McCarthyism if Iran goes communist?

I'm doing some work on a TL idea that I've had batting around in my head for a while. The idea is that Tehran police chief Mahmoud Afshartous isn't assassinated and in the aftermath of the failed coup attempt against the PM he is in charge of regulating the rioting Tudeh forces. In OTL the man in charge subduing the protesters was an avowed monarchist who used the opportunity to brutalize the Communists and Pro-Mossadegh forces. Mahmoud Afshartous was far more wary of the Americans than Mossadegh, who had called on the crackdown against Tudeh rioters because of the Americans complaining about them, so the Tudeh forces aren't demobilized. Kermit Roosevelt and his cohorts manage to kill Afshartous when they launch their next coup attempt, but with the 8,000 Tudeh supporter in Tehran and the TPMO still mobilized and ready to fight causing the second coup attempt to be far more chaotic. With the situation even more chaotic than OTL as a result of the melee, the TPMO launches their own coup attempt, secretly arrests Mossadegh claiming that he was injured in the pro-Shah coup attempt and arrests many of the pro-America/pro-monarchist coup leaders.

With Iran's fall into the hands of communists how might this apparent failure of the West to prevent another country from falling to communism effect McCarthy and his crusade?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I think this will make a bigger difference for administration geopolitical strategy and calculations than for US domestic politics. McCarthyism was going to hit its peak in 53-54 and then the reaction was going to set in against it. I don't think Iran's situation would change this and prevent a paring back of some of the excesses or prevent the personal denunciation of McCarthy even while leaving a strong anti-communist residue.

The Eisenhower Administration will probably be knee-deep in covert support to tribal, religious and other rebels against a leftist regime. Hashemite Iraq and Pakistan will probably use the US's covert agenda to get alot of support for themselves.
 
It's likely that a Anglo-American military intervention would occur to swiftly roll back a communist takeover. Tudeh in Tehran means that the Soviet army can now establish bases in the Persian Gulf.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
It's likely that a Anglo-American military intervention would occur to swiftly roll back a communist takeover. Tudeh in Tehran means that the Soviet army can now establish bases in the Persian Gulf.

How far north could that intervention go? and where are the troops projected from? The Soviet Union and its larger ground forces may have some objections to an Anglo-American march right up to the Iranian-Soviet border. If approaching the Yalu river was too provocative in Korea, approaching the Araxes/Aras river in Iran is double dog dangerous.
 
When would this intervention in Iran happen though? I could see a US military intervention in Iran affecting domestic politics, even if the actual coup didn't. And the timing would have a big influence on what the domestic reaction was.

fasquardon
 
How far north could that intervention go? and where are the troops projected from? The Soviet Union and its larger ground forces may have some objections to an Anglo-American march right up to the Iranian-Soviet border. If approaching the Yalu river was too provocative in Korea, approaching the Araxes/Aras river in Iran is double dog dangerous.

Either the Soviets back down and permit a restoration of the status quo ante bellum (i.e. what they did in Iran in 1946 or they draw a "red line" and inform the Anglo/Americans that the northern quarter/third/half of Iran is going to be garrisoned by the Red Army, effectively partitioning Iran.
 
When would this intervention in Iran happen though? I could see a US military intervention in Iran affecting domestic politics, even if the actual coup didn't. And the timing would have a big influence on what the domestic reaction was.

fasquardon

when I postulated the question, I didn't think that there would be US military intervention in no small part because this is just a few months after the end of the Korean War. Who would the be intervening for? The Ayatollah Kashani was in Tehran so he would undoubtedly be arrested and the Fada'iyan-e Islam are based out of Tehran and Qom, both of which will quickly come under communist control. Plus there is the matter of the Soviets. With the Malenkov-Khrushchev duumvirate in its infancy, Khrushchev will have absolutely no choice but to intervene or lose face to Malenkov, plus unlike with the Suez situation in OTL, the USSR really can intervene on behalf of the new Iranian government.
 
when I postulated the question, I didn't think that there would be US military intervention in no small part because this is just a few months after the end of the Korean War. Who would the be intervening for? The Ayatollah Kashani was in Tehran so he would undoubtedly be arrested and the Fada'iyan-e Islam are based out of Tehran and Qom, both of which will quickly come under communist control. Plus there is the matter of the Soviets. With the Malenkov-Khrushchev duumvirate in its infancy, Khrushchev will have absolutely no choice but to intervene or lose face to Malenkov, plus unlike with the Suez situation in OTL, the USSR really can intervene on behalf of the new Iranian government.

All very true.

I wonder if a perceived failure in Iran will make the US more aggressive in Vietnam, or even Cuba?

fasquardon
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
All very true.

I wonder if a perceived failure in Iran will make the US more aggressive in Vietnam, or even Cuba?

fasquardon

The next "opportunity" to get aggressive will be in Vietnam,indochina to rescue the French effort in 1954......if Ike feels rattled enough to have to change his strategy to include heavy expensive conventional forces and operations.

An Indochina intervention means risking direct fights with Chinese, but not Soviets, unlike in Iran.

This actually all plays into a best case scenario for the USSR, pocket Iran and bog America down with Asian proxies.

Cuba will not even become a problem in anyone's mind until 1959, when the regime shows its colors, or possibly if there is early suspicion of Castro's insurgency in 58 or 57.

The first "opportunity" to "get tough" in the Americas is against Guatemala in 1954. The Iran failure could affect this in multiple ways. On the one hand, Ike would have less faith in CIA ops on the other a perceived red threat is even less acceptable and could be answered by a full US invasion. Or Ike could still let CIA give covert ops in Guatemala a try, and they could work.

Communist Iran in general, but especially if it has Soviet bases and an alliance, makes defense of the further Middle East a big big problem for the west and makes Pakistan and Iraq and Saudi Arabia even more critical allies.

Unfortunately for the the US even if both Iraq and Pakistan are genuinely spooked at the grassroots level by a communist Iran, more distant countries without negative experience with Russia, like egypt, Syria and India, will still be more worried about British and western imperialism rather than Soviet.

The communist gain of Iranian oil and access to the Persian gulf may even cause a reevaluation of western
Overall oil strategy. In otl, the us deliberately fostered western peacetime reliance on Mideast oil to both expand energy for the west and to leave more us oil in the ground as a usable reserve during WW3, during which the loss of Mideast oil was expected. In an ATL of Communist strength in the Gulf, the us may fear Gulf oil production facilities would quickly fall intact to Soviets and Iranians and so may feel continued maximal development and exploitation of American reserves is also demanded by the situation.
 
The first "opportunity" to "get tough" in the Americas is against Guatemala in 1954. The Iran failure could affect this in multiple ways. On the one hand, Ike would have less faith in CIA ops on the other a perceived red threat is even less acceptable and could be answered by a full US invasion. Or Ike could still let CIA give covert ops in Guatemala a try, and they could work.

Hm. I'd forgotten about Guatemala.

I wonder if a full US invasion would mean Guatemala turned out better than OTL? The civil war there was stunningly nasty.

I also wonder if the "failure" in Iran could actually shut McCarthyism down faster in the US? Might the feeling that the Communists are advancing everywhere (and maybe getting into a war in 1954 in either Guatemala or Indochina), get Americans feeling like they've got to pull together?

fasquardon
 
I wonder if a full US invasion would mean Guatemala turned out better than OTL? The civil war there was stunningly nasty.
a direct military intervention by the US in Guatemala, may have a lot of negative repercussions in the short them, but in the long term it could be beneficial to the US as it means that the Small Wars Manual won't go out of fashion and the US Army won't forget that the Marines know how to fight and win guerrilla wars. This could radically change the way the Vietnam War is fought.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I don't know how plausible a Communist takeover of Iran would be during the Cold War, but I would suggest that if domestic Communists of the Tudeh party seized power, the geography and the demography of Iran at least would lend itself well to consolidation of the regime. The top several cities, most of the population and arable land are much closer to the USSR and Caspian sea than to the Persian Gulf. Iran's east and south are more sparsely populated than it's north and west. Alot of Soviet aid could be passed over to a Tudeh Iran in relatively short train, truck and plane trips.

72782-004-0D1724AD.gif
 
I don't know how plausible a Communist takeover of Iran would be during the Cold War, but I would suggest that if domestic Communists of the Tudeh party seized power, the geography and the demography of Iran at least would lend itself well to consolidation of the regime. The top several cities, most of the population and arable land are much closer to the USSR and Caspian sea than to the Persian Gulf. Iran's east and south are more sparsely populated than it's north and west. Alot of Soviet aid could be passed over to a Tudeh Iran in relatively short train, truck and plane trips.

View attachment 304753
The oil however is down at the South, and that is probably what the West will be more concerned about:

456px-Iran_Oil_and_Gas_Fields.png
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The oil however is down at the South, and that is probably what the West will be more concerned about:

456px-Iran_Oil_and_Gas_Fields.png

true enough.

If the western powers, and the Iraqis, have b@lls to do so, they might decide at this time that Iraq has a perfectly legitimate claim to Khuzestan province, ethnically Arab, where *alot* of Iran's oil is concentrated.
 
So if Iran is divided along North-South lines, we're looking at an exceedingly wealthy South Iran(since the oil-to-population ratio is much more in their favour, and they're probably more likely to remain integrated in the American political-economic order) and an overpopulated and poor North Iran.
 
It's likely that a Anglo-American military intervention would occur to swiftly roll back a communist takeover. Tudeh in Tehran means that the Soviet army can now establish bases in the Persian Gulf.
Problem is that activates the Russo-Persian Treaty of Friendship, allowing the Soviets to intervene. There would be a standoff.
 
Didn't the Soviet government initially support two socialist states in Iranian Kurdstan and Azerbaijan?

Perhaps the Republican of Mahabad remains a successful venture, with no need for an unnatural split of Persia.
 
Top