Iranian-Afghan War in the late '90s

MrHola

Banned
Over the summer of 1998, the Northern Alliance lost Mazar-i-Sharif to the Taliban. During the taking of the city, the Iranian Consulate was attacked. Eight staff members were killed. Additionally, a journalist also lost his life. Iran claimed that the Taliban had taken another 70 Iranians, mostly truck drivers, prisoner as well. At the time, the Iranian leadership grew even more angry over the whole situation when they came forward with what was claimed to be irrefutable proof that the attack on the consulate had not only been deliberate, but had been ordered by the Taliban's leader, Mullah Omar.

OTL, the Iranians whipped up public support and then moved 70,000 troops to the border. There they exercised for a planned invasion. Between September and November, the captives were released and the situation at least cooled down. So let's run the WI: the Taliban were extremely obstinate with the US, let's just give them the same Brain Eater attack with the Iranians. We've beaten the Persia horde time and again (true or not): let them come!

September 1998, 70k Iranian troops swarm across the Herat (IIRC). If they are half way competant, I suspect that they'd roll up the Taliban without a sweat. They'd prolly not endear themselves to the locals, esp. the Pashtuns/Pathans, because the differences of Sunni vs. Shia. Also, when the guerilla attacks take place, the Iranians are going to pull no punches. The interesting question is "How will Pakistan respond?" The Taliban of OTL were at least in part supported by members of the Pakistani intelligence agencies. A Shia run Afghanistan is probably not something that the Pakistanis want to see. At all.

This also throws interesting butterflies into everybody's favourite terrorist's plan: does it get disrupted? Does this even effect it? After all he might just relocate to Sudan or Somalia or elsewhere. So WI?
 

Ak-84

Banned
I am new here.

Now I read the timeline posted and I find it while immensly griping and readable, it is also highly unrealistic. The writer seems to be laboring under a burden, whereby he has little knowledge of the area and its problems except from what has been gleaned from sources which give the barest overview.

The fundamental flaws are

1) Pakistan has since its foundation always had a policy that there can not be a hostile western flank. This has been the policy of all Pakistani governments, of whatever stripe consistantly. Its a bit like Britains policy of not allowing one power to dominate on the continent.

Historically, the Iranians backed down when the GOP, told them in no uncertain terms that a war in Afghanistan would mean one with Pakistan as well.

2) The writer gives exteremly insufficient attention to the many logistical problems that Iran would have, Firstly it has only one road into both Herat and Kandahar regions. In Kandahar sector, there is no direct link. They have to first cross the border at Zaranj, then go for over a hundred miles to Delaram, then swing southeast and go another 150 miles to Kandahar. Incidentally crossing two rivers to get their (Helmand river and another whose name escapes me now) . Herat is simpler, but they will again rely on a single road (from Taybad I think)

Also you don't allow for the fact that moving troops to the Afghan border, is a massive logistical exersize of its own. They don't have troops or their support infrastructure in place and they' have to move them. I was also surprised to see the result of the aircombat between the PAF and the Iranians. PAF pilots have something like 5 or 6 times more flying time than Iranian ones, and more importantly, they

i) have bases at Quetta, Smaguli and Dalbandian, which are active, have the support infratructure and logistics in place.

ii) Also Pakistan has radar coverage all over the areas, deep into Afghanistan (a legacy of the Afghan war) while Iran has very patchy if any radar coverage there.

iii) Pakistan also has a whole corps (60,000 men) in Quetta (the XII Corps) and another one in Peshawar (XI Corps). They can also move within a week two more corps from C Pakistan to the region. All in all they have a lot of capability to act in theater if they so desire. Far greater than Irans


I also think that the writer overplays the Shia-Sunni divide wrt Pakistan. Since pakistan is a Sunni majority country, he makes the mistake of presuming that Pakistan is a Sunni country. Pakistan was founded by a Shia, at present its PM is Shia, at the time of the story, two of the three services chiefs would be Shia, as would have been the PM just a few months earlier.
 
I am new here.

Now I read the timeline posted and I find it while immensly griping and readable, it is also highly unrealistic ...

Greetings, AK. If you provide the same sort of knowledge to the board with all of your posts as you did with this one, I have no doubt you'll be well received.
 

Ak-84

Banned
Thank you. I am hardly a resovoir of knowledge, far from it actually. But, I am familiar with the area and its problems.
 
Top