Iran's Military without the Islamic Revolution

[TheMann]

Well I agree with you, but they very much did want them. Iran provided a lot of funding for Project Flower and intended to use the technology to create their own missiles. Whilst this is destabilizing the region as you mentioned, I tend to believe that the US would side with the Iranians over the concerns of the Arabs, who quite frankly aren't the most trustworthy allies when compared to the Iranians. This could drive the Saudis into the arms of the Chinese who would have no qualms about giving them any sort of weaponry they desire.

You are correct, but the United States won't want anybody having nukes in that part of the world. The Saudis are highly unlikely to turn to the Chinese unless America gets to be seen as an unreliable ally. Otherwise, I don't think they'd bother, and even if Iran gets nuclear weapons, the United States may well be able to get the Saudis to calm down some. After all, the Israelis (who the Saudis despised more than the Shah in his day,
though Khomeini's wish to export his religious fanaticism changed that....) had nukes by the late 1960s. If the Americans are being power brokers in that part of the world, they may be able to prevent proliferation, particularly if Iran's government changes over time to something a little more reasonable, which would be a must if the Shah is to remain in control of the country in any form.

I think one interesting point is what happens socially to this Iran. I'm guessing that the end result eventually would be changes to the government allowing the Shah to give up more power to the Majlis, allowing them to make real laws but still giving him some control over the country. A sorta-democratic, oil-rich, industrially-developed and well-educated nation is the sort that can make real waves in the world in pretty much any area. Does Tehran do this? Does the Shah's dream of Tehran being a major center between East and West happen and if so, what does that do? If the nation can be a story of a highly-advanced, wealthy Muslim nation, does that change the perceptions of Muslims in the West, particularly after 9/11? Or perhaps the post-9/11 divisions between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims extend to the view of Shi'a Muslims being 'good' as opposed to others being 'bad'?

Being that with Iran on side the US can tell Pakistan to take a hike, does that improve relations with India? Does Iran's wealth and influence help the Palestinians? Or perhaps their Shi'a brothers in Lebanon or their friends in Syria? Does Pahlavi extend his wishes to help to Muslims in non-Shi'a nations?

 

[Matt Wiser]

Iran had a letter of intent for 70 additional F-14s as well as 10 C-5As, but no order for both had been placed prior to the Revolution.

You do realize that the Shah did have terminal cancer (Pancreatic), so that his eldest son (a serving IIAF officer) takes the throne? His son was likely to be less autocratic than his father, so the reforms outlined above probably occur.

 

[Have Blue-117]

You are correct, but the United States won't want anybody having nukes in that part of the world. The Saudis are highly unlikely to turn to the Chinese unless America gets to be seen as an unreliable ally. Otherwise, I don't think they'd bother, and even if Iran gets nuclear weapons, the United States may well be able to get the Saudis to calm down some. After all, the Israelis (who the Saudis despised more than the Shah in his day,
though Khomeini's wish to export his religious fanaticism changed that....) had nukes by the late 1960s. If the Americans are being power brokers in that part of the world, they may be able to prevent proliferation, particularly if Iran's government changes over time to something a little more reasonable, which would be a must if the Shah is to remain in control of the country in any form.

Well I mentioned the Chinese because they did sell the Saudis some CSS-3s and the Chinese don't really have any qualms about selling such weapons to anyone so long as they have the cash. About a change in government, the Shah was not in very good health and would have died in 1980 like OTL, meaning his son would have taken power. AFAIK he was a moderate and would probably be more open to a compromise on nuclear weapons with the Saudis. Its not really like they needed nukes anyway, they could curbstomp the Saudis or anyone else in the Middle East and the immediate area perhaps barring Egypt, Israel, and Turkey.

I think one interesting point is what happens socially to this Iran. I'm guessing that the end result eventually would be changes to the government allowing the Shah to give up more power to the Majlis, allowing them to make real laws but still giving him some control over the country. A sorta-democratic, oil-rich, industrially-developed and well-educated nation is the sort that can make real waves in the world in pretty much any area. Does Tehran do this? Does the Shah's dream of Tehran being a major center between East and West happen and if so, what does that do? If the nation can be a story of a highly-advanced, wealthy Muslim nation, does that change the perceptions of Muslims in the West, particularly after 9/11? Or perhaps the post-9/11 divisions between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims extend to the view of Shi'a Muslims being 'good' as opposed to others being 'bad'?

As mentioned above when Reza's son takes power he would probably institute more democratic reforms, paving the way for a secular constitutional monarchy. I would imagine them to be along the lines of Turkey, but much more powerful and influential overall with a significant industrial and technological sector. As far as changed perceptions, imagine one of the worlds most powerful and influential nations, both muslim and a significant US ally, among the first nations to join and fight alongside the US in Afghanistan. There would definitely be less prejudice and stereotyping in America, it would be noticeable. Anything else, I can't really say because I don't know.

Being that with Iran on side the US can tell Pakistan to take a hike, does that improve relations with India? Does Iran's wealth and influence help the Palestinians? Or perhaps their Shi'a brothers in Lebanon or their friends in Syria? Does Pahlavi extend his wishes to help to Muslims in non-Shi'a nations?

Well the Shah wanted to improve his relationship with India even though he didn't really trust them, so by now I think they would be pretty close on most matters. Pakistan is just driven further into China's sphere than it already is, but without any US aid or equipment. The other two I really can't say, but I think an Iranian mediated settlement on Palestine would definitely happen, perhaps with Iran providing security for the Palestine as a part of the deal.

 

[abc123]

... though not as much as one might think (not a photoshop)

I wonder how smart is for Iran to rely on nuclear power plants considering that Iran is earthquake prone area ( as recent 7-8 Richter quake in Pakistan shows )? After all, all of this before Chernobil, so I think that after Chernobil Iranian investment in nuclear power will slow down...

 

[Sulemain]

I would guess that Iran without a revolution would turn into a semi-constitutional monarchy a la Jordan.

 

[jmc247]

I would guess that Iran without a revolution would turn into a semi-constitutional monarchy a la Jordan.

The U.S. should have pushed them that way in the late 50s. By the 70s rolled around what Iran needed was a Constitutional monarchy as the UK has, just with a more powerful and influential monarch.

We have this moronic belief and this WH and much of the country has been infested with it again that dictators mean stability in the Middle East. No, they mean short term stability on the back of repression, while discontent builds in the mosques fostering radical Islamic views and when the regime weakens the so called stability falls apart.

 

[Sulemain]

The U.S. should have pushed them that way in the late 50s. By the 70s rolled around what Iran needed was a Constitutional monarchy as the UK has, just with a more powerful and influential monarch.

We have this moronic belief and this WH and much of the country has been infested with it again that dictators mean stability in the Middle East. No, they mean short term stability on the back of repression, while discontent builds in the mosques fostering radical Islamic views and when the regime weakens the so called stability falls apart.

Well, Jordan has survived to the present day with a semi-constitutional one.

Civil liberties and a strong civic society do not need fully democratic government, although some form of representation is of course essential.

I would argue that the Shah's buying plans were in many ways infeasible. I think in terms of skill, the Iranian Military would resemble Israeli's, a 1st rate Air Force, with the F-14, F-16 and F-18 as primary types, a 2nd rate Army with mainly British equipment, and a 3rd rate Navy with a few heavy units, but mainly FACs and submarines. Also, there would be a hell of a lot of helis.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Well, Jordan has survived to the present day with a semi-constitutional one.

Civil liberties and a strong civic society do not need fully democratic government, although some form of representation is of course essential.

Problem is that the majority of the installed leaders are military strongmen who see rule through oppression as a good idea. They aren't exactly going to endear themselves to the populace over time, nor will they have a high incentive to institute a democratic process, since they've usually just overthrown it anyways.

The Hashemite monarchy in Jordan has the advantage of being more canny than the surrounding quasi-fascist dictators in more ways than one.

 

[Panica]

For Airforce

F-20 Tigershark!
Since the own F-5 it would logical step and they would build them in Iran..
After unsuccessful attempts to sell F-20 Northrop looks on last Chance Iran:
Shah likes it: From major parts assembled in Iran....

For Next century after US refusal to sell F 22. And debacle of F-35 one interesting options remain. Super Tomcats! With their huge space for radar AESA
With power out put that even small land based radar would not be ashamed. Improved engines using technology from 5 gen fighters employing thrust vectoring. Fly by light.... All these developments led to best fighter in world just behind F-22... Rumours circle that US navy wants them too!

For Close support some one would say ... well Shah compensation for something...

Yeah they bought A-10B, But since major competitor Iraq is not much keen on fighting at night. It is doable seat version. After modernization in 1992 it can fire Hell fire missiles and fight at night! New engines were installed since their family develop over the years more thrust and endurance is guaranteed!

For tanks Shah wanted to build Iranian too so With their goo relation with Israel they build Merkava Licence copy albeit with Rhinmetal L 55 Cannon. And ARENA, and drozd from Ukrain... And as good measure Heavy IFV in Isreal Called NAMER is in production employing 30 mm gun and SPIKE LR missiles ....

 

[Æsir]

No Iranian revolution with sunshine and roses great power Iran holding a sphere of influence from Somalia to Australia, and we're still talking about President Dubya, 9/11, and the Arab Spring?

 

[TheMann]

I would not call Iran in any world exactly a sunshine and roses country - Iran is highly nationalistic and pretty much always has been. What it would be is a very strong middle power, buoyed by an advanced economy and vast quantities of resource wealth. Would it butterfly the Gulf Wars - Saddam would not dare strike at Iran in this world, as he'd promptly get his head handed to him. Hence, Saddam isn't gonna attack Kuwait, as that part of the world will end up with a Persian vs. Arab Cold War which Saddam will have to be a part of in order to avoid him having problems inside his own borders. Whether Iran pushes Arabs together or apart is an open question, but the Gulf Arabs will definitely have some issues with Iran. Not quite the OTL issues, but the Saudis, who see themselves as the defenders of Islam's true path and it's holy land, will NOT like a very powerful Iran.

I'd like to say this butterflies 9/11, but I doubt it. It would make it much easier to deal with the Taliban, mind you, as there is no problems with logistics as Tehran will surely not want to see those responsible for such destruction not be held to account. The Arab Spring is a tossup.

 

[Workable Goblin]

I'd like to say this butterflies 9/11, but I doubt it. It would make it much easier to deal with the Taliban, mind you, as there is no problems with logistics as Tehran will surely not want to see those responsible for such destruction not be held to account. The Arab Spring is a tossup.

It is actually very, very likely. Even OTL Iran has been playing its own game in Afghanistan since pretty much the beginning; without the convulsions of the revolution, likely significant support via the United States, and plenty of wealth and resources on its own, Iran could supplant Pakistan as the dominant supporter of anti-Soviet resistance forces in Afghanistan. This would have substantial effects on the formation of al-Qaeda, among other things, and could redirect a certain fraction of that activity towards Iran rather than the United States. It is extremely probable that this would significantly alter the early composition and makeup of al-Qaeda, if it even exists at all, which could lead to entirely different strategies being adopted and hence no 9/11 attacks.

 

[Alratan]

I'd like to say this butterflies 9/11, but I doubt it. It would make it much easier to deal with the Taliban, mind you, as there is no problems with logistics as Tehran will surely not want to see those responsible for such destruction not be held to account. The Arab Spring is a tossup.

I'd say it doesn't butterfly 9/11, it directly removes it as an almost inevitable result of the PoD. A strong Iran means there's no Iran-Iraq War, which means there's no Gulf War, which means no US troops in Saudi, which was one of the main rallying calls that al Qaeda used to gain support.

Without that, it should remain a much smaller organisation focused more squarely on the Middle East.