What if Iran had executed their American hostages?

RousseauX

Donor
yeah I think the carter administration pretty much have to at least bomb Iran at that point I mean, if 50 americans die you probably have to kill at least 50 Iranians via bombs to placate the American public
 

RousseauX

Donor
Anyone who says we would do anything more than a limited bombing campaign or maybe send more military supplies to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War obviously doesn't know much about foreign policy. I mean really, do you think that the world is going to stand idly by and say its fine if we drop a nuclear weapon on Tehran? That we raze it to the ground? Any sympathy we might have had would go immediately out the window.
it doesn't matter to an American government approval polls from US public > international opinion because international opinion doesn't cast ballots in the next electoral cycle
 

RousseauX

Donor
Do not think Carter would ha 've taken military action,but Reagan would ha e lite the tan and the whole country of iran like the 4thof julyan hour after taking office.
Reagan would not have being any more aggressive than Carter, otl Reagan did Iran-Contra after Iran kept kidnapping/murdering us citizens in the muddle-east he didn't especially care about punishing Iran. his policy was to placate iran and not to fight them.
 
Last edited:

RousseauX

Donor
btw a lot of people itt are talking about Carter-Reagan based on our impression of them which was largely formed by the Iranian hostage crisis and how Carter failed to rescue them in desert one

if the hostages did die and Carter bombs like 5,000 iranian to death in response I don't think he would being seen as much of a pussy as he is otl despite his rhetorics. I don't think for all of Obama's rhetorics people actually see him as (much) of a pussy cuz he did violate international law to kill Bin Laden and droned a few thousand civilians to death. I mean Republicans still think he's weak cuz he refuses to say radical Islamic terrorism but his foreign policy approvals are reasonably high.

basically what I'm saying is that for better or worse the blood of foreigners is an effective way of consecrating an American president's leadership qualities and if Iran killed the hostages Carter might get his chance to get his.

Hell if he gives good enough of a speech he might win 1980.
 
Last edited:

RousseauX

Donor
if operation eagle's claw worked right now itt we would prob be talking about how carter is the greatest person ever for ordering that mission
 

RousseauX

Donor
Couldn't Saddam's Iraq provide air bases? I'd hope so, because the descriptions I keep seeing about the American military in 1980 make us seem like we'd get our teeth kicked in invading the Bahamas. Probably better to keep our distance.
Why does the US need air bases, can't they just sail some carriers in?

I don't think 1979 Iran had anything that can sink a carrier
 
can't they just bomb with carrier borne bombers, do they really need b-52s?

You'll get a lot less firepower that way. I'm not a weapons junkie who can crunch the numbers on how much damage carrier bombers could do at the time, but I do know it's a significant downgrade.
 
No Tomahawks in 1979, and smart bombs much less developed. Therefore pinpoint precision wouldn't go as far toward offsetting lack of quantity.

Which is why not having B-52s available would be pretty significant, I presume.
 
basically what I'm saying is that for better or worse the blood of foreigners is an effective way of consecrating an American president's leadership qualities and if Iran killed the hostages Carter might get his chance to get his.

Hell if he gives good enough of a speech he might win 1980.

lol, I kind off agree

MURICA
america-fuck_20yeah.jpg
 
Well let's see here: would it have happened if Carter were president? Cause if they executed them whilst he was still running things, then he'd have probably just tried talking to them and all.....which would have been the preferable action, since Carter was not a war president. He wasn't really a good president. period. Now if it had been during Reagan's era, then there's a good chance that one of two solutions would have come about (I say two, because it depends if the moral anchor of Bush senior is his VP or not) option A or Bush being the good cop is that we deploy a few fleets to the mid east and a few bombers. Strategic bombings and strikes within a time frame and Iran is given a choice of either becoming a hole in the ground or a chance to surrender and become a client state watched over by a joint coalition. Option B or Reagan going all "The Gipper" is that he calls for a nuke strike and takes out Iran......thereby starting WW3

nukes?! wth man. nukes are reserved WMD responses. how do you justify nuking a non nuclear nation? what are the soviets going to say or react?

worst case we bomb and invade and it wouldn't be exactly easy goings either. There isn't much of a good cop bad cop issue at hand here, any president would be faced with very limited options in the event the hostages were killed and that includes carter who would be forced to take the gloves off.

No one in America wanted war at this point, Vietnam literally just ended. however the American public would be out for blood as these were americans murdered. This isn't some imperialism, this is murder and the US would exact revenge for that, any president and congress that didn't would be a lame duck.

so,
  • Strategic Bombing of targets to cripple their defenses ( will be messy with 70's tech)
  • cripple the oil ( which would have knock on effects on the global economy, remember it was recession time)
  • then we might decide to invade (along side Iraq as they might decide to invade as well and hell even the Soviets might get involved to protect their flank in the north of Iran, that would also complicate matters.

but nuking Tehran? eh.. no.
 
Last edited:

nbcman

Donor
No Tomahawks in 1979, and smart bombs much less developed. Therefore pinpoint precision wouldn't go as far toward offsetting lack of quantity.

Which is why not having B-52s available would be pretty significant, I presume.
According to a prior discussion which included excellent posts by user Yes, there would be a squadron of B-52 or around 15 B-52s which could bomb from Diego Garcia. But how useful they would be when going against the Iranians who had decent aircraft as well as air-defense systems is another problem entirely.
 
Fighter escorts and SEAD from carriers would be step one. Also the Arabs on the western side of the Gulf really, really did not like the Iranians to begin with and even more so with a Shi'a mullah in charge. Some bases in Saudi and elsewhere would have been available.
 
Nbcman, I think sloreck is right. A big surge of air-defense destruction at first, an ongoing AD suppression campaign, and escorts would do the trick.

Sure, you still might lose the occasional B-52, but losses can be kept within acceptable limits.

AWACs had been introduced in 1977; with bases on the Gulf, these can do their part.
 

nbcman

Donor
sloreck is correct, assuming President Carter and the US public can wait for the multi-month buildup and air defense suppression campaign. If not, the US forces will have to use what they have which is long range bombers and CV aircraft.
 
Depending on how badly the Iranians are damaged by the US response, Iraq may succeed in seizing Khuzestan before the other side can regroup. Also, I think this would be just about the only way for Carter to be re-elected, as the US will be in a state of war with Iran during the election campaign (something that the average American voter won't mind, they'll be after blood), even if the initial military response will have tapered off and replaced with a naval blockade and the occasional air strike.

I think there have been a couple of TLs here about this kind of scenario. I recall one of them had a unit of US special forces making a surprise attack on Khomeini's compound in Qom, where they managed to shoot him dead (one of them got to his chambers, put a gun on the back of his head and blew his brains out) before they in turn were killed to the last man.
 
I can't see US ground troops in Iran except SOF or a raid. The USSR may (or not) make noises like "let's settle this diplomatically" but they will not try and intervene. At this point in time the USSR has zero leverage in Iran - the Iranians aren't using Soviet equipment, don't have Soviet reactors etc. Khomeini hates the Soviets and communism, they would accept Soviet equipment to rebuild their military when the dust settles (for which they will have to pay cash I am sure), but frankly assuming a relatively short US campaign they won't be able to learn to use any in time even if delivered on day one. The Russians won't be invited in to provide "advisors" and they wouldn't want to risk it.

Apart from the BTR 40, 50, 60, and152 APCs, you are right: they aren't using Soviet equipment. ;)
 
Should have armed the Germans and went and wiped out Russia when ww2 was over.
Truman was too much of a pussy to do that,all it would taken was 1 nuke in Moscow and the user would be out of service forever.
 

Tovarich

Banned
Apart from the BTR 40, 50, 60, and152 APCs, you are right: they aren't using Soviet equipment. ;)
Sloreck is right about the USSR not sticking their neck out for Iran, though.

Some replies seem to think Iran was a Soviet client state, whereas the USSR was even more concerned about the possibility of exported Islamic uprisings than the West, especially to its own territories.
Should have armed the Germans and went and wiped out Russia when ww2 was over.
Truman was too much of a pussy to do that,all it would taken was 1 nuke in Moscow and the user would be out of service forever.
You're not kidding with that username, eh? :rolleyes:
 
Top