No Operation Ajax: Iran, an American ally?

Given how operation Ajax and the the US/UK coup would eventually cause Iran to really hate us, what would happen if that didn't happen?

Say the President refused to go through with the coup idea and even tried to dissuade the UK from going with it? How would things be with a secular Iran and such? (From what I gathered, before Eisenhower?, the US actually sympathized with Iran nationalizing their oil.)
 

Ak-84

Banned
Zero chance. The US was committed in the 1950's to preserving European Colonial Empires and sepheres of influence. Might as well ask them not to oppose communism.
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
Zero chance. The US was committed in the 1950's to preserving European Colonial Empires and sepheres of influence. Might as well ask them not to oppose communism.

It was? Given the way decolonization ended up this sounds a bit top bizarre to me to be honest.
 
Zero chance. The US was committed in the 1950's to preserving European Colonial Empires and sepheres of influence. Might as well ask them not to oppose communism.

So much so that in 1956, the USA fully supported the Anglo-French operation in Suez.

Or the US full support of French involvement in Algeria.

Or ...

Your comment is so much out of kilter with what happened in the 1950s that I suspect there has been a typo somewhere.
 

Pangur

Donor
So much so that in 1956, the USA fully supported the Anglo-French operation in Suez.

Or the US full support of French involvement in Algeria.

Or ...

Your comment is so much out of kilter with what happened in the 1950s that I suspect there has been a typo somewhere.

The above captures it all quite well. It true that the US did muck around in French indochina as it was called then however thats the sum of support for supporting Europeans keeping their colonies
 

Ak-84

Banned
So much so that in 1956, the USA fully supported the Anglo-French operation in Suez.

Or the US full support of French involvement in Algeria.

Or ...

Your comment is so much out of kilter with what happened in the 1950s that I suspect there has beesen a typo somewhere.
....fully supported the French in Indo-China
the British in Kenya
Apartheid in South Africa
 
....fully supported the French in Indo-China
the British in Kenya
Apartheid in South Africa

1. Yes.
2. So much so that they pressured McMillan towards the Lancaster House agreement. Not that McMillan needed much pressuring.
3. Which has what to do with European Colonial Empires? Apartheid was set up by the National Party in an independent South Africa. If you're saying that 1950s South Africa was part of the European Colonial Empires, then we've got a problem on defining terms.
 

Ak-84

Banned
1. Yes.
2. So much so that they pressured McMillan towards the Lancaster House agreement. Not that McMillan needed much pressuring.
3. Which has what to do with European Colonial Empires? Apartheid was set up by the National Party in an independent South Africa. If you're saying that 1950s South Africa was part of the European Colonial Empires, then we've got a problem on defining terms.
2. In the 60's, not the fifties, at a time of changing policy.
3. Namibian occupation

I also forgot support for Portugal in Africa.

US policy towards Colonial Empires can be divided into three zones post-1939. FDR, who opposed it vehemently and often clashed with Churchill on it. Post-1948 Truman, who although he claimed to be against Colonialism supported the Euro powers on retaining their hold, arms, and money. This continued until the late Ike period (Dulles saw Commies basically everywhere) and then supporting national liberation when seen as inevitable (and often after the USSR had established itself in a place).

1956 was smack in the middle of the second period. Chances of Dulles et al not interfering? Zero. Nada.
 
Look, we're getting off-track and if we're going to be debating implausability, then there's no really point in discussing alternate history, is there?

Assume it's because the USA figured it would not be worth it and could risk alienating Iran to Russia if the coup was discovered.
 

Deleted member 1487

Assuming the overthrow doesn't happen, the US would be very much interested in keeping Iran out of the USSR's orbit. So yes it could happen.
 

Archibald

Banned
About the French Indochina war. America dragged its feet until 1950 and the war in Korea. From that day until 1954, they helped.

How leftist was that unfortunate Mossadegh ?
 
May take POD a decade or two back. Perhaps with the Soviets continueing their support of breaking off the Kurdish and Azeri parts of Iran, or to get areas from Turkey claimed for Armenia, Georgia, and Lazistan. Highly unlikely though, as it would be a lot of effort for a lot of risk. I suppose having some monarchists or American-styled capitalists and army officers in charge might make the US more amiable to the country. Hmmm... was this all before or after Iran left Qatar?
 

Deleted member 1487

About the French Indochina war. America dragged its feet until 1950 and the war in Korea. From that day until 1954, they helped.

How leftist was that unfortunate Mossadegh ?
Leftist enough to make the US and UK in the 1950s extremely uncomfortable, especially when he tried to nationalize the oil industry. He was pretty socialist, but not really that pro-Soviet AFAIK.
 
Understandable. I guess what I'm interested in is not how it would happen, but on the rammifications. What would the situation in the Middle East be like if Iran didn't suffer through the coup? I imagine they'd be on good relations with the USA and cut them better oil deals than the British (they'll eventually make up with the British.)
 

Deleted member 1487

Understandable. I guess what I'm interested in is not how it would happen, but on the rammifications. What would the situation in the Middle East be like if Iran didn't suffer through the coup? I imagine they'd be on good relations with the USA and cut them better oil deals than the British (they'll eventually make up with the British.)
Depends on how the British play it. The Iranians would have somewhat better finances and be less reliant on the military/secret police for regime protection and have great public buy in to the government/social changes. The question is what does the USSR do?
 
Depends on how the British play it. The Iranians would have somewhat better finances and be less reliant on the military/secret police for regime protection and have great public buy in to the government/social changes. The question is what does the USSR do?
The USA will probably tell the British to jsut emphasize more on the Arabian peninsula for their oil.

Iran for sure would be a while lot better off and be able to do alot of good for their people.

I'm not entirely sure on what Iran's stance on the USSR was at the time, but I figure they would keep their distance away from them and the British because of bad history regarding the Great Game. The USSR might try and influence Afghanistan as a counterbalance.

I'm curious as what effect this will have on Saudi Arabia and future nations like Iraq.
 
Top