No Second Iraq war, instead a possible war with Iran

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
Please forward me to some TL's regarding this, the POD I was proposing that is that the Administration of George W Bush decide not to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime. Because they come to believe there was no concrete evidence that linked Saddam Hussein's regime to Al Qaeda.

Instead the administration are convinced that both Iran and Hezbollah had a role in 9/11 terrorist attacks. The administration would undertake efforts to overthrow the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran, namely by actively supporting opposition groups.

It also could be possible that both the US and Israel both jointly invade Lebanon and crush Hezbollah. Regarding Iran such efforts would probably stop short of actual war, however if say the United States claimed some of their sailors were captured by Iran or said they found evidence of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Maybe the administration would declare war on Iran with the intent of overthrowing the Islamic Republic of Iran.

If a war with Iran went ahead, I expect I only limited support from other Western Countries. Britain and Australia perhaps, however that might be a long short. However such a war would follow a period of the administration undermining the regime by any means necessary. Such a war would be a lot more tougher than the Second Iraq war was with at least the IRGC fighting to the bitter end. Also more conversational than the Second Iraq War was in OTL. The war would be winnable for the United States, although it would last a while and there would be a considerable number of casualties.

However once the regime is defeated and a democratic government is established, a large section of the Iranian populace which opposed the rule of the Mullahs would welcome the Americans as liberators. The whole post war situation in Iran would be a lot more different than say it was in Iraq where people hated Saddam Hussein much more than the Americans.

There would be localized conflicts particular in the Kurdish majority regions and Balochistan for example. However nothing like the protracted insurgency which occured in Iraq in OTL.
 
Last edited:
Iran had considerably superior military and technological capabilities than 2003 Iraq, is a much more culturally and ethically unified country than Iraq, has absolutely beastly terrain for any invaders and was much less diplomatically isolated than Iraq was.

It would be a costly disaster for both sides and the US does not have the capability to defeat Iran without re-instituting the draft and significantly raising the military budget. Iran meanwhile lacks the capability to inflict meaningful damage on the US unless the US literally sticks its hand into the alley cat's mouth, but it does have the capability to endure until the US gets tired and goes home.

Iran may have an unpleasant regime, but it is not the caricature most news stories make of it.

a constitutional monarchy established with Reza Pahlavi as Shah.

I don't think you appreciate just how much the last Shah was despised. American support of that man is the root cause of why Iran gets along with the US so badly today.

fasquardon
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
Iran had considerably superior military and technological capabilities than 2003 Iraq, is a much more culturally and ethically unified country than Iraq, has absolutely beastly terrain for any invaders and was much less diplomatically isolated than Iraq was.

It would be a costly disaster for both sides and the US does not have the capability to defeat Iran without re-instituting the draft and significantly raising the military budget. Iran meanwhile lacks the capability to inflict meaningful damage on the US unless the US literally sticks its hand into the alley cat's mouth, but it does have the capability to endure until the US gets tired and goes home.

Iran may have an unpleasant regime, but it is not the caricature most news stories make of it.

I am actually quite interested in different views, because it is a project in the medium term I want to do. A timeline that eventually up with a war between the USA and Iran.

However I don't believe the USA would immediately go to war. Rather it would take time to support opposition to the Iranian regime, subvert the Iranian regime by any means possible and develop a plan for a Iran once it was "liberated". This whole process would take a few years.

I don't think you appreciate just how much the last Shah was despised. American support of that man is the root cause of why Iran gets along with the US so badly today.

fasquardon

I actually appreciate that feedback, I will re-edit my post accordingly. Frankly I don't have much of an idea how a post US conquest Iran would be like. The USA would probably help in establishing a secular Republic of Iran.
 
Last edited:

Philip

Donor
This is simply not going to happen. The US can not ensure the Straits of Hormuz will remain open in a general war. Limited strikes, sanctions, stomping feet, sure. However, as soon as the Iranian government fears for its survival, they close the Straits.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
This is simply not going to happen. The US can not ensure the Straits of Hormuz will remain open in a general war. Limited strikes, sanctions, stomping feet, sure. However, as soon as the Iranian government fears for its survival, they close the Straits.

There is closing the Straits of Hormuz and then there is closing the Straits of Hormuz.
If the US is as prepared for a conflict as the OP speculates - which I am not so sure on but regardless - they will be prepared to act against an Iranian attempt. Such a scenario as the OP plots as well would mean that there will be measures taken by shipping companies and oil traders to mitigate the effects. Those might not work but would be tried.
Now, if Iran did this out of the blue, closed the Straits with mines and attacks on ships all of a sudden, then it is a different story in all ways.
 

Philip

Donor
If the US is as prepared for a conflict as the OP speculates - which I am not so sure on but regardless - they will be prepared to act against an Iranian attempt. ...
Now, if Iran did this out of the blue, closed the Straits with mines and attacks on ships all of a sudden, then it is a different story in all ways.

It will take months for the US to look for allies and secure Congressional authorization. Once it is clear that a full scale US attack is coming, Iran would be in the position of acting or losing the ability to act. My guess is we quickly find out if Millennium Challenge 2002 was an accurate simulation or not.
 
Last edited:

Philip

Donor
BTW, I don't think it ever gets to this. In the 2nd Iraq War, the US climbed that it was operating under UN authority (United Nations Security Council Resolution 687) left over from Desert Storm. Without this cover, I don't see how Congressional approval can be achieved.

On the diplomatic front, I see Japan and South Korea quietly emphasizing their reliance on oil coming through the Straits. The Saudis quietly express concern about the US's ability to counter the Iranian missile threat against their eastern coast facilities. Russia and China prevent any UN resolutions.
 
What about a limited intervention in Arabistan? The bulk of their oil is there and Saddam might be convinced.

Of course such a degree of Machiavellianism wouldn't go down too well in some quarters, but in those days anger could easily trump sense.
 
Top