Khanzeer

Banned
Only under iranian imperial leadership
Persians Well never considered Afghans as equals they might only have the parts that are traditionally Persian like Herat maybe qandhar Which has always been a bone of contention between safavid and mughals
The rest of Pashtun heartland will be under local fiefdoms
 
Only under iranian imperial leadership
Persians Well never considered Afghans as equals they might only have the parts that are traditionally Persian like Herat maybe qandhar Which has always been a bone of contention between safavid and mughals
The rest of Pashtun heartland will be under local fiefdoms

Why did Iranians never considered Afghans as equals?
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Think about it
Iranians have a pedigree of established dynastic rule for thousand plus yrs
Afghans Other than a few exceptions of their Warrior kings holding parts off sub continent and present day of Afghanistan for brief periods of time have always been warring tribal factions
Even abdali the afgan father of nation was a prodigee of Nadir shah of Iran
 
Think about it
Iranians have a pedigree of established dynastic rule for thousand plus yrs
Afghans Other than a few exceptions of their Warrior kings holding parts off sub continent and present day of Afghanistan for brief periods of time have always been warring tribal factions
Even abdali the afgan father of nation was a prodigee of Nadir shah of Iran

Afghanistan has been part of Iran for a while. Most even speak Farsi.

Have you met humans? :winkytongue:

Just asking lol.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Afghanistan has been part of Iran for a while. Most even speak Farsi.



Just asking lol.
In middle east
Iranians are the French, in terms of dominant culture
Arabs are the English, best merchants
Turks are the germans, best soldiers

Horrible generalization ofcourse , apologies if I offended anyone
 
In middle east
Iranians are the French, in terms of dominant culture
Arabs are the English, best merchants
Turks are the germans, best soldiers

Horrible generalization ofcourse , apologies if I offended anyone

Arabs have also been extremely influential throughout history and have had a cultural impact on Iran. Just saying.
 
Is it possible for Iran and Afghanistan to be part of one country after WWII? How can this be possible? Can it stick together? And how does that affect things?

Hm. Well. After WW2, Afghanistan in OTL was solidly in the Soviet sphere of influence until the 1970s. Iran was initially divided between the Soviets and the British, but eventually fell unto the US sphere of influence until the revolution.

Assuming Stalin does a better job of playing the Soviet cards in Iran after WW2 and the coup against Mossadegh fails messily, which could push Iran into the arms of the Soviets I have a hard time seeing the Soviets wanting to encourage Iran and Afghanistan to unite. Similarly, if the US somehow gained ascendancy in Afghanistan (I don't know how, it's hard to see the US gaining the sort of power projection to turn Afghanistan early in the Cold War absent a complete Soviet collapse, and if the Soviets do collapse, there's few reasons for either the US or the Afghans to want such a union) I don't see why they'd want to encourage such a union.

So the only option I can see is some alternate Islamic Revolution bringing the two together.

There was a point at which the Iranian Revolution could have gone many ways, Khomeini and his followers aren't the only Islamist faction that can come out victorious, so it is within the realm of possibility that some faction wins in Iran that spreads well to Afghanistan. "Spreading well" requires not only appealing to a sufficiently influential group within Afghanistan, it also means not alarming Iran's neighbours. In OTL, everyone around Iran was pretty darn scared of the Islamic revolution spreading.

Hmmm. Here's one idea (and one I think is very unlikely, but it's within the realm of possibility), let's say that Khomeini's bunch win power after the Iranian revolution as OTL and the Soviets don't invade Afghanistan in December 1979 as they did in OTL. As a result, Afghanistan continues its slide into chaos, President Amin seeks American support to try and stabilize his regime (and maybe also help grab that land he wants off of Pakistan), which means that Iran isn't upset by the Soviets invading their neighbour but is instead alarmed by the US moving forces into that same neighbour. As a result, Soviet attempts to woo the Islamic Republic go much better than OTL and the two form an outright alliance by mid 1980 or so. In the face of this alliance, either Iraq doesn't invade at all, or invades anyway but due to Iraq now attacking a Soviet ally and due to Iran being a key partner in dealing with Afghanistan, the Soviets drop the Iraqi alliance and decisively backs Iran, leading to the Iraqi invasion being utterly crushed. In Afghanistan, now the Soviets have an ally, they get the Iranians to invade to unseat the Amin regime and install a compromise "Islamic Socialist Republic" - basically just a grab-bag of ideologues and pragmatists who will keep Afghanistan stable for the Soviets while being sufficiently Islamist to satisfy the Tehran regime. So TTL's Afghan war starts with a US-backed Communist regime fighting against an Iranian invasion backed by Soviet funding and hardware in alliance with pro-Iranian Afghan tribes (I don't expect Amin would last very long though - likely he is overthrown by someone the US finds easier to work with and Pakistan's ISI finds more ideologically appealing at some point in the first years of the conflict). Let's say that while Iran are a little weaker in terms of technology and equipment, they more than make up for it in having more support inside Afghanistan than OTL's Soviet invasion, so by the end of the 80s, the Iranians have won their war in Afghanistan.

Let's further assume that this Iranian-Soviet alliance doesn't save the Soviet Union and it collapses in the early 90s (an Iran-Soviet alliance could definitely alter the Soviet collapse, but let's say that in this TL it doesn't substantially alter it). In the aftermath of the fall of Communism, the Afghan regime grows even closer to their remaining patron, and eventually, in order to give their shared revolutionary ideology a fill-up on some year with a greater than average set of foreign policy setbacks, Afghanistan holds a plebiscite to legitimize unification with Iran, forming one Islamic Republic.

fasquardon
 
But there is one problem forming Islamic Republics in Iran and Afghanistan and uniting them. Iran is Shia and Afghanistan is Sunni and hence there is little chance for them to be co-operating, not to speak of uniting. What is the basic reason for the enmity between Iran and Saudi Arabia, if not Shia-Sunni rivalry.
 
There was a point at which the Iranian Revolution could have gone many ways, Khomeini and his followers aren't the only Islamist faction that can come out victorious, so it is within the realm of possibility that some faction wins in Iran that spreads well to Afghanistan. "Spreading well" requires not only appealing to a sufficiently influential group within Afghanistan, it also means not alarming Iran's neighbours. In OTL, everyone around Iran was pretty darn scared of the Islamic revolution spreading.

Hmmm. Here's one idea (and one I think is very unlikely, but it's within the realm of possibility), let's say that Khomeini's bunch win power after the Iranian revolution as OTL and the Soviets don't invade Afghanistan in December 1979 as they did in OTL. As a result, Afghanistan continues its slide into chaos, President Amin seeks American support to try and stabilize his regime (and maybe also help grab that land he wants off of Pakistan), which means that Iran isn't upset by the Soviets invading their neighbour but is instead alarmed by the US moving forces into that same neighbour. As a result, Soviet attempts to woo the Islamic Republic go much better than OTL and the two form an outright alliance by mid 1980 or so. In the face of this alliance, either Iraq doesn't invade at all, or invades anyway but due to Iraq now attacking a Soviet ally and due to Iran being a key partner in dealing with Afghanistan, the Soviets drop the Iraqi alliance and decisively backs Iran, leading to the Iraqi invasion being utterly crushed. In Afghanistan, now the Soviets have an ally, they get the Iranians to invade to unseat the Amin regime and install a compromise "Islamic Socialist Republic" - basically just a grab-bag of ideologues and pragmatists who will keep Afghanistan stable for the Soviets while being sufficiently Islamist to satisfy the Tehran regime. So TTL's Afghan war starts with a US-backed Communist regime fighting against an Iranian invasion backed by Soviet funding and hardware in alliance with pro-Iranian Afghan tribes (I don't expect Amin would last very long though - likely he is overthrown by someone the US finds easier to work with and Pakistan's ISI finds more ideologically appealing at some point in the first years of the conflict). Let's say that while Iran are a little weaker in terms of technology and equipment, they more than make up for it in having more support inside Afghanistan than OTL's Soviet invasion, so by the end of the 80s, the Iranians have won their war in Afghanistan.

Let's further assume that this Iranian-Soviet alliance doesn't save the Soviet Union and it collapses in the early 90s (an Iran-Soviet alliance could definitely alter the Soviet collapse, but let's say that in this TL it doesn't substantially alter it). In the aftermath of the fall of Communism, the Afghan regime grows even closer to their remaining patron, and eventually, in order to give their shared revolutionary ideology a fill-up on some year with a greater than average set of foreign policy setbacks, Afghanistan holds a plebiscite to legitimize unification with Iran, forming one Islamic Republic.

Hmm, so basically an Iran eventually run by the People's Mujahedeen (or at least with the MEK taking part in the creation of the Iranian political system from the beginning w/o jumping into bed with Saddam and all that)? There's an interesting (and scary) thought.
 
But there is one problem forming Islamic Republics in Iran and Afghanistan and uniting them. Iran is Shia and Afghanistan is Sunni and hence there is little chance for them to be co-operating, not to speak of uniting. What is the basic reason for the enmity between Iran and Saudi Arabia, if not Shia-Sunni rivalry.

IIRC, though, early on in the Iranian Revolution when Khomeini's group won, there was no clear indication that it would lead to a Jafari Shia/Khomeinist interpretation of Islam because of the usage of more pan-Islamic language. That was what terrified a lot of the MENA countries that what happened in Iran could happen to them (and even more so the incident at the Grand Mosque in Mecca). In that sense, keeping a more pan-Islamic orientation could help rather than opening up long-closed up wounds.
 
Is it possible for Iran and Afghanistan to be part of one country after WWII? How can this be possible? Can it stick together? And how does that affect things?

Why? Afghanistan's non-alignment after World War II (though leaning somewhat toward the Soviets after Daoud became Prime Minister in 1953) was satisfactory to both superpowers and Iran would take enormous risks in trying to upset it. And she had no desire to do so. Yes, Persia had controlled Afghanistan before 1747, but that Afghanistan was an independent country had long become part of the accepted status quo in Asia. To the extent that there was any talk of Afghanistan uniting with or at least confederating with another nation, it was with Pakistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan–Pakistan_relations#Confederation_proposal

I suppose it is just conceivable that a dispute over the water rights of the Helmand River could lead to war between Iran and Afghanistan: "Prior to 1979, the year in which both Iran underwent the Iranian Revolution and Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviet Union, the issue of water rights of the Helmand River were an issue of great importance between the two nations. Disputes over the Helmand water are noted in the 1870s, flaring again after the river changed course in 1896. In 1939, the kings of the two countries signed an accord to share water rights, which was signed but never ratified; this was repeated in 1973 with a treaty between the prime ministers of both nations, and again not ratified." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan–Iran_relations But such a war was very unlikely, and even if it came about would no more have led to Iran occupying all of Afghanistan than the India-PRC border conflict led to China occupying all of India... (Anyway, Afghanistan's real border problem was with Pakistan over the unity of the Pashtuns.)

There certainly were historic and linguistic ties between Iran and Afghanistan (the majority of Afghans speak a variety of Farsi). But against that, differences in religion (Shia vs. Sunni) and two hundred years of independence backed by all the major powers make a union impossible.
 
Last edited:
But there is one problem forming Islamic Republics in Iran and Afghanistan and uniting them. Iran is Shia and Afghanistan is Sunni and hence there is little chance for them to be co-operating, not to speak of uniting. What is the basic reason for the enmity between Iran and Saudi Arabia, if not Shia-Sunni rivalry.

Not really. The Sunni-Shia split can be bridged and the Iranian Revolution can easily go down a path where the pan-Islamic parts of its ideology are reinforced.

The religious difference is an irritant that exacerbates problems, but it doesn't make things impossible.

Far bigger issues would be things like tribal autonomy and actions by external powers. I don't see this as a path to a happy Iran or Afghanistan by any means, they'll have difficult relationships with their neighbours and hated enemies of the Saudis and Americans... Probably this TL is better for Afghanistan and about the same for Iran. Definitely a long way from ideal for the people in both.

Hmm, so basically an Iran eventually run by the People's Mujahedeen (or at least with the MEK taking part in the creation of the Iranian political system from the beginning w/o jumping into bed with Saddam and all that)? There's an interesting (and scary) thought.

Hmm. Now that is an interesting thought. Yes, they could be an interesting group to gain power in an alternate revolution.

For a late revolutionary PoD, I was more imagining it would be Khomeini's bunch, only with an ideology that had been warped by their alliance with the Soviets and the requirements of the fight in Afghanistan. Changed by a mix of different necessities and different inspirations of the alternate course.

fasquardon
 
Hmm, so basically an Iran eventually run by the People's Mujahedeen (or at least with the MEK taking part in the creation of the Iranian political system from the beginning w/o jumping into bed with Saddam and all that)? There's an interesting (and scary) thought.

Scary for the US. Also, assuming a similar thing happens in Afghanistan I can only wonder what happens when pan-Iranism comes into the mix.
 
Top