No Islamic Revolution

Operation Ajax broke the third mentioned force and paved a war for Khomeini and the Islamic Republic Rise.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I think it is fairly widely accepted that Iran under the Shah was a US puppet state; or if not an actual puppet state, it was true that the Shah stayed in power almost entirely due to CIA support.
That's a bit dicey to say, frankly. The Shah stayed in power because he had so much money to throw around that he guaranteed himself the loyalty of the military leaders. Not to mention SAVAK which, though it did receive some aid and training by the CIA, was a stunningly skillful organ in its own right. Also, while the Shah was certainly pro-Western, he was a very deft international politician; the US knew they didn't have to fuck with him and the Soviets knew they couldn't afford to.

This was one of the reasons why many Iranian liberals and indeed many Western left-wingers/liberals initially supported the Islamic Revolution.
Stop calling it that. It's an illegitimate name and a blatant and misleading piece of Islamist revisionism.
I think one way to do it, is have no coup occur in 53. Granted you would have to change alot of things including Ike's support for it, or just have Iran not nationalize its oil. Of course that might not prevent a revolution from happening anyway.
The '53 coup was going to happen anyways. Frankly, the US is given far more blame in the whole thing than it deserves. A lot of the opposition was homegrown. The Iranian military leaders just weren't all that sure how to go about planning a coup, so when the British feelers met those of the discontented Iranian generals, the former convinced the Americans to come in and help too.

I really don't see why there would be a revolution if Mossadegh was successful down the line. It's not like people hated him more than they did the Shah, and without the flamboyant displays of materialism and greed, pro-Westernism, SAVAK, and friendliness with Israel, most people (including the clergy) will have little (of substance) to complain about.
 

ninebucks

Banned
One of the former hostages (the Army Attache' IIRC) had done a tour in Iran in 1963-65 as part of the Military Advisory And Assistance Group, and remarked in a book after the hostages came home that the Shah had a chance to kill Khomeni in 1964 after the latter spoke out against the Status of Forces Agreement between the U.S. and Iran (which presumably included when and where SAC bombers could use Iranian bases in the event of war) and was tossed into the slammer. The Shah was planning to have Khomeni tried and executed, but there's a local rule: don't kill an Ayatollah, so Khomeni was made an Ayatollah while he was awaiting trial, so the Shah had no choice but to release him. If the Shah had had the guts, saying "Holy man or not, he's still a traitor!" a lot of unpleasantness there since '79 would've been avoided.

Khomeini wasn't a threat in 1964.

The Shah's task was to balance the Leftist and Islamist oppositions to his regime, in the '60s, the Leftists were more powerful, striking at the Islamists then would have just empowered them more.

Since Baathism is a racist Arab-Nationalist ideology that hates Persians just as much as Jews and Kurds, I highly doubt it.

Did you not hear about the Iran-Iraq war? Well, I can hardly blame you, it only just started thirty years ago.

'Racist' is a bit harsh. Yes, Saddam didn't enact it very well, but at its heart, Baathism is an ideology that promotes secular, rationalistic, pan-Arab nationalism.
 
Stop calling it that. It's an illegitimate name and a blatant and misleading piece of Islamist revisionism.

Well, it is in the name of the thread ('No Islamic Revolution') and the commonly accepted name for that event.

What would you suggest is a more appropriate name?
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Well, it is in the name of the thread ('No Islamic Revolution') and the commonly accepted name for that event.

What would you suggest is a more appropriate name?
I always use the term "Iranian Revolution."

It's not like I don't understand using the term "Islamic Revolution," and you're quite right to say that it is a commonly accepted name for the event, but it still rubs me the wrong way. It's like calling the French Revolution the Jacobin Revolution.
 
'Racist' is a bit harsh. Yes, Saddam didn't enact it very well, but at its heart, Baathism is an ideology that promotes secular, rationalistic, pan-Arab nationalism.

I agree that Baathism isn't inherently any more racist than any other form of nationalism(I.E. Russian Nationalism, Irish Nationalism, Zionism, etc.) but the point is there's no way Baathism is going to be successful in a non-Arab country and I'm not sure why it's any more "rationalistic" than any other nationalism or similar ideology.
 
If the Shah somehow dodges the bullet in 1979, he will have to keep doing it. As as already been pointed out, killing Khomeini isn't enough. Khomeini wasn't the only cleric with political aspirations, he wasn't even the first (consider Ali Shariati).

The Shah had been confronted by mass protests etc. more and more frequently as we approach 1979. Every time the army/SAVAK etc. used force to put it down, but they still kept happening. One of the fundamental problems is the Shah's reforms didn't entirely succeed and alienated a lot of other traditionalists (not just the clerics either). Without doing something about the fire, the water will always boil in the end. So it only became a matter of time before the repressive organs wouldn't do it any more... which is pretty much what happened in 1979. Killing an ayatollah might actually have just accelerated the collapse of 1979.

Didn't the Shah have cancer or something? Can't remember when he died.

Anyhow, if you somehow significantly delay or magically prevent the Shah's fall. I think you would see:
- An Iranian nuclear program. It was the Shah's pet project to start with anyway.
- The Afghan war will probably prompt more aid to Iran, it might even steal some of Pakistan's thunder.
- Hezbollah would be more like Hamas without the early funding and training from the IRGC. As a result, the Israeli army might still be in occupation of part of Lebanon.
- Not sure what impact this would have on Hamas... probably doesn't do them any favours though.
- Probably no Iran-Iraq war, though some kind of border clash isn't out of the question. They had been rattling sabres at each other for quite a while.
- No Iran-Iraq war could change everything for Saddam. He won't be in massive debt by 1988, but he still has dreams. On the other hand his military will probably be an even bigger joke without the learning experience.
- Syria feels very lonely without it's Shia friend and a stronger Iraq.
- Really stretching the bow, the Bosnians might be in more trouble. In the early stages of the Bosnian war the Iranians were one of the few states willing/able to back the Bosnians.
- You know what probably won't change? Islamic terrorism as you know it today. The Sunnis still have their Sayyid Qutb, Afghanistan war etc. to get fired up about.
 
If you buy a couple of years, the Shah might abdicate to his son, as his health worsens, might lead to more flexible approaches.


Yes Iranian nuclear program. Raises some ugly possiblities if Iran goes bad say 20 years later...

No Iran/Iraq war. Saddam only invaded because Iran was so disorganized after the revolution, not to mention cut off from spare parts for US equipment (maybe eurpean to, don't remember.)

A US allied Iran, with a far larger population, and a larger and better equiped military...

NOt an invasion canidate!:)

Good point about aid to Afganistan. NOt having the aid funneled though Pakistan's tribal regions could have some major impacts on post war Afganistan.

Having a strong pro-western ally as a neighbor, who might continue aid and contacts during that period...

After all the Shah strikes me as the type to want neighbors both friendly and dependant.
 
Perhaps when things get bad, the Shah abdicates in favor of his son?

That might placate the Iranian population, which didn't like the Shah very much at this point.
 
Perhaps when things get bad, the Shah abdicates in favor of his son?

That might placate the Iranian population, which didn't like the Shah very much at this point.

I think that the crown prince was being trained as a pilot in the states at the time, which isn't necessarily going to endear him to many people. The shah abdicating in favor of his son might help, but for a lot of people its just going to be seen as him trying to stay afloat.
 
As a lot of other posts on this thread have emphasized, the Shah managed to turn 90%+ of Iranian society against him by the late 1970's, and something like 1979 was pretty much inevitable. Killing Khomeini won't change that.

The best chance the Shah has, IMO, is agreeing to some form of constitutional monarchy during the early protests in 1978 (this was the original demand of the protestors-when the Shah started machine gunning them down in the streets of Tehran, they radicalized and began demanding his abdication).

Also as pointed out, the Iranian Revolution was at first conducted by a large coalition of groups-the Khomeinists, the Tudeh (Communist party), the People's Mojehadin (who followed a wierd combination of Islamism and Socialism), and pro Western Liberals. After the fall of the Shah, Khomeini-helped by the hostage crisis and the Iran-Iraq war, which put Iran into a siege mentality-gradually turned against and destroyed the other groups that had took part in the revolution. (The People's Mojahadin pretty much killed themselves with a monumentally stupid decision to actively support Saddam Hussien during the latter stages of the war, which most Iranians-quite understandably-saw as high treason)

To return to the OP, removing Khomeini (or Saddam's attack on Iran and the subsequent war) might make the revolution go in a different direction (which could make for a very interesting TL in itself), but the Shah is toast.
 
I always wonder and if there hadn't been any war against Israel by the arab states how would the cold war have played out in the Middle East?
 
Top