PC/WI: UK Embassy stormed instead of US

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
Inspired by Korean's thread about US hostages being killed in Iran.

What if, instead of the US embassy being overrun and the staff being taken hostage, its the UK embassy?

Would there be a rescue operation implemented?

What type of operation would it involve?

Would it work?

Would it be depend on wether Callaghan or Thatcher was PM?

Regards filers
 
Britain didn't have enough power projection at this point to stage a rescue.

It does beg the question of exactly why the British embassy got stormed, though. If the Shah tried to flee to the UK I guess that might do it.
 
Britain didn't have enough power projection at this point to stage a rescue.

It does beg the question of exactly why the British embassy got stormed, though. If the Shah tried to flee to the UK I guess that might do it.
Pick any reason. IIRC at the time the mullahs hated the British more than the Americans.
 
AFAIK the Iranian people have a long standing dislike of Britain so it might have more popular support than storming the American Embassy.

Other than threatening to send Kate Adie I don't see what the British Government could do about it.

And on the subject of Kate Adie it probably butterflies away the Iranian Embassy siege of 30th April to 5th May 1980 because the British would have broken off diplomatic relations and deported the staff back to Iran.
 
It also gives Carter a better chance at re-election without the 'xxx days of the hostage crisis' running across the bottom of US TV screens.
 
The traditional response of British governments to citizens in trouble overseas is to send all aid short of help. I see no reason why this would change here.
 
Lets assume for a second it happens on the date OTL crisis, that means Thatchers in charge. I don't think see will be able to do much and it just makes her Premiership much weaker and her early years were weak before the Falklands. This might mean she might not have the political strength to do monetarism and if the Tories look weaker there might be no gang of four especially if the governments falls and theres an early election
 
The British embassy was occupied a couple of days after the US embassy and hostages were taken. However, the occupiers soon departed, I've seen a suggestion that Khomeini didn't want to get into a stand off with the British and the Americans at the same time. http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1979/nov/06/tehran-british-embassy
If the British rather than the US embassy underwent prolonged occupation then it is possible that US-Iranian diplomatic relations wouldn't have been severed and the continued presence of US diplomats in Iran might lead to a better mutual understanding and a less confrontational relationship. This is probably unlikely though.
 
It also gives Carter a better chance at re-election without the 'xxx days of the hostage crisis' running across the bottom of US TV screens.

And that could easily result in Nightline being butterflied away. As for Carter's chance at re-election it would depend on how his approval ratings are without a Hostage Crisis involving the country (Carter's approval ratings actually went up due to his approach in handling the Crisis due to a "Rally around the Flag" effect). It also doesn't change the fact that the Economy was still faltering, and Energy shortages will likely still happen. Most likely it could easily result in Carter losing the Democratic nomination to Ted Kennedy.
 
The traditional response of British governments to citizens in trouble overseas is to send all aid short of help. I see no reason why this would change here.
promoguy.jpg
 
The traditional response of British governments to citizens in trouble overseas is to send all aid short of help. I see no reason why this would change here.

That's actually a line I've heard attributed to Churchill, in regards to Canada's contribution to various British military endeavours.

Not sure why he'd say that, since we were there for the Boer War, World War I and World War II. Though I'm also not sure WHEN he is supposed to have said that.

Possibly just one of those fake quotes people like to toss around, in this case, maybe Canadian right-wingers complaining about our lack of military spending.
 
The British embassy was occupied a couple of days after the US embassy and hostages were taken. However, the occupiers soon departed, I've seen a suggestion that Khomeini didn't want to get into a stand off with the British and the Americans at the same time. http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1979/nov/06/tehran-british-embassy
If the British rather than the US embassy underwent prolonged occupation then it is possible that US-Iranian diplomatic relations wouldn't have been severed and the continued presence of US diplomats in Iran might lead to a better mutual understanding and a less confrontational relationship. This is probably unlikely though.

I could not see diplomatic relations between the US and Iran remaining regardless due to anti US sentiment by many Iranians unfortunately (They will still hate the US for supporting the Shah anyway). Most likely the US Embassy in Tehran ends up being closed anyway as well as the Iranian Embassy in DC by either Khomeini or Carter forcing the decision to sever diplomatic relations (Anti Iranian sentiment will still exist in the US).
 
That's actually a line I've heard attributed to Churchill, in regards to Canada's contribution to various British military endeavours.

Not sure why he'd say that, since we were there for the Boer War, World War I and World War II. Though I'm also not sure WHEN he is supposed to have said that.

Possibly just one of those fake quotes people like to toss around, in this case, maybe Canadian right-wingers complaining about our lack of military spending.
 
It also gives Carter a better chance at re-election without the 'xxx days of the hostage crisis' running across the bottom of US TV screens.

And that could easily result in Nightline being butterflied away. As for Carter's chance at re-election it would depend on how his approval ratings are without a Hostage Crisis involving the country (Carter's approval ratings actually went up due to his approach in handling the Crisis due to a "Rally around the Flag" effect). It also doesn't change the fact that the Economy was still faltering, and Energy shortages will likely still happen. Most likely it could easily result in Carter losing the Democratic nomination to Ted Kennedy.

The core reasons Carter lost were the economy and inflation. It would have been less of a wipeout without the Hostage Crisis, but Presidents don't get reelected when people are paying north of 20% interest rates on their mortgages.
 
Top