Iran, but industralised

[Honcho]

What if Iran, in its exact current geopolitical position, was a fully industrialised country, capable of producing its own technology, agriculture, weapons, and material goods, and didn’t have to rely on outdated technology and importing goods from other countries? And its economy wasn’t resource based. What would it’s economic and political impact on the Middle East, and ultimately the rest of the world be?

 

[Arkenfolm]

What if Iran, in its exact current geopolitical position, was a fully industrialised country, capable of producing its own technology, agriculture, weapons, and material goods, and didn’t have to rely on outdated technology and importing goods from other countries? And its economy wasn’t resource based. What would it’s economic and political impact on the Middle East, and ultimately the rest of the world be?

With a strategic point on the Indian Ocean and especially the Persian Gulf (control of much of the world's oil), Iran is already very strategically important. If we assume some Iran-wank, where the Qajars are reformed with few problems (Constitutional Revolution of 1907 goes insanely well or something, and isn't reverted by external influence), and a worse Great War and Russian Civil War causes both Britain and Russia to have even worse fates than OTL, and Iran can somehow capitalise on everything based on these facts, then Iran is powerful indeed. Bahrain, which was once ruled by Iran, should stay under their rule as an autonomous region (but their economy controlled by Iran).

As historically, Iran is easily the hegemon of the Middle East in this situation, as they're striving to be OTL (opposed mainly by Saudi Arabia). With the population, economy, and resources, no Arab state can match Iran, except maybe Egypt. For Muslim states, only Turkey (if it isn't Ataturk-style secularist) and Pakistan (if it even exists) could challenge Iran. Iran also has the incentive to minimise religion (to prevent Sunni-Shia conflict, as a Sunni minority exists in Iran) and maybe go for a Russian alliance in the mid-20th century, opposing the British (the 19th century defeats of the Qajars, which lost the Caucasus and bits of Afghanistan, probably won't be reversed no matter what Iran does) and other Western powers. A stronger Iran and a suitable ruler--Republican, Qajar, or even Pahlavi--could potentially stand up to any US coup pressure and if the US still tries for a coup, could cause major embarassment for the US.

But a non-resource based Iran is hard. Oil and natural gas will always remain big in any Iran. There's also other mineral resources which Iran can (and does) exploit which renders such an Iran challenging. The most realistic Iran would probably look most like modern Russia in terms of economy. I'd replace the various "religious"-based "charities" in Iran with other groups, preferably nationally-owned groups which actually provide welfare and charity (or just good jobs with good wages which benefit Iran) instead of helping facilitate government corruption in among the worst possible manners. If they must be corrupt, then just have the equivalent be "Iranian oligarchs", created after some ill-advised privatisation. Oil wealth in good times should be used to build the base of other potential economic sectors.

The overall (and best) result could be about 82 million Iranians (but with the demographic transition having been much earlier, and the population growth almost static) and a GDP per capita over twice OTL Iran, thanks to this alternate Iranian history, no revolution, etc. That means a GDP per capita of perhaps 11-13K, and a total economy of over a trillion dollars, about that of Mexico and Indonesia. A moderate Iran (if they're officially religious, they aren't overtly so) could promote themselves as a stable anchor in the Middle East, and with their energy sector (fossil fuels and later solar energy) be a great ally for either the USSR or the US. Iran would perhaps be best in charting a non-aligned policy (historically Iran suffered greatly thanks to being divided between British and Russian influences), but a lot depends on what the US and USSR/Russia do in the region, and potential rivals like Iraq (who would never dare attack an industrialised Iran) and Saudi Arabia do. If Israel exists, then they should be of no concern to Iran, as Iran should maintain it's Jewish community and what they have to offer for the country.

This Iran would have some indigenous defense industries (which could see exports in the Arab World and Africa), but would also in parts be relying on the US, USSR/Russia, and China.

 

[jerseyguy]

The discovery of oil in Iran would've happened eventually, with all the benefits and drawbacks that come from being a petroleum dependent developed economy. If you can avoid the revolution, the Iran-Iraq war, or the post-revolution sanctions, Iran would be a developed economy or upper-middle income country by now.

The Shah implemented land reform and reinvested oil funds into public education, infrastructure, agricultural science, and public health. It all depends on the political evolution up to the present day. Iran could've ended up more like Indonesia or the East Asian tigers where rapid economic development eventually led to democratization.

Iran could emphasize a more secular nationalist Persian identity and build a sphere of influence among other Persian nations like Afghanistan and Tajikistan, or play up ties with other Shia nations like Iraq.
A more pro-US Iranian regime could result in an alt Gulf war great power conflict where Iran knocks the Saudi monarchy out of power, or produce a mini Anschluss where Bahrain rejoins Iran (A Sunni monarch ruling a mostly Shia population that had been part of Iran until the 19th century).

 

[Honcho]

The discovery of oil in Iran would've happened eventually, with all the benefits and drawbacks that come from being a petroleum dependent developed economy. If you can avoid the revolution, the Iran-Iraq war, or the post-revolution sanctions, Iran would be a developed economy or upper-middle income country by now.

How do you avoid the revolution? In spite of the shah’s ‘white revolution’ reforms, the Iranian revolution still happened, and was supported by most political segments of Iran’s society, not just limited to Islamists. Also, would an Iran still under the pahlavis be a client state to the US, a la Saudi is OTL and like Iran was similar to prior to the revolution, or would it be mildly allied towards the US, but still ultimately Pursuing its own foreign policy, more like Turkey? Also, how would Iran have influence in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq etc like it does OTL?

 

[walmart]

If Iran doesn't go through the Islamic revolution that means no Iran-Iraq or the Gulf war or the American invasion which means that Iraq will remain hostile to Iran. Syria won't ally with a pro-american or pro-Israeli Iran so no Iranian sphere in Syria or access to Lebanon.

 

[Honcho]

If Iran doesn't go through the Islamic revolution that means no Iran-Iraq or the Gulf war or the American invasion which means that Iraq will remain hostile to Iran. Syria won't ally with a pro-american or pro-Israeli Iran so no Iranian sphere in Syria or access to Lebanon.

Are you sure iraq wouldn’t invade? Even before the revolution, Iran and Iraq were having territorial conflicts, and with Saddam at the helm and considering his views on Persians and Persian rule over what he considers an Iraqi territory, an Iraqi invasion of Iran seems inevitable. Syria also had major problems with the Iraqi Ba’ath party, which could make them naturally partners. Syria participated in the coalition in the first gulf war OTL. With Iran as by far the largest and most powerful Shia state, Hezbollah becoming close to them also seems inevitable, even if they were secular. Think how Turkey is officially a secular republic, but will still back Islamist groups that represent their interests, against Shia groups and Saudi backed Sunni groups.

 

[jerseyguy]

How do you avoid the revolution? In spite of the shah’s ‘white revolution’ reforms, the Iranian revolution still happened, and was supported by most political segments of Iran’s society, not just limited to Islamists. Also, would an Iran still under the pahlavis be a client state to the US, a la Saudi is OTL and like Iran was similar to prior to the revolution, or would it be mildly allied towards the US, but still ultimately Pursuing its own foreign policy, more like Turkey? Also, how would Iran have influence in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq etc like it does OTL?

The Shah's Iran was a demographic precursor of the youth bulge that led to the Arab spring in a way. If the Shah passes away earlier in the '70s or is somehow incapacitated and his son takes power, that may be a trigger for some kind of reforms to head off dissent.

It's probably an overused comparison, but the Shah seems very similar to the Czar's rule in Russia. He obstinately refused any reforms and alienated the more moderate oppositions, turning constitutional monarchs into republicans and creating a coalition that agreed on almost nothing but that the shah had to go.

A POD in the 50s or earlier may be necessary to head off the Iranian revolution as OTL. There was also a very large leftist contingent involved in the revolution, but they were purged by the Islamists during the Iran-Iraq war. If the Shah is assassinated and there is a power vacuum, a civil war between leftists and islamists may be feasible that turns into a mega-Afghanistan.

 

[walmart]

Are you sure iraq wouldn’t invade? Even before the revolution, Iran and Iraq were having territorial conflicts, and with Saddam at the helm and considering his views on Persians and Persian rule over what he considers an Iraqi territory, an Iraqi invasion of Iran seems inevitable.

Iran is three time bigger then Iraq,The reasons why Saddam invaded in OTL was because Iran was in chaos, purged it's military, and was international isolated.

Syria also had major problems with the Iraqi Ba’ath party, which could make them naturally partners.

Expect Syria main focus is on Lebanon and Israel not the desert separating Iraq and Syria. Iran without the revolution is still allied to arch-enemy Israel and America and can not give support against them.Without the Islamic revolution the attempts of the 1970s to reconciliation the two ba'athist parties will continue.

With Iran as by far the largest and most powerful Shia state, Hezbollah becoming close to them also seems inevitable,

Hezbollah wouldn't exist without the Islamic revolution as it's foundation was based on the ideology of Ayatollah Khomeini.Also why would Iran in the first place support a movement which is opposed to it's ally Israel ?

 

[fasquardon]

What if Iran, in its exact current geopolitical position, was a fully industrialised country, capable of producing its own technology, agriculture, weapons, and material goods, and didn’t have to rely on outdated technology and importing goods from other countries? And its economy wasn’t resource based. What would it’s economic and political impact on the Middle East, and ultimately the rest of the world be?

It's worth noting that Iran is already one of the more industrial places in the world. Like Turkey, they are a "middle income" country. Also, due to decades of being frozen out of most of the world's trade flows, they're unusual in being able to produce so much military hardware at home and are one of the few countries that can produce their own microchips (of course, of types that are 20-30 years behind what Taiwan can produce, but most countries in the world don't even have that).

It's not unreasonable to get Iran to an even higher level of development than OTL, however.

Avoid the Iran-Iraq war (or at least the long, drawn out fustercluck of OTL - have Iran defend itself better in the early stages, or have Khomeini realize that the rest of the world will not let him win), avoid the Islamic Revolution, avoid the CIA coup against Mossadegh, avoid the brutal Anglo-Soviet occupation during WW2, avoid the even more brutal Anglo-Russian occupation during WW1 (despite not being a belligerent nation during WW1, Iran suffered one of the worst death tolls during the war).

How do you avoid the revolution? In spite of the shah’s ‘white revolution’ reforms, the Iranian revolution still happened, and was supported by most political segments of Iran’s society, not just limited to Islamists. Also, would an Iran still under the pahlavis be a client state to the US, a la Saudi is OTL and like Iran was similar to prior to the revolution, or would it be mildly allied towards the US, but still ultimately Pursuing its own foreign policy, more like Turkey? Also, how would Iran have influence in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq etc like it does OTL?

Not arbitrarily torturing his subjects would have sure helped avoid the revolution. As would the Shah actually committing to tyranny and crushing the revolution in its embryonic stages. Unfortunately, the Shah was too much of a brutal tyrant and too much of a softie.

And even if the Iranian revolution still happens in an ATL, it doesn't have to be won by the Islamists. The liberal democrats were also strong (ironically, they were strongest among the clergy). The Communists were weak, but they did have a non-zero, if very small, chance of coming out on top. And there was always the chance that the conservatives could win, and Iran remains a monarchy, only with some of the worst parts of the Shah's regime pushed back (note, some of these "worst" elements would not look bad from our perspective, not being 70s Iranian conservatives, but I think any objective observer could agree that SAVAK was evil).

fasquardon