laden simply reloads his rhetoric and keeps up his war.

Oh, and America? Now that you've converted to Islam, don't forget while you're at it to nuke Israel.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Some problems don't have solutions.:(

It is quite depressing to think that there are people prepared to kill dozens of innocents because of Pamela Anderson in a bikini but that is the World we live in! :D

The reason I used the U.S. troops in Saudi was because I always had the impression that it was "The infidels in the land of the Prophet" that was Bin Laden's main gripe and it had a strong emotional appeal to disaffected young Muslims. But as you rightly say, even if the troops had never been stationed in Saudi, Bin Laden would still have found plenty to object to in the rest of American foreign policy, especially it's support for the House of Saud.

Changing tack slightly, if Iraq doesn't invade Iran and then Kuwait then surely that means that Saddam would still be in power today? How would Iraq have turned out in this TL?
 

celt

Banned
Oh god not this shitty meme about muslims all want to kill us again

Al-Qaeda and Muslims don't care about the presence embassy itself except as as a target, it's the stationing of combat troops which are the problem. I could also explain why the nationalist Arab regimes and not America is the primary enemy of even Islamists, and why attacking America was a tactical choice as a response to the failure of Arab Islamism rather than some sort of deep ideological commitment to do it and it was largely caused by American foreign policy, but sure, do let a melding of Islamopohobia, clash of civilization and THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM rhetorics completely blind you to the realities of Islamic militancy.

I thought they attacked the US to provoke her to attack and occupy an Arab or Muslim country so they could draw her into a protacted guerrilla war and kill loads of American soldiers and bring the US down the same way they believe they brought down the Soviet Union,could be wrong though.

As for Iran they would of course be better off with the Shah or son still running the show at the very least they wouldn't have sanctions to worry about.
 

Typo

Banned
I thought they attacked the US to provoke her to attack and occupy an Arab or Muslim country so they could draw her into a protacted guerrilla war and kill loads of American soldiers and bring the US down the same way they believe they brought down the Soviet Union,could be wrong though.
Exactly, and failing to do so would mean that the Arab Islamist militant movement is more or less a complete failure at that point
 
I thought they attacked the US to provoke her to attack and occupy an Arab or Muslim country so they could draw her into a protacted guerrilla war and kill loads of American soldiers and bring the US down the same way they believe they brought down the Soviet Union,could be wrong though.

As for Iran they would of course be better off with the Shah or son still running the show at the very least they wouldn't have sanctions to worry about.
Well, that is only a part of Al-Qaedas plan. Their reason for attempting the Guerilla war in a muslim country is so that they can collapse the American economy (through high military spending or whatever), force the Americans to pull their troops and support for dictators out of the Middle East. However, they then plan to replace the western-propped dictatorships with a medievalist, Taliban resembling Khalifate where there will be no "sin", dance, or non-Muslims. No non-Sunni Muslims too come to think of it.

And Iran probebly would be a bit better off if the Shah was still in power, with the Iran-Iraq war not happening and what not. Still, no thanks to the Shah...
 

Cook

Banned
Without the Iranian Revolution there would not have been the unsuccessful attempt to rescue the Hostages from the American Embassy in Tehran. That failure resulted in a massive injection of money into American development of specialist equipment and training for hostage rescue and special operations. So US capabilities in that field would be less than they currently are.

There would not have been the Iranian Embassy siege in London and the successful hostage rescue there. That resulted in a big injection of money into counterterrorist training throughout the western world and demonstrated that hostage taking could be successfully defeated without excessive loss of live.
 
It's questionable whether Al Qaeda would have existed had the Shah surivived. The Islamic revolution in Iran was a huge inspiration to Islamists across the globe. You then have the impact on the Afghan war; the US can fund rebels through Iran and not Pakistan, strengthening monarchists and tribal forces at the expense of Islamists. Saudi Arabia too doesn't need to fund Pakistan in order to have an eastern bulwark against a revolutionary Iranian threat. This all adds up to make the Afghan jihad weaker and less well-funded, and also has the effect of not creating an ISI built with Saudi and American cash that is able to set its own foreign policy. With Iran as a US-friendly actor in Afghanistan, it's much less likely that the US is going to let its Afghan policy be dictated by Pakistan after the Soviets leave.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
The shah was not long for this world anyway. He died of cancer the year after he was overthrown. (Whether he was "helped" or not is an exercise for the reader.) His death would have provided the perfect opportunity for instituting economic and political reforms to stabilize the country. The Ayatollah remains in exile in France. (And why in the world did the shah or the CIA allow him to stay alive? Does anyone know?)

CIA failure: they thought he was just an insignificant angry priest.
 
Do not work that way. The Iranis are Shia, and most Pakistanis are Sunni. Also, Pakistan is an Islamic Republic OTL. Has been since it was born.

Thank you. Yes, Pakistan, Mauritania, Iran and Afghanistan are the four Islam republics today. But Egypt will most likely join them soon.


It is quite depressing to think that there are people prepared to kill dozens of innocents because of Pamela Anderson in a bikini but that is the World we live in! :D

The reason I used the U.S. troops in Saudi was because I always had the impression that it was "The infidels in the land of the Prophet" that was Bin Laden's main gripe and it had a strong emotional appeal to disaffected young Muslims. But as you rightly say, even if the troops had never been stationed in Saudi, Bin Laden would still have found plenty to object to in the rest of American foreign policy, especially it's support for the House of Saud.

No, that is incorrect. It only works on indoctrinated individuals that grew up with a radical version of Wahhabist Islam, like the Afghan refugees and orphans that formed the Taliban.

The emotional appeal used by Islamists is when the elite powers kill Muslims. It's mainly the Lebanon War of 1982 and the post Gulf War sanctions on Iraq after 1991 that gave birth to Bin Laden's hatred.


People here seem to be confused about the motivation of Al Qaeda. Instead of quoting everyone I'll just sum everything up. The best way to understand what they're trying to do is to listen to Bin Laden himself speaking.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=215913&page=1

"Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high-rises demolished over their residents rockets raining down on our homes without mercy the situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon?"

" And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children."

These are the most touching things Bin Laden has ever said. Please don't take this as meaning that I support him. I think killing innocents is never justified in whatever circumstance.

All terrorism before 1982 was nationalist and secular, by the PLO mainly. Islamists did operate in Egypt and Syria in the 1960's and 1970's but were brutally crushed. Iran turned Islamist 1979, the Arab world's Islamism started through Hezbollah of Lebanon 1982 to repel Israel, and later on Hamas of Palestine. The Arab Mujahideen returning from Afghanistan did participate in starting Islamist activities in Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, and all over the Arab world. And to track it down, Islamism got to Afghanistan through Pakistan which in turn got it from Saudi Arabia. Iran's Islamism was unique since it's Shiite, but it got to Lebanon, Iraq and Bahrain as a result.


Now, to address the thread topic:

If the Shah's regime continued to cling to power, then Iraq would not have attacked it. I'm not sure if Saddam Hussein would still get to power; he forced his predecessor to step down in 1979, the same year as the Islamic revolution.

Things look good for Israel. Both Egypt and Iran are out of the way in this timeline, thanks to the 1979 peace treaty. It was quite a fateful year.

Now, Syria, Iraq and the PLO have the common ideology of Arab socialism and nationalism, along with Egypt and Libya, but Egypt's out of the game now and Libya would continue being a source of Scuds when necessary, as in the OTL's Iran-Iraq war.

Now, Syria will not have an ally in Islamist Iran, and at the same time it's a rival of Iraq despite both of them being Baathist. I believe circumstances would lead the two to establish an alliance as the monarchies and Egypt move closer towards America and Iran. Although a pro-American Iran might well repel Saudi Arabia from joining America and Egypt. At the same time, the Saudis are traditional Anglo allies, and would probably turn a blind eye to Iran just as they do Israel today.

After things turned against him in 1982, Saddam suggested to stop fighting and to intervene in Israel's invasion of Lebanon, but Khomeini refused. At the same time, Iran founded Hezbollah in Lebanon, which eventually expelled Israel. After the civil war started in 1975, Israel thought it a good idea to take out the PLO and expand into Lebanon while both are weak, and it did just that. Shiite South Lebanon, the closest territory to Israel, was occupied and the Christians and Sunnis practically ignored it as they were the ones fighting. It all started with the PLO trying to take over the country and the Christians counter attacking. The Shiites had nothing to do with it and ended up paying the price for the quarrels of the others. Hezbollah emerged among them and become the dominant force quickly thanks to Syria and Iran.

Here, we might see Saddam, his hands free in this timeline, do the same, only with the secular, socialist PLO. Until his ousting in 2003, Saddam used to give 20,000 dollars to families of PLO suicide bombers. He was quite adamant in supporting them. Iraqi troops would've joined Syrian troops in Lebanon most probably, and an Arab socialist axis would live on, with or without Egypt. Syria had betrayed the PLO in favour of the Christians for access to the Mediterranean, but once Israel intervened on the side of the Christians, Syria immediately switched sides. This time, Syria's benefactor would share its same ideology, so we might see it imposed on Lebanon. Hafez El Assad of Syria would be happier.

Meanwhile, the PLO's Yasser Arafat, messed up big time. In Jordan he almost succeeded in overthrowing the monarch in 1970's "Black" September, but Pakistani, Iraqi and Israeli intervention counter-weighed Syria's and forced them to retreat, leaving Arafat to suffer a massacre by King Hussein. He then left to Tunisia, but Israel's air-strikes reached as far as there. In Lebanon he started a civil war. In Kuwait he supported Saddam Hussein. His Islamist rivals, Hamas under Sheikh Yassin, had replaced him with Syria and Iran. He was pretty much forced to accept the pointless Oslo Accords in 1993 along with Jordan as a result.

In this timeline, Iraq doesn't need to invade Kuwait, though Saddam's irredentism would get him there sooner or later. But the PLO still has a place to go to. There would probably be no Oslo Accord and Israel and the PLO would still be fighting. Invading Kuwait though would be a disaster as Iran is right besides him, so Saddam probably will refrain from angering the Americans. They wouldn't need him in this timeline since there would be no Iranian threat, so he won't believe they'll let him do whatever he wants.

I'm not sure where it goes from here. There might be a fifth Arab-Israeli war. Syria and Iraq would work together to form nuclear weapons.

Also, there's another, alternate possibility. They could join together and form a single state. Saddam's predecessor, Al Bakr, was making treaties with Baathist Syria in 1979. Iraq and Syria would become a single country, with Hafez as deputy under Al Bakr. But Saddam Hussein rose to power in July and Al Bakr resigned. The Shah fled his country in January and Khomeini returned in February. Perhaps without the Islamic revolution, Saddam wouldn't feel the need to assume presidency himself. I strongly feel he intended to strike Iran while it's weak.


Another important point was Afghanistan. As has been said, a strong capitalist Iran would definitely help in Afghanistan, if the Soviets invaded at all. Afghanistan might offer to help in exchange for territory in Afghanistan, which would probably be acceptable to the Soviets though objectionable with the Americans. This could possibly lead to the loss of power of the regime and eventual collapse. Socialism or Islamism? No one could know for sure. Pakistan's Sunni Islamists probably won't have any effect on the Shiites there.

Should the Shahs continue to rule to this very day, we'd probably have a very wary Arab socialist axis surrounded by capitalists and Islamists from all directions.

Should they turn socialist, things could get fun.

Should they turn Islamist at a later date, I think Iraq would invade, with greater success this time as it garners Syrian support. Or less if an Israeli war devastates Iraq, although lack of a border somewhat makes that difficult. The Americans might support Iran this time, just to bring down the Iraqi-Syrian alliance.

Another interesting possibility is a socialist coup in Jordan organized by Syria and Iraq. If the PLO and Syria can do it, then so can Iraq. If Jordan joins the socialists, Israel would pretty much lose territory to them. Since no peace with the PLO would have been made, the fighting would begin to wear them down, and the growing population of Palestinians would start to become a demographic threat. Maybe they'll leave both Gaza and parts of the West Bank to be governed by the Baath and Fatah, while keeping East Jerusalem and vital West Bank areas, as well as the Golan Heights.

Seeds of radical Islam would still persist, but will not sprout just yet.
 
I'm an optimist

Hi! This is my first post on AH
I remember having a short discussion in my SIG some time back on the 'What if?' scenario for Iran question- and the discussion, interestingly, turned towards the direction of the Economy, especially Industry and Tourism. If the Shah had been more compassionate towards his people, he'd have taken care of the Communist and the Khomeini problem much more easily. Of course, it could have taken some times, no doubt. But what made us really interested was this: The southern shores of the Gulf has all these states, from Iraq, Kuwait, to Ras Al Khaimah and Oman. However, on the Northern shores, its Iran all the way, all the way past Oman, and onwards on the Northern shores of the Gulf of Oman, right upto the border with Pakistan- a very strategic asset. I've heard many stories about how liberal and westernized Persia was before 1979 (Ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9-Weg31lss) and if that trend had continued, one of the things that could have been done by the regime would have been the development of Industrial zones right along the southern coast of the Gulf, which, I feel, could have given serious competition to the South Gulf states. Also, the entire southern coast would have probably emerged as a 'Persian Riviera', something akin to Dubai and Doha, but far better. I heard similar remarks from my friends in Iran who were quite disgusted with the current regime, and also expressed nostalgia for the days of the Shah. One could have even seen a reverse migration of sorts, all the way from the Shia Persian business folk from the Trucial states to Zoroastrians all around the world who would have liked moving a base in their spiritual home.
Of course, relations with US would have been quite strong, and if the Shah had a very good grip on his countrymen, and of the Americans were not quite so meddlesome, it would have made life much easier.
 
Hello Groomlake, and welcome to the forums.

Just a note of caution, first: responding to a thread that's been inactive for a long time (over a year in this case) is referred to as "thread necromancy", and is generally frowned upon around here. I don't think it's a violation of any rules, but it might get some nasty comments. Probably best not to make a habit of it.

Getting back to your comment, it's interesting to speculate about how the Iranian economy might have developed. However, as others have mentioned, I think a lot depends on how the Shah remains in power. If it comes at the expense of alienating and radicalising a significant portion of the population (and remember a lot of the southern strip of Iran is ethnically Arabic), then the "Persian Riviera" might not develop.
 
Enter The Necromancer...

...Writer's block and the pressure of everyday life can interfere in any TL. Shall we have a Revivalist meeting?:D
 
Imperial Iran doesn't butterfly away Carter's domestic FUBARing and the stagflated economy. Without Iran Ted Kennedy has a shot at denying Carter renomination since there will be no RRTF (Rally Round The Flag) effect ITTL. I still think he won't win due to structural weaknesses that were present from the outset and would definitely lose to Reagan in the general (Ted is the last Kennedy brother you want in a WWC election).

What do you mean by FUBARing Roguebeaver?
 
What do you mean by FUBARing Roguebeaver?

"FUBAR" is a noun which means Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition (I may have changed one of those words...). To FUBAR something is to foul it up beyond all recognition (using the noun as a verb), FUBARING is simnply the present tense of that verb.
 
Saddam Hussein might be one of the most popular dictators in the Middle East and a Middle Eastern version of Tito. He wasn't about to go to war with the Shah's Iran and in the earliest part of his dictatorship Iraq was making some pretty clear steps forward in terms of overall wealth. He'd still be a malevolent dick but without the Iran-Iraq War a lot of this would be glossed over just like Tito's dickery is glossed over.
 
Top