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!
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.