Soviets support Mossadegh

What does it take for the Soviet Union to openly and substantively support Mohammed Mossadegh's government during the Abadan crisis, possibly including financial support and opening of Eastern markets in response to English blockade, selling hardware to the Iranians (either civilian tankers or military equipment), sending technicians to Iran to train the Iranians, moving the Red Army to be prepared to support Iran in the event of an invasion, or sending ships of the Red Fleet to the Persian Gulf for "freedom of navigation" if they could pass the Suez or if Stalin felt like sending them the long way round?

What are the consequences if this happens? We see with the Suez Crisis five years later that the USA and CCCP were prepared to not directly oppose one another in the Middle East, so I'm not 100% sure that it would mean the US moving to completely support the British in a military manner as opposed to planning coups. If Operation Ajax happens as OTL does the MGB organise a counter-coup to try and get Tudeh in power? What are the long term ramifications?
 
Last edited:
You get him deliberately overthrown in a well supported coup, unlike the OTL one that the USA did on the cheap with the CIA that worked far better thn it should have.

Kozy with the Communist USSR would kill his popularity with the Clerics even more than OTL
 
You get him deliberately overthrown in a well supported coup, unlike the OTL one that the USA did on the cheap with the CIA that worked far better thn it should have.

Kozy with the Communist USSR would kill his popularity with the Clerics even more than OTL

That sounds almost like a civil war in the making...

& would the US be interested in committing that much resource investment if it looks like conflict with the Soviets might break out?

Again, they didn't in Egypt five years later.
 
What does it take for the Soviet Union to openly and substantively support Mohammed Mossadegh's government during the Abadan crisis, possibly including financial support and opening of Eastern markets in response to English blockade
How does England mount this blockade? It has no armed forces.
 
Didn't the Soviets and the Iranians have a lot of long standing tension? Besides competing border claims the Soviets had occupied the northern half of the country for a couple years past ww2 (the Brits had occupied Southern Iran as well). And getting open support from the Soviets would probably cause a great deal of resentment from more religious and rural Iranians. Maybe the US ends up supporting Mullahs or someone else to install an islamic republic.
 
Didn't the Soviets and the Iranians have a lot of long standing tension? Besides competing border claims the Soviets had occupied the northern half of the country for a couple years past ww2 (the Brits had occupied Southern Iran as well). And getting open support from the Soviets would probably cause a great deal of resentment from more religious and rural Iranians. Maybe the US ends up supporting Mullahs or someone else to install an islamic republic.

The Soviets had not only occupied the northern half during WWII, but had violated their agreement to leave Iranian territory after the war, instead supporting separatist states in Iranian Azerbaijan and Kurdistan. Furthermore, they had demanded a share of Iran's oil for their withdrawal, which the Iranians agreed to, but then reneged on with British and American support. Basically, the British and Americans were seen as a threat to national dignity and prosperity. The Soviets were seen as a threat to the territorial integrity of the nation itself. Tudeh had suffered a lot from Stalin's policies, and Mossadegh was far too much of an establishment figure to align with the USSR. Not to mention that the Shah would have got a chance to oust him even earlier with Western support.
 
Alright, so what would it take for Mossadegh to be able to play the West and the Soviets off one another? The obvious parallel to me is Tito, though Mossadegh was much more scrupulously a little-d democrat than the Yugoslav. Are the differences too great, or could Iran successfully avoid either side becoming dominant?

As an alternative, what would it get for Ike's reaction to the Iran crisis to be more similar to his reaction to the Suez crisis?
 
Top